NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ADVISORY COUNCIL
REPORT
OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Sponsored
by the
Enforcement Subcommittee of the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
in conjunction with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Antonio Municipal Auditorium
San Antonio, Texas
October 17 through 19, 1996
NEJAC-a Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
ACTIVITIES AT THE ROUNDTABLE MEETING 2
Training Session on Community Involvement in the Enforcement Process 2
Plenary Sessions 2
Concurrent Breakout Sessions 2
San Antonio Environmental Justice Bus Tour 3
SUMMARY OF ISSUES 5
General Issues 5
Environmental Restoration and Cleanup 7
Inspection, Screening, and Targeting 8
Community Notification and Resolution of Complaints 10
Supplemental Environmental Projects and Consent Decrees 10
Environmental Impact Statements under the National Environmental Policy Act and Cultural
and Social Analysis 11
Performance Partnership Agreements and Memoranda of Agreement 12
Coordination Among Tribal, State, and Federal Agencies 13
Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 14
Community Monitoring 14
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 16
BREAKOUT SESSION FLIP CHARTS 21
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 33
NEJAC-a Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
INTRODUCTION
The first regional Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Roundtable, sponsored jointly by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Enforcement Subcommittee of the
National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC), was held October 17 through
19, 1996 at the Municipal Auditorium in San
Antonio, Texas. The roundtable brought
together environmental justice stakeholders to
exchange ideas on how communities can play a
more active role in environmental enforcement
and compliance activities. The meeting also
provided community grassroots organizations
and government agencies an opportunity to share
strategies for responding to environmental
justice concerns.
The NEJAC was formed to advise EPA on ways
to achieve its environmental justice mission.
The Enforcement Subcommittee, which is one of
six subcommittees of the NEJAC, studies issues
related to enforcement of, and compliance with,
environmental statutes and regulations and
provides recommendations to EPA on such
issues. One of the subcommittee's recent
reports to EPA included a recommendation that
EPA conduct a series of regional roundtable
meetings to discuss community and other
stakeholder points of view with respect to
enforcement and compliance assurance; the
roundtable meeting in San Antonio was a result
of EPA's endorsement of that recommendation.
More than 180 individuals and representatives of
local community grassroots organizations;
business and industry; federal, state, tribal, and
local agencies; and members of the NEJAC, as
well as other key stakeholders, participated in
the roundtable meeting, which consisted of a
training session that provided an overview of the
enforcement and compliance process, a plenary
session that included panel discussions and open
discussions of various topics, 14 breakout
sessions focusing on specific topics related to 9
main areas of enforcement and compliance
assuarance activities, and bus tour of
environmental justice sites.
Purpose of the Roundtable Meeting
The regional roundtable meeting is an
important milestone in EPA's efforts to
provide opportunities for environmental
justice stakeholders to provide
recommendations to the EPA and state
environmental agencies for the development of
polices to enhance public participation and
involvement in enforcement and compliance
activities. Although most government staff who
were present primarily represented EPA, the
forum was considered by many participants to be
a force to encourage participation and action by
state and local officials. In addition, the
roundtable served as a model and framework for
similar roundtables to be held in other regions of
the country. EPA plans to work with states,
local municipalities, tribes, representatives of
communities, and other stakeholders to review
and implement the recommendations from the
roundtable.
The roundtabale gave the participants the
opportunity to:
Focus on the education of all participants,
through the use of case studies, an overview
of enforcement and compliance assurance
activities, and a tour of selected
environmental justice sites
Review the effectiveness of existing
opportunities for community involvement in
the enforcement process and develop
recommendations for improvement
Identify new opportunities for communities
to participate in enforcement and compliance
assurance activities and develop
recommendations for improvement in
community involvement
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 2
ACTIVITIES AT THE ROUNDTABLE
Following is a summary of the activities that
took place during the roundtable.
Training Session on Community Involvement
in the Enforcement Process
A training session was held the evening of
Thursday, October 17, 1996. The session
provided participants, particularly
representatives of the community, an overview
of the enforcement and compliance process.
Conducted jointly by representatives of EPA
headquarters and EPA Region 6, the training
session featured discussions of the role of federal
and state agencies in enforcement and existing
opportunities for community involvement. The
training provided participants an overview of the
NEJAC.
The training session also included information
on Executive Order 12898 on environmental
justice, as well as fact sheets and other material
on community involvement in environmental
enforcement activities. Detailed information
was provided on actual cases in which citizens
successfully have used the information tools
available through existing regulations and
programs to bring considerations of
environmental justice to bear on decision-making
processes in local communities. A detailed
summary of answers to commonly asked
questions about enforcement issues also
provided.
Plenary Sessions
Panel discussions focused on the role of state
agencies in environmental enforcement and
compliance assurance, as well as challenges for
community involvement in enforcement and
compliance assurance activities. Presentations
featured the perspectives of representatives of
federal, state, tribal, and local agencies; the
community; and business and industry. An open
forum with EPA officials provided participants
with an opportunity to discuss specific concerns
about community involvement in enforcement
activities. In addition, a breakout session was
conducted to provide an opportunity for a one-
to-one dialogue between community members
and representatives of government agencies
about environmental justice issues in general.
Concurrent Breakout Sessions
On Friday, October 18, 1996 and Saturday,
October 9, 1996, 14 breakout sessions were
conducted to provide participants an opportunity
to discuss issues related to enforcement and
compliance activities. During the sessions,
representatives of communities shared their
knowledge and experience and identified ways to
improve community involvement in various
aspects of enforcement and compliance
assurance. The participants discussed issues and
made recommendations that were presented
during the plenary session.
The breakout sessions, held concurrently over
the two days, focused on nine topics (some of
which were repeated to allow additional
discussion):
Inspections, screening, and targeting;
Community monitoring;
Community notification and the resolution of
complaints;
Environmental restoration and cleanup;
Supplemental environmental projects and
consent decrees;
Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964;
Performance partnership agreements and
memorandums of agreements;
Coordination of enforcement and
compliance activities among tribal, state and
federal agencies;
Environmental impact statements and
cultural and social analysis.
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
PageS
San Antonio Environmental Justice Bus
On the afternoon of October 17, 1996, approximately 95 people participated in a three-hour bus tour
of several environmental justice sites in the San Antonio metropolitan area. The tour was sponsored
by a coalition of local community organizations. Mr. Ruben Soils and Mr. Chavel Lopez of the
Southwest Public Workers' Union (SWPWU) served as moderators and hosts for the tour.
The purposes of the bus tour were to (1) provide representatives of EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, EPA Region 6, and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
(TNRCC), among others, a glimpse of the concerns and conditions of citizens living near
environmental justice sites; (2) educate government representatives and provide examples of
environmental racism in such communities which stem from a failure to enforce environmental
regulations; (3) allow community grassroots organizations the opportunity to share strategies for
responding to environmental injustice; and (4) strengthen the environmental justice movement.
En route to the first stop on the tour, the moderators noted that east San Antonio, whose residents
are predominately African-American, is the most industrialized area of the city. Several fuel storage
tank farms, railroads, warehouses, and industries were seen from the highway. Several industrial
enterprise zones, designated by the city, are located in this area.
The tour first stopped at St. Jerome's Catholic Church in the community of Martinez, Texas, nine
miles east of San Antonio. This rural community of approximately 200 people is predominately
German-American, Mexican-American, and African-American. Most of the residents live on family
farms and ranches that have remained in the same families for several generations. Martinez also is
home to a Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) Class 1 municipal solid waste landfill that is located
adjacent to the main roadway into the community. In 1995, residents organized Save Our Martinez
Environment (S.O.M.E) to oppose the expansion of the landfill and to bring attention to problems with
dust, odors, windblown trash, and truck traffic that they associate with the proximity of the landfill to
their homes. Many residents expressed concern about contaminated runoff water, releases of
methane gas, disposal of hazardous waste, an apparent lack of regulatory enforcement by TNRCC,
and the recent amendment of BFI's permit which will increase the capacity of the landfill. An
unfulfilled promise of jobs at BFI for the community also was mentioned.
The bus tour stopped briefly at the Aztec Tile site, a ceramic tile factory that was abandoned more
than 10 years ago. The site is currently a state of Texas Superfund site because of high levels of
contamination with lead, cadmium, and chromium in the soil. A representative from the San Antonio
Coalition for Environmental and Economic Justice (SACEEJ), a community grassroots and
neighborhood organization, expressed frustration with the failure of TNRCC to address the concerns
of the local citizens to have the site cleaned. Other concerns focused on the close proximity of the
site to an elementary school and the exposure of school children to dust blown from the site. Until
recently, the site had not been secured to prevent children from playing in the old warehouse.
The tour also passed the G.M. Trading Company, a
facility that processes animal hides to produce leather
products. A representative of the Southwest Community
Empowerment Center, Inc. (SWCEI), a community-
based, nonprofit technical research organization, told the
group that local citizens have complained for years about
the odor of dead animals and chemicals coming from this
facility. They noted that similar industries located in east
San Antonio also have a negative effect on the local
quality of life.
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 4
The tour made its third stop at the Koch Petroleum Corporation Fuel Storage Facility, one of the 60
percent of the city's major fuel storage facilities that are located on the east side of the city.
According to a representative of SACEEJ, the community of 20,000 residents is very concerned
about the effect of fuel tanks on their health and that of the 2,000 school children who attend schools
located less than 300 yards from the tanks. Parents and residents organized People Against
Corruption (PAC) to petition the school board, the city, and Koch Petroleum to address community
fears about explosions, fuel spills, and health problems. According to SACEEJ, surveys of local
residents indicate there are health problems related to environmental contamination. PAC is also
concerned about the lack of adequate escape routes from the neighborhood in the event of a fire or
an explosion and the lack of proper firefighting equipment at the nearby fire station.
En route to the last site, the tour moderators discussed efforts by the Residents Organized for a Safe
Environment (ROSE) and the Eastside Environmental Leadership Coalition (EELC) to meet with the
city to discuss concerns about approximately 22 sites at which soil contaminated with lead slag had
been dumped. According to representatives of the community, very little progress has been made in
addressing the contaminated soil that was excavated during the construction of the Alamodome,
which was built on the site of a former smelting plant. One dump site that has received attention is
located in the Highlands area. In 1994, more than 100,000 cubic yards of soil from the site was
dumped near the high school in the predominately African-American and Mexican-American
community. Despite the attention the site received in the local media as a result of a previous
environmental justice bus tour, nothing has been done to remove the contaminated soil, said
community representatives.
The last stop on the tour was at North Kelly Gardens, a predominately Mexican-American
neighborhood north of Kelly Air Force Base (AFB) and which is located about 200 feet from the
base's jet fuel storage tanks. Local citizens formed the Committee for Environmental Justice Action
(CEJA) to voice their concerns about the inadequacy of base cleanup plans, health problems caused
by contamination coming from the base, and declines in property values. Citizens spoke about
petroleum fumes and shallow groundwater contaminated with solvents and petroleum and such
health problems as respiratory illnesses and kidney disease. CEJA conducted two environmental
health surveys to document that local residents have been disproportionately effected by
environmental factors. The community have asked to be relocated if their property and health can
not be restored.
The bus tour concluded at the Municipal Auditorium, where several community organizations offered
additional statements. The Hondo, Texas Empowerment Committee highlighted problems that its
African-American and Mexican-American residents are experiencing with the abandoned Spatz Air
Base, municipal sewage spills, and the location of fertilizer storage sites and grain elevators next to
residential areas. The Chosen Generation, a community-based Baptist Church discussed its
support of community organizations fighting for environmental justice in east San Antonio. Members
also expressed concern about the cumulative effects on their health of a high concentration of
industrial sites in their neighborhoods. The Southwest Public Workers' Union discussed its role in
organizing and mobilizing people of color, workers, and grassroots community organizations to work
for environmental justice and worker rights.
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 5
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
The roundtable offered stakeholders the
opportunity to exchange information and initiate
dialogues. Participants focused on many issues
related to enforcement of environmental laws
and regulations and underscored the importance
of addressing environmental justice and tribal
issues in the delegation of enforcement authority
to state agencies. During the three-day meeting,
several themes and concerns were repeated
during the general discussion period and the 14
breakout sessions. The issues are identified
below.
General Issues
During the plenary sessions, several panel
discussions focused on community involvement
in enforcement and compliance activities.
Perspectives from industry, state government,
the local community, and local government were
offered.
A member of industry stressed that all
stakeholders play a role in the enforcement and
compliance process. He noted that the
"regulated community" does not only refer to
industry, but also to cities and municipalities.
The regulated community, he added, is
responsible for knowing the requirements and
meeting the requirements. He noted that the
majority of companies fall in the middle of a
continuum that ranges from "extremely
responsive" to "not so responsive" to
communities.
The industry representative also mentioned that
citizen advisory panels are an important
component of the public participation process,
adding that there should be more mechanisms
like citizen advisory panels that promote the
inclusion of community members in decision-
making processes. A participant disagreed,
noting that citizen advisory panels tend not to be
effective for non-industry stakeholders. With
respect to the role of state agencies, the industry
representaive noted that state agencies administer
most of the environmental laws with federal
agency oversight, and that state agencies are
usually the closest level of government to the
communities; therefore, they are obligated to be
responsive to community concerns. He added
that the "real power" lies in mandated
corrections and the adverse publicity that
companies receive as a result, although the
public's involvement is limited during the
judicial process.
Another source of power for communities, he
added, lies in the public's role with respect to
communicating one-on-one with facilities, asking
questions, demanding responses. Citizen suits
are another tool that communities can use to
bring about enforcement, he stated, although
they can be expensive.
The representative from industry pointed out that
the government decides how enforcement tools
will be used, and if community members are not
happy with the process then they should lobby
for the laws to be changed. He added that if
state and local agencies are not doing their jobs,
EPA can withdraw its authority to implement
environmental programs. This "power," he
cautioned, is not utilized often even though it is
an option; usually, the threat from EPA works
just as well.
A representative from the state of Texas
commented that although "citizens may not
always agree with TNRCC actions, they have a
right to know what's going on." He pointed out
that TNRCC is underfunded and, therefore,
tends to operate in a crisis mode. He noted that
the enforcement staff are often overwhelmed by
the large number of issues demanding their
attention. He also mentioned that TNRCC
reports to elected officials, and that TNRCC is
more likely to take action when residents
complain to elected officials and the elected
officials communicate those complaints to
TNRCC.
A representative of the State of Louisiana stated
that the state had conducted an assessment of
opportunities for community involvement in the
enforcement process. He summarized the
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 6
findings of the assessment, pointing out that
community involvement opportunities do exist;
however, the state recognizes the need to do
more in the way of publicizing those
opportunities. He explained that Louisiana is
doing more than simply "meeting the legal
requirements" for community involvement. For
example, an Office of the Ombudsman was
created about five years ago, and a Community
and Industry Relations group was formed to
work on environmental justice issues.
A representative of a community organization
commented that "we're here to get concrete
things done and to right the wrongs." She
expressed grave concern about the "callousness
and indifference" of industry and the "lack of
inertia" on the part of government. She stressed
that common sense must be factored into
decisions. In response to a statement that "EPA
simply implements the statutes," she disagreed,
explaining that, in fact, EPA has the ability to
involve citizens in the rule-making process.
A representative of a tribal organization,
expressed concern that trust agreements have not
been upheld and that "genocide has been
committed against native people." He pointed
out that one study conducted by the U.S.
Department of Interior states that 38 percent of
all natural resources in the United States is
contained on tribal land, while only one percent
of EPA's budget was set aside specifically to
address tribal issues; that, he said, is not justice
or equity.
The tribal representative discussed the issues
faced daily by tribal environmental offices.
Pointing to his office as an example, he
explained that his one-person office is
responsible for addressing water quality,
hazardous waste, quality assurance, water
monitoring, and all other environmental issues.
He added that he spends time writing grant
applications to get funding for things that
"should be given to any state;" instead, he
exclaimed, "we have to compete with over 500
tribes in the country."
He declared that EPA should create a separate
regional office to deal specifically with issues
related to Indian tribes and minorities. This
regional office, he said, should receive full
funding from Congress in the same manner as
other regions. He continued that although a
separate region should be created, it will not be
created because of the prevailing attitude in
Congress that there is "too much regulation."
The problem, Mr. Lujan explained, does not lie
in EPA or other agencies overseeing programs,
but in Congress being too influenced by
industry. He concluded that "justice means
being treated fairly and treating others in a
manner that you would want to be treated."
General Community Concerns
On Friday evening, October 18, 1996, an
extensive dialogue took place among the
community members on the subject of
noncompliance with environmental regulations
by industry and the lack of effective regulatory
enforcement. Specifically, the community
members expressed that enforcement policies are
subjective and do not necessarily protect human
health and the environment. In addition, the
community is concerned that state regulators are
not maintaining federal standards and is
concerned further about EPA's perceived
inability to take action since delegating
enforcement authority to the states.
Another concern expressed by the community
members was that regulators are unable to
communicate adequately and educate
communities about environmental and health
hazards and proposed actions. In response to
that concern, Steven Herman, EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, responded to the concerns by saying
that EPA's Administrator Carol Browner is
committed to increasing public involvement and
participation in the decision-making process, as
well as to complying effectively with a
community's "right-to-know" by ensuring
access to all existing information about the
environment and public health.
Another concern expressed by community
representatives concerned financial grants from
regulators to local governments. The
community participants commented that the
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page?
grants benefit the communities for which they
are intended. The cities do not inform the
community about the grants received or the
purposes of such grants, community members
stated. In addition, the cities use grants for
purposes other than improving the environmental
conditions in the community. Further, there are
no established guidelines that specify the process
and criteria by which communities request grants
directly from regulators. Therefore, the affected
community does not benefit from grants given to
the cities.
The new Superfund Reform Initiative that
requires the approval of the governor of the state
for the listing of a site as a Superfund site was
strongly criticized by community members.
They expressed the belief that approval does not
protect public health and the environment.
Representatives of EPA agreed to provide
answers to the questions and concerns of
community participants about the proposed
nuclear disposal facility in Sierra Blanca near El
Paso, Texas.
Environmental Restoration and Cleanup
This session focused on the role of state agencies
in the environmental restoration and cleanup
process and the effect of those projects on local
communities along with the challenge to become
involved in the process.
Participants described the failure of regulators
and regulated industry to involve local
communities early in the cleanup process. They
added that, often, community members have
limited time to review "massive" amounts of
information before the cleanup process moves to
the next stage in a fast-paced schedule. One
participant described efforts by his community
organization to expand public participation in the
cleanup activities at Kelly Air Force Base in San
Antonio. Many participants also expressed
frustration that, under the cleanup process,
problems and cleanup priorities are identified by
the regulators and the facility managers without
meaningful public participation. They asked that
the public receive early notification of decisions
to pursue cleanup negotiations at a site and that
related documents be made available. Local
communities also should be able to decide who
will represent the views of the community on the
local advisory boards, members of the group
stated. State agencies should rely on
information from the community to define the
problems and needs for cleanup, participants
added.
Local community groups have difficulties in
understanding the roles and responsibilities of
the various federal government agencies in
environmental restoration and cleanup projects,
some participants pointed out. Dealing with
federal agencies as separate entities often is
frustrating for local communities that are
attempting to determine which agency is
responsible for dealing with their problems and
questions. Participants cited several frustrating
experiences in which representatives from a
number of agencies, such as EPA, ATSDR,
local military installations, and the state, were
involved in the cleanup of a single site.
Participants commented that if local community
groups are to participate effectively in the
cleanup and restoration process, the regulatory
agency and the facility must provide them with
support. Local community groups need grants
for technical assistance support and for
organizational maintenance to allow long-term
involvement in the process, they explained,
suggesting that, in situations that involve long-
term cleanup efforts, such as those at Kelly Air
Force Base, facilities and regulatory agency
should fund a position in which a local citizen
serves in an oversight role. Support can also be
provided through workshops and other
educational assistance to the community, some
participants suggested.
Communication by the state agencies and the
facilities with the local community was another
major area of frustration identified by the
discussion group. Participants commented that
in addition to the lack of early involvement by
communities, regulatory agencies frequently do
not provide periodic updates to affected
communities. When information is shared with
the community, that effort often is carried out
without regard to cultural sensitivities, language
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
PageS
differences or educational level of the target
audience. One participant shared an example
involving an inspection of a dump in New
Orleans, Louisiana. When the results of the site
inspection were available, representatives of
EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) went to the homes of
each of the 35 affected families to explain the
results of the inspection and the risk assessment.
However, the participant explained, the
information was not tailored effectively to meet
the needs of the target audience. Community
leaders eventually took the information to the
local university to obtain an explanation that the
homeowners could understand.
Other examples of communication problems
included a lack of bilingual documents and the
failure of agencies to consider cultural
differences when dealing with affected
communities.
The group also discussed the need for
compensating communities affected by
environmental contamination. In particular,
participants stated that affected communities
should be relocated and compensated for the
replacement value of their homes if their
community cannot be restored to a "clean" level.
The need for continuous community health
monitoring for those communities also was
discussed. The group proposed that elected
officials could be held responsible for serving as
advocates of the community and effecting
change in legislation. EPA, they stated, also
should be accountable for spending federal
money to restore contaminated property that
cannot be addressed through local or state
funding.
Several members of the group expressed
confusion about the process of cleanup and
restoration of property owned by the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD). Most questions
centered on the reasons why properties are being
sold or transferred before cleanup has been
completed and the clarification of the roles of
EPA and the state in the process. Concerns
were expressed that sites were not being put on
the National Priorities List (NPL) and that a
partnership between the state and DOD would
allow the application of state cleanup standards
that are less stringent than federal standards.
Use of federal funds should also be directed
towards the restoration of the natural resources,
the participants noted. A member representing
an Indian tribe in New Mexico commented that
the restoration of Indian lands often is
overlooked because of the overwhelming
problems posed by hazardous waste sites. The
health of the rivers and wetlands on Indian lands
have been affected by sewage and solid waste,
the participant added, stating that federal funds
should be made directly to tribal governments,
with a matching requirement to restore natural
resources.
Participants suggested that NEJAC initiate a
marketing campaign to promote the need for,
and benefits of, environmental restoration.
Polluting business practices should be attacked
on the financial front by putting companies on a
pollution fee schedule, some suggested.
Bankruptcy laws should be changed to provide
financial safeguards against the abandonment of
sites by bankrupt
Inspection, Screening, and Targeting
This session focused on the role of state agencies
in the inspection, screening, and targeting
process and the challenge to communities to
become involved in that process. In addition,
participants discussed the effects of various
federal mechanisms for inspections, screening,
and targeting on the community and ways to
identify situations in which communities are not
involved.
Participants expressed frustration about the
failure of the states to conduct annual inspections
correctly. Many had obtained copies of
inspection reports on facilities in their
communities that incorrectly indicated no
complaints had been filed by the public. Such
occurrences have led local citizens to believe
that their complaints are not being recorded and
followed up with an inspection or inquiry by
state inspectors. Another concern is that
complaints are not being made a part of the
public record and therefore will not be available
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 9
for consideration during hearings on permit
renewals. The group suggested that EPA
conduct oversight of the state inspectors and
establish a system, possibly an on-line computer
system, that will allow citizens access for
reporting complaints directly to EPA.
Participants questioned the practice of notifying
facilities before an conducting an inspection
could compromise the effectiveness of the
inspection. Community members expressed
frustration at the reliance of state inspectors to
use operators of facilities to verify a citizen's
complaint about a suspected violation. Many
participants believed that there is a lack of
checks and balances in the current system for
conducting inspections.
Participants cited the apparent lack of formal
processes in state inspection programs for
targeting facilities for inspection. The
perception that only the most chronic offenders
attract the attention of inspectors while other
violators are ignored, is prevalent among
community groups, they said. Community
groups should have an opportunity to suggest to
state and EPA inspectors specific sites or
industries to target, some participants suggested.
Participants expressed frustration over their
inability to obtain the results of inspections
conducted by the state. They asked that state
regulators disclose the findings of inspections
and actions taken in response to any violations
by facilities. Participants also expressed an
interest in obtaining the raw data, as well as
summary reports that support the findings of the
inspection. Public access to this information
should be provided in a timely manner to allow
public comment before decisions are made and
the process moves to the next stage, participants
noted. Obtaining copies of inspection reports
through the Freedom of Information Act process
takes too much time, and traveling to the state
capitals to review files is cost prohibitive, they
explained, adding that local public repositories
frequently are not updated regularly.
A representative of EPA indicated that the
Agency has made the states aware of problems
in their inspection processes but added that
communities should realize that the states;
resources are limited resources and that
management systems and styles vary between
the states. It was also explained that, while
some complaints "fall between the cracks of the
regulations," inspectors still want and need the
help of local citizens. EPA provides the states
money for inspection programs through
memorandums of understanding (MOU). The
states determine how the funding is distributed
and used.
Participants discussed the involvement of local
community groups in the negotiations of MOUs.
Many participants stated that EPA should use
the MOU as a tool to encourage states to
improve standards. It was suggested that the
MOU should be an agreement between local
grassroots organizations and EPA, since the
community lives with the problems and should
be empowered to deal with those problems.
Participants also stated that community groups
must be involved in helping the state screen and
target inspections because "the local community
knows where the problems are," and thus could
assist states to focus limited resources on
problem sites. Participants noted that to be more
effective, citizens require training in how
inspections are conducted, what regulations
govern facilities in their communities, and which
regulatory agency is responsible for
enforcement.
Community Notification and Resolution of
Complaints
This session focused on identifying issues related
to the mechanisms by which the state and federal
regulatory agencies notify the community about
enforcement actions and to identify methods of
resolving community complaints.
The discussion began with an overview of
specific effects of industries on the health of
communities in the state of Louisiana. Concern
was expressed about the lack of effective
regulatory enforcement against industries that
continue to pollute the environment.
Participants explained that, in many cases,
regulatory agencies have granted industry
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 10
extensions to bring facilities into compliance
without providing for any comment from the
affected community. Consequently, many
community members believe that changes in
environmental regulations favor industry and
override concerns for the protection of human
health and the environment.
Participants emphasized that mechanisms, such
as newspapers and radio currently used by
regulatory agencies to notify communities of
enforcement actions, are not being used
effectively. The majority of affected
communities are poor; their members often do
not read the newspaper or listen to the radio. In
addition to suggesting alternative means of
communication, participants stated that
community involvement should be stimulated.
People in the community should be made aware
of their rights under the Community Right-To-
Know act and that they have power through
community involvement.
Participants commented that economic
development initiatives promote industries
without considering the views of the community.
Communities, in turn, are concerned about
new facilities moving into their neighborhoods
without public comment or the identification of
the beneficiaries of such initiatives. Participants
suggested that, while economic development is
important to the community, the siting of
facilities should be planned in a manner that
eliminates adverse effects to human health and
the environment.
Participants also expressed concern about the
lack of responsiveness on the part of state
regulators to complaints from the community.
One participant noted that approximately 600
such complaints have been directed to the
TNRCC of which the agency made efforts to
investigate 44 of those complaints. In addition,
community members complained that industries
and regulators do not inform the community
about industrial chemical spills, fires, explosions
or other incidents which may occur in their
neighborhoods.
Participants in the working session concluded
that regulatory agencies remain far from
providing effective public notification to the
community and that effective public policy
should be developed to ensure that the
community plays an important role in the
decision-making process.
Supplemental Environmental Projects and
Consent Decrees
This session focused on identifying the concerns
communities have about Supplemental
Environmental Projects (SEP) and looking for
viable mechanisms by which the community can
influence the selection and implementation of
SEPs.
Discussion focused on improving public
information and public involvement in the
decision process about SEPs. Community
members expressed concern about the lack of
public information or public notices about
existing settlements and those currently being
considered by regulators. Specifically,
participants were very concerned about the
regulators' policy on the confidentiality of
enforcement settlements which precludes the
community from becoming informed about cases
currently undergoing settlement negotiations and
those that already have been settled.
Participants commented that the lack of public
involvement has resulted in the failure of
affected communities to benefit from SEPs. In
many cases, participants said, financial
resources available under SEPs are given to
community organizations that are not involved
with the affected community. In other cases,
SEPs are used to address the priorities of
regulators and industry , not necessarily to
address the environmental priorities of the
neighborhoods affected.
Environmental Impact Statements under the
National Environmental Policy Act and
Cultural and Social Analysis
The session focused on identifying ways to
include considerations of environmental justice
during the performance of environmental impact
statements (EIS) under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 11
A representative of EPA explained that under
the Presidential Executive Order on
environmental justice, federal agencies are
challenged to assess whether there are different,
better ways of doing things, including involving
communities during the assessment and
evaluation of cleanup alternatives. The
representative added that environmental justice is
a relatively new concept; it has been somewhat
difficult, he added, to identify "communities" as
not simply "places on a map," but in terms of
how communities define themselves. EPA also
recognizes that EIS documents are only as good
as the processes undertaken to prepare them, he
added. Finally, NEPA requires that all federal
agencies conduct EISs to determine the effects of
federal activities on the environment;
historically, however, social and cultural impact
assessments have not been a part of that process,
he explained. He stated that EPA recognizes
that social and cultural factors must be taken into
account and that the agency is attempting to "feel
its way" in addressing environmental justice in
the EIS process.
One participant commented that the original
intent of NEPA has been weakened by the
advent of different levels of implementation,
such as "do nothing," "categorical exclusions,"
"environmental assessment," and "EIS" response
categories. Agencies are required to examine all
alternatives, including the "do nothing"
alternative, the participant said. Other
participants noted that "categorical exclusions"
typically occur when public out-cry is minimal.
Participants also noted that no opportunities for
public involvement exist at the environmental
assessment level, and only when an EIS is
required are opportunities for public involvement
offered. Further, social and cultural assessments
are not considered unless an EIS is required,
they stated.
Participants agreed that, in order for decision
makers to make informed decisions, greater
community involvement such as allowing the
community to comment on draft documents, is
needed. Participants noted that existing
regulations provide for limited community
involvement and that EPA is not required to
conduct additional community involvement
activities, such as additional public hearings,
even when a community makes a specific
request for such activities.
Participants stated that their concerns are not
addressed in an initial EIS, and that "fast-track"
cleanups, by their very nature, exacerbate that
problem. They explained that community
members often feel at a disadvantage because it
takes time for a layperson to interpret and
"digest" technical information, but the regulatory
process continues at its usual pace. Participants
suggested that time be allotted, before the EIS
process begins, for community members to
educate themselves on the technical aspects of a
site or facility and the various components of the
EIS. Additionally, participants noted that more
systematic effort is needed to inform
communities, such as door-to-door efforts and
early mailings, and that public hearings before
the EIS begins should be mandatory.
Participants also noted that community members
are not always aware of their civil rights and that
education in that area are needed. Participants
suggested a community advocacy framework for
helping residents who participate on RABs to
"shape their thinking" before they participate in
the process. Participants commented that EPA
and other entities that participate in RABs and
other advisory boards have the luxury of
learning technical concepts and terminology as
part of their the job; community members,
however, have full-time jobs and have to learn
about environmental issues "on their own time."
Participants commented about the lack of access
to raw data. Specifically, some participants
expressed concern that decisions are based on
"average" numbers (such as risk factors and
sampling data), even though some data may
indicate that contaminants exist in some areas at
levels far higher than the average. Historically,
they explained, communities have been told that
raw data cannot be released because of factors
associated with "trade secrets." An example
was cited in which the Air Force would not
release data because of an agreement with a
contractor that "trade secret" information would
be kept confidential. An EPA representative
noted that the appeals process under the FOIA
can be used when communities are told they
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 12
cannot have data, and that communities "should
not take no for an answer."
Performance Partnership Agreements and
Memoranda of Agreement
Participants noted that memoranda of agreement
(MOA) govern the conduct of business between
state and federal agencies and that MOAs are
"one of the few devices for holding states
accountable." Participants also noted that a
mechanism for public participation should be
built into the MOA process, allowing community
members an opportunity to review and comment
on MOAs. Participants agreed that legislative
hearings do not involve communities adequately,
and that comment must be solicited up front
from the community.
Participants noted that community involvement
should be a part of the process for implementing
performance partnership agreements (PPA) and
that EPA should carefully scrutinize the
implementation of PPAs and MOAs to ensure
that the state complies with established criteria.
There was some discussion about whether the
process used for PPAs and MOAs is "fatally
flawed," because states are exempted from
requirements under NEPA for public
participation. Participants stated that the public
hearing process set forth under NEPA does not
work (particularly in Texas), that political
appointees make decisions without community
involvement, and that delegation of authority to
the state has resulted in less protection on the
part of the federal government. One participant
commented that the EPA's use of PPAs and
MOAs demonstrate that EPA is "backing down"
in response to industry complaints and requests
for deregulation. EPA should stand firm
because it has a mandate to protect public health
and the environment, the participant stated. The
states of Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, and
Alabama also were mentioned as examples of
cases in which there is a trend in industry to "get
EPA off of our backs so we can get back to
business as usual." A request was made that
EPA review the PPA and MOA processes and
evaluate their validity and effectiveness and
determine whether the processes should be
revised to allow for greater community
involvement.
Participants agreed that states that have problems
in the area of environmental justice should not
be delegated additional authority; rather, EPA
should review a state's record before granting an
MOA. One participant recommended that a
"sunset" process be implemented for MOAs,
explaining that under such a process, states
would be required to "prove themselves" each
time that delegation was to be renewed, rather
than assuming that delegation is "a sure thing."
An representative of EPA noted that although
environmental justice is a national priority for
EPA, it may not be a priority for the states,
many of whom do not believe that environmental
justice problems exist. Participants stated that
there is not enough "force" behind EPA
documents. For example, they explained that
many documents state that EPA "should" do this
or that, rather than stating that EPA "will" do
this or that.
Participants agreed that more should be done to
evaluate the performance of states related to
enforcing environmental regulations and statutes.
They recommended that a "green index or
report card system" be included in the evaluation
criteria.
Coordination Among Tribal, State, and
Federal Agencies
This section summarizes concerns voiced about
issues related to coal mining and the
consequences of operating gas and oil facilities
on tribal lands.
Participants expressed an underlying tone of
distrust with regard to Federal, state, and tribal
agencies. In relating their experiences with
addressing environmental problems, participants
expressed frustration with what they termed the
government's "divide and conquer" approach to
residents questions about the continued leasing
without community comment of land with sacred
or historical significance, and the operations of
industry on tribal lands.
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 13
The federal government also came under heavy
criticism for not making a "single source"
available to which violations of laws could be
reported to protect the community. The
authority to enforce legislation had been
delegated to so many agencies that locating the
appropriate agency for specific concerns
requires a great deal of resourcefulness on the
community's part, participants stated. In many
communities, there simply are not enough
people who can dedicate the time it would take
to follow up on complaints filed, they added.
Participants added that the relationship between
states and industry was "too close " State-run
oversight agencies often forewarn sites of an
upcoming inspection or test, a practice that,
participants complained, nullifies any data
obtained. Participants expressed the conviction
that facilities use the time between the
notification of the impending inspection and the
date of inspection, to alter their books to conceal
violations.
Participants commented that, at the tribal
government level, their frustration stems from
encounters with poorly trained and underfunded
staff. Without much-needed training in
monitoring and sampling procedure and
adequate funding to conduct the independent
investigations, there is little hope of obtaining
accurate reports on site activities, participants
reported. It is very difficult to substantiate
claims of environmental injustice without
concrete evidence, they added.
In addition, participants stated that residents are
slighted on returns from resources taken from
their land. They explained that of the profit pie,
industry receives the largest slice with each level
of government also taking portions, leaving
residents (the true owners of the property) with
very little compensation-even monies generated
from federal leases are distributed to tribal
governments where the majority of funds is used
for overhead expenses associated with managing
the tribal agency. Participants suggested that a
more responsible use of returns from
government leases would be to feed those dollars
directly to the communities affected by daily
mining operations.
Participants also expressed concern that mining
companies eventually would exhaust the water
supply in local aquifers, leaving communities
without a source of pure water. Participants also
wondered to what extent human health is being
compromised by the exposure of layers of coal
to the atmosphere, with the resultant release of
high levels of toxics (such as lead, mercury,
nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide) and threat of
spontaneous fires. Even after mining companies
complete their operations, participants expressed
uncertainty that the land would be returned to its
original state.
Participants commented that, because the
companies that contaminate tribal lands are often
the only source of employment, many residents
believe that if they challenge the company on
environmental issues their employment would be
terminated. Residents believe that they must
choose between being unhealthy with a job or
being unemployed, participants added.
Participants also expressed concern about the
relocation of residents whose drinking water
may be contaminated. They explained that,
unfortunately when tribal residents accept
relocation, the choice can leave them vunerable
to other issues, including being forced to occupy
land deemed unfit for its intended purpose or
being confined to a fixed specific land base with
an increasing population.
Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964
Participants noted that the challenge related to
enforcement under the provisions of Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, lies in the fact that
it is legislation that is both broad and limited in
possible applications. While there are specific
criteria for filing a complaint, the circumstances
surrounding of each case are examined
independently. There is no standard to apply,
which is confusing and frustrating for
communities trying to file complaints,
participants noted.
Many participants expressed confusion about the
role of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in
enforcing Title VI. A representative of the U.S.
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 14
Department of Transportation explained that
DOJ serves as the coordinating agency while the
responsibility for enforcement is delegated to
agencies that fund federal activities either
directly or indirectly through grants and other
financial assistance. DOJ can step in only if the
agency attempting to enforce a claim is unable to
secure voluntary compliance. It is important to
remember that the criteria for filing a complaint
under Title VI varies among federal agencies,
she added.
Community Monitoring
In the this session, representatives of various
entities shared their experiences related to
community monitoring and suggested resources
for community monitoring which fell into three
categories, including establishing networks,
community-based initiatives, and government
resources.
Before discussing in great detail the most
effective way to address community monitoring,
it was necessary to reach consensus on the
definition of community monitoring.
Participants agreed that community monitoring
involves a number of factors, including a
bottom-up assessment, comprehensive case
studies, and such tools as citizens watchdog
groups or monitors selected by the community.
Community monitoring also consists of
collaborative efforts between the community and
the local health department to evaluate
community health and review and comment on
legislation, permits and government activities.
Participants also added that community
monitoring requires the education of the
community in health surveys, the differences
between long- and short-term monitoring, the
evaluation and understanding of environmental
effects, and methods for gathering evidence of
wrongdoing.
Participants suggested that community groups
view one another as resources and form
networks amongst themselves. Through such
networks, they explained, community groups
can benefit from lessons learned to conserve
time, effort and funds. Communities can also
partner with colleges and universities or request
their assistance.
Participants also suggested that the media is a
resource through which communities can tell
their stories. The importance of follow-up with
the press was mentioned as critical to fostering
long-term relationships. Many communities had
not used the media for fear their story would not
be heard or would be reported inaccurately.
Several participants expressed dissatisfaction
with the coverage by from mainstream media; in
response, they learned to create their own press
releases. They also produced and distributed a
community newsletter, which aided in
disseminating information throughout the
community.
The discussion then turned to funding, an
overwhelming concern for many community
groups. Participants called for modifications to
guidelines for use of grant monies, as well as the
development of training on environment and
health issues to help residents participate more
effectively.
Participants commented that anti-defamation
law suits often are brought by large corporations
to deter community groups from pursuing
action. They added that many national
environmental groups have provided valuable
assistance and continue to help where possible.
Some states have also begun passing legislation
against these suits, known as "slap suits," but
communities still need financial support.
Participants expressed concern over the
assistance they have received from government
agencies. They explained that local
governments appear hesitant to get involved with
issues related to federal facilities unless the local
entity is affected directly. In one case, the
community used data to secure the involvement
of local government by implying that property
values had been affected adversely by industry
activity and which prompted an evaluation of
real estate assessments.
Participants suggested that communities use such
government agencies as local health
departments, the Centers for Disease Control
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 15
(CDC), or the ATSDR, which perform health
assessments. Many community representatives
also commented that often it is difficult to
contact these agencies and the quality of data
received is often questionable. Participants
agreed that persistent follow-up was the best
means of obtaining a response from these
agencies; regulators then should be given the
opportunity to respond to the data.
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 16
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations agreed upon by
participants in the roundtable focused on
examining the public policy process for ensuring
enforcement of and compliance with
environmental laws and regulations. Participants
asked that agencies follow up promptly on
community concerns, involve communities when
making decisions and setting priorities, and
enforce regulations fairly and evenly.
Specific recommendations are described below.
Addressing Accountability During the
Delegation of Enforcement Authority to the
States
Many participants expressed concern about who
is being held accountable for enforcing the
environmental laws and regulations, particularly
when several parties are involved. Several
participants said they were confused about "who
does what" in the multitiered system that has
been developed for addressing environmental
issues. Participants pointed out situations in
which such confusion resulted in the inability of
communities to participate in decisions to site a
facility before a permit was issued.
Participants called for EPA to take back the
authority it delegated to a state if the state does
not enforce environmental laws and regulations.
The participants commented that it should not
be "business as usual -- if the federal
government has to step on a state's toes, so be
it!"
Participants called for state and federal agencies
to enforce the law strictly, asking agencies to
make fines stiff and nonnegotiable, to execute all
mandated orders, and to disallow continuances
that allow violators to continue polluting while
review is underway. They asked that public
officials and "the law" not back down from
business and industry. In addition, they asked
that federal and state agencies implement a "3-
strikes and you're out" law for environmental
violators. Participants also called for strong
incentives for industries that reduce pollutants.
Ensuring Community Involvement and
Participation in Environmental Programs
Participants reiterated the common theme of
expanding community involvement in the
implementation, evaluation, and modification of
environmental programs. Participants called for
funding, public advocates, and other resources
to assist them in this process. In addition,
participants asserted that communities must be
allowed to pick their own representatives on
community advisory boards and have the power
of recall if a representative is not properly
serving the community.
Participants reminded government officials to
include communities in the design and
implementation of contingency and emergency
plans. They demanded that communities not be
left behind in emergencies.
Participants noted that they must help themselves
through education and getting out the vote-many
recognize that "in order for their voice to be
heard, they must get out and use it." As part of
that effort, participants asked that federal and
state agencies share information with the
community so that it can make better and more
informed decisions.
Encouraging Public Officials to be
Accountable
Participants complained that government
officials and agencies too often "set up blinders
and false walls" that prevent them from seeing
the full picture. Officials then deny
responsibility for taking or enforcing action,
they commented. Participants called for a
reorganization of the decision structure, in which
officials at the bottom of the decision hierarchy,
as well as at the top, are held accountable for
taking action.
Participants asked that elected officials be held
accountable for representing community
members and taking prompt action on issues of
concern to the community. They urged local
officials provide communities with more and
better information related to planning and
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 17
development activities; communities need "full
and complete" information in the early stages of
planning, rather than being informed after
decisions are made, participants stated.
Increasing State Participation in Future
Roundtable Meetings
Many participants commented that the low level
of participation by state agencies at the
roundtable reflected the overall attitude of the
agencies about community involvement. They
asked, "How can problems be solved if the state
agencies are not even here?" The participants
recognized that representatives of some state
agencies do respond to community concerns; it
is those people, not the agency, who are trusted
by the community, they said. Participants
agreed that they are not asking the states to solve
problems. Rather, they are simply asking the
states to "come to the table," they added.
Several participants challenged state agencies to
"display their sincerity to involve communities"
by continuing to be involved in ongoing and
future efforts at dialogue.
Issuing Moratoriums on the Siting of New
Facilities and the Permitting of Existing
Facilities
Participants called for state agencies to stop
issuing permits to facilities that are in violation
until those f acilities come into compliance. In
addition, participants asked that federal and state
agencies declare a moratorium on the siting of
new facilities or the expansion of existing
facilities until changes have been made in the
enforcement and compliance assurance
processes.
Participants noted that, although relocation of
residents from a contaminated community may
not be the best option, it may be the only option
available to protect human health.
Enhancing Supplemental Environmental
Projects and Consent Decrees
Recommendations stemming from breakout
session discussions of this topic include:
Educating communities about SEPs through
various media (such as the Internet)
Notifiying communities when a Notice of
Violation is issued to a facility
Creation of lists of potential SEPs developed
by communities which should be used to
compare SEP activities with actual
environmental situations
Improving Enforcement of Title VI Of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Recommendations suggested during breakout
session discussions of this topic include:
Recognition of the concept of continuing
discrimination
Provision to communities of data about
citizen complaints
Creation of a legal directory of attorneys
with Title VI expertise
Development of resources to process Title
VI complaints in a timely and proactive
manner
Make Title VI enforcement a priority
Reexamine the factors that trigger
enforcement actions
Provide clear information to communities
about "what it takes to get a response"
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 18
Enhancing Environmental Restoration and
Cleanup Projects
Recommendations suggested during breakout
session discussions on this topic include:
All federal agencies should follow the
process established under the Superfund
program for citizen review boards
Communicate information in languages that
all communities can understand (such as
"easily understandable" Spanish)
Continue the use of citizen advisory panels
throughout the life of a project, not just at
the time of base or project closures
Make information more readily accessible to
the public at the state and local levels
Address how "fast track" cleanups
circumvent the community involvement
process
Provision of additional funds for community
involvement activities
Use information and training to empower
communities
Provide communities access to the same
information to which government agencies
have access
Creation of additional partnerships and
cooperative efforts with communities
Requiring companies to set money aside, for
site cleanup costs so that they cannot use
bankruptcy as an excuse for not taking
action
EPA, TNRCC, and other agencies should
expend funds to "market" safe environments
and clean air, in a manner similar to how
private companies market their products
Design health risk studies specifically
toward women and children
Enhancing Inspection, Screening, and
Targeting
Recommendations suggested during breakout
session discussions on this topic include:
Establish community agreements with
facilities that allow citizen inspections and
make the agreements conditions of the
operating permits
Follow up on problems identified by local
citizens instead of allowing the state to rely
on the facility to verify whether or not a
problem exists
Provide local citizen groups with the
funding, training, and equipment to
independently monitor the environment in
their community
Funding of local community efforts should
come from the facilities as a condition of the
operating permit or through a SEP
Provide local community groups with copies
of all inspection notices, notice of violations,
permit renewals, inspection data and other
related reports as they become available
Notify communities "before-the-fact" about
the nature and amounts of contaminants
found during investigations, regardless of
issues related to "trade secrets"
Consolidate information about inspections in
one place that is readily accessible to the
public, even if numerous inspections are
conducted at different times and by different
agencies; communities should not have find
it necessary to gather pieces of information
to form a complete picture
Allow communities to have a physical, on-
site presence during inspections
Examine the statistical accuracy and validity
of data before the information is reported to
communities or used in decision-making
processes
Develop appropriate methods by which
communities can readily access information
Coordiante responses to citizen complaints
so that sites about which many complaints
are registered can be "flagged"
Educate communities about screening and
inspection techniques
Make both raw data and printed summaries
available to the public
Designate a community ombudsman or
liaison to whom communities can turn
Add community contacts to distribution lists
for site inspection and site activity reports
Implement a unified interagency approach to
site screening and targeting, replacing the
existing fragmented, agency-by-agency
approach
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 19
Enhancing Community Notification
Complaint Resolution
and
Recommendations suggested during breakout
session discussions on this topic include:
Improve the dialogue between citizens and
agencies
Allocate more funding for community
involvement activities
Reevaluate methods for conducting cost-
benefit analysis (citizen protection should be
the priority, and not the anticipated costs to
industry)
Place notices of permits and noncompliance
in the communities that are affected and in
places where local residents will see them,
such as in schools, libraries, and churches
Provide better and early information about
meetings to communities
Consider literacy levels and cultural issues
when written information is prepared for
distribution to communities
Investigate the use of international laws to
aid in enforcement cases
Hold companies responsible and accountable
to communities
Do not hold "secret" meetings between
government and industry
Strengthening Community Monitoring
Recommendations suggested during breakout
session discussions in this topic include:
Develop a "bottom-up" approach for site
assessments, which should include the use of
"citizens' watch dogs and monitors"
Clarify for communities issues about short-
term versus long-term monitoring and,
specifically, how the determination is made
as to which approach should be used in
specific cases
Conduct more comprehensive studies to
investigate cumulative health risks in people
of color and low-income communities
Foster better networks across community
groups, including connections between
community groups and universities, to
facilitate the sharing of technical data
Educate public officials about issues that
community members are concerned
Conduct more data quality control reviews,
specifically on reports generated by ATSDR
Increase access for communities to
information in general and raw data in
particular
Identify additional sources of grants for
community involvement from private entities
and non-profit organizations; grants should
include funds for training and technical
assistance to communities
Communities should take a more active role
in publicizing the issues of concern to
residents (for example, communities could
publish newsletters that discuss issues of
concern to residents)
Involve all community organizations in the
community monitoring process, including
schools and churches
Train communities to monitor air, land, and
water pollution problems
Improve procedures for taking action to
address community concerns and facility
violations
Hold facilities responsible for proving that
they are not creating environmental
problems
Use MOUs to require more citizen
involvement in inspections and oversight
activities, including implementing MOUs
between EPA and communities
Enhancing Environmental Impact Statements
under the National Environmental Policy Act
Recommendations suggested during breakout
session discussions on this topic include:
Creation of a user-friendly guide to NEPA
to replace the outdated one
Appoint a community representative on the
Council for Environmental Quality, which
reports directly to the President and is the
ultimate authority on NEPA
Provide funding for communities to procure
technical services, such as independent
consultants to conduct studies that
communities could compare to those studies
conducted by government agencies.
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 20
Educate communities about NEPA and the
EIS process
Involve communities in the early stages to
define project activities
Notify communities early of impending EISs
and other facility activities
Create a community advocacy function for
Restoration Advisory Boards
Improving Coordination Among Tribal,
State, and Federal Agencies
The discussion lead to the recommendation that
grassroot organizations on tribal lands should be
funded to perform monitoring and other studies
rather than fees from leases being sent to tribal
headquarters which assists individuals not
affected by facility operations. Other
recommendations include:
industry activities be monitored regularly
and frequently
regulatory agencies visit sites "off the beaten
path
agency representatives not announce visits in
advance
communities establish their own
documentation process with logs and
pictures.
Improving Performance Partnership
Agreements and Memorandas of
Understanding
Recommendations suggested during breakout
session discussions on this topic include:
Build into the MO A process, a mechanism
for public participation that will allow
community members an opportunity to
review and comment on MOAs
Solicit comments from the community early
in the process, including before legislative
hearings
Ensure that community involvement is a part
of the process for implementing
performance partnership agreements (PPA)
Scrutinize the implementation of PPAs and
MOAs to ensure that the state complies with
established criteria
Include a "green index or report card
system" in the criteria for evaluating the
performance of states related to enforcement
and compliance assurance activities
Require states to "prove themselves" each
time delegation of authority is to be
renewed, rather than assuming that
delegation is "a sure thing."
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Report of the Enforcement Roundtable
San Antonio, Texas
Page 21
BREAKOUT SESSION FLIP CHARTS
NEJACa Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
PLENARY SESSIONS
NEJAC ROLE
Advise EPA - How to achieve environmental justice
RECs:
Agency conduct series of rountables with communities
Identify community priorities
Get beyond listening" to action
CONCERNS
City officials need to be held accountable to represent
"you"
Government gives Big Business Permission .... without
consulting "People"
EPA form "RoughRiders" to create action reforms
Corporations have rights individuals don't have
Match grants to communities when industry is given EPA
grants
Despite health survey results - need EPA to visit
community
EPA needs to monitor Texas Legislation Re: public
participation
Get tools to deal with State Agency issues (EPA seems
to have relingished control)
Generally no decision makers
Lack frame to address Social control of corporate
behavior
Need someone - talk/action/visit
Mining (New Mexico) creating health problems and
regulations don't apply on Indian Reservations
QUESTIONS ... WHY CAN'T WE ...
Focus on the reports
About health issues that are out there and begin to take
action?
Know who to call/contact?
Get people to come out and see what were going
through?
Train grassroots citizens in the community in how to
know what's happening in public hearings?
Get the regulations that are developed to be applied to
the Indian reservations?
Make our local ... city, county, etc. officials accountable
for the environmental injustices in our community
Close the gap between government, industry & the
common people?
Always consider the people who live in the community
and involve them in the process/decision of what comes
into the community
Get better communication from city officials about the
planned developments? We need clear descriptions of
these projects so people can make informed decisions?
Get full disclosure form the beginning?
Get fully informed of notification procedures?
Get action? We need immediate and effective change
with the EPA and the state agencies
Address the issue of government grants being given to
industry to bring them up-to-speed on technology?
Match grants given to industry and give the same amount
of money to community organizations to deal with their
problems?
Address the influences of industry on our state officials?
Get an immediate response to emergency calls?
Have independent monitoring consistently at the sources
of pollution?
Be trained to understand all of the effects of the
pollutants on our health?
Get answers now?
Have EPA come out & walk around our communities to
see first-hand what's happening?
Get tools to enhance what we already know to move the
process of alternating these problems?
Have the EPA closely monitor the legislation being
passed in Texas?
Have EPA enhance its present along the broader?
Recommendations
Accountability
Community must have referendum OP's
Create electronic access for citizens, (availability)
WWW.EPA.GOV
(EPA) "Requirement" work to provide oversight to states,
to include public participation
NEJAC, should take the responsibility to: invite state
leaders to regional meeting, based on lack of
representation at Reale Conference
Write your congressman
NEJAC should send letter to states leadership, referring
to lack of participation on this issue or conference
Get feedback from EPA on recommendations made at
this conference.
EPA, will respond within 60 days to NEJAC
NEXT STEP
Get city and state officials to come to meetings,
conferences
Give EPA teeth to enforce rules
Environmental Democracy is necessary
Media , can take message of communities to Big
Business
EPA, get act together invite community in
No backdoor meetings, community must be involved
from beginning
Local leadership must serve as vehicle for community
participation with EPA and State agency.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
AND CLEAN-UP PROJECTS
Issues
MOAs - states cant't sue feds RE: "Clean"
"Fast Tracking: back fires leaves out community input
Restoration strategies after 1 st tier cleanup
Abandoned Tesco site next to school Houston
FEDERAL ROLE IN CLEANUP
Federal left hand doesn't know what right doing - DoD
funding TNRCC/base closings
Focus on human health - Environment left out
Overwhelmed with contacts or don't have a contact
Community
Lack of knowledge/accountable
Accuracy of information
Formerly used defense sites "where are tanks
buried"
Keeping current "who is responsible"
Shift of jurisdiction
Federal facilities OFF Superfund list, therefore can
be sold
Faster cleanup versus Federal money
FEDERAL CLEANUP RECOMMENDATIONS
Fast Tracking re-defined to include communities in
process to establish clean up standards and binding
voice in final decision
Funding source for community involvement
Community education on environmental protection
Actual data accessible
Site contact known and accessible - sign on site? With
phone number
Restoration money for environment
NEJAC "market" restoration "only attack" polluting
business practices
Risk standards applied to females, children, elderly, too
Recommendations
Agency use clear, understandable language
ID local community members to assist in communication
Involve 50% of community in the process/CAB
(community action boards) from the beginning
Recognize cultural sensitivities in the involvement
process
Create citizens information and access office on the state
level
EPA & DoD fund a position at the base for a citizen to do
technical oversight
Expansion of tag concept for funding citizen involvement
at federal facilities
Citizen involvement in policing effort in environmental
protection (provision for funding)
Direct "tag" money to community and to support
restoration advisory board
Early notification of restoration remedy documents
Relocate population located in identified hot spots
(replacement value)
Continuous community health monitoring
Create new legislation that addresses gaps in the
restoration/cleanup process
Develop community education team
Hold elected officials accountable to be advocates and
experts
Assure state/federal money is spent appropriately
On abandoned hazardous waste sites
Continue "tag" funding during the entire duration of a
Superfund Cleanup
Communicate risk management discussions to
community in Laymans terms
-------
Coordination Among Tribal State, and Federal Agencies
Concerns: Mining
What will happen when "ultra pure" water supply is
depleted?
Federal intervention in thrive is dispute
- Divide and conquer
Loss of burial sites and other cultural and historic sites
Inadequate compensation for resources mined on Navajo
lands
State and industry relationship "too close"
Enforcement authority delegated to different agencies -
no single source
Inadequate testing, inspections by oversight agencies
Failure to consider returning land to natural state
- use of non-local grasses for reseeding
- exposing coal layers to surface results in spontaneous
Recommend: fund grass roots organizations on tribal lands
to perform monitoring and other studies rather
than sending fees form leases to tribal
headquarters which assists individuals not
affected by moving operations
Tribal environmental staff poorly trained and underfunded
Gas and Oil
No inspection and monitoring activities by oversight
agencies
Different standards for off-reservation sites
Drinking water does not meet "human consumption" but
barely adequate for livestock. Residents cannot afford to
bring in water (distance, cost, etc)
Residents for having to choose between health and jobs
fires
- exposed coal brings toxic substances to surface
Recommend: EPA should monitor industry activities regularly
and frequently
go to the sites off the beaten path
do not announce visits in advance
Recommend: Communities should document practices with
pictures and logs
Question:
How do local tribal grassroots organizations interact in the
enforcement/compliance process?
Recommend: Identify sources with BIA for technical
assistance
Recommend: NM portion Navajo Nation from Region 9 to
Region
Irrigation Concerns:
Agricultural runoff into river that is source for drinking
water
relocated residents face other issues
high water table causing damage to homes
cannot use land for intended purpose
increasing population on land base that cannot
change "Feel they were lied to"
Fear desecration of graves if burial sites identified
Conflict with tribal government over how monies
allocated "They take a cat for administrative expenses"
-------
INSPECTION, SCREENING AND TARGETING
AND COMMUNITY MONITORING
Issues
Inadequate investigations and reports
States are not doing their inspections. Is EPA doing
adequate oversight?
Community experience with the facility not in the
inspection report
Complaints not resulting in violations and not resulting in
inspections
On-line computer access to EPA for complaints. EPA
offices can monitor the complaints
Community agreements with the plants/facilities to do
inspections. Condition of the permit which is revocable if
denied
When facilities are closed it is difficult to track violators.
Sometimes inspectors are denied access
Public access to air monitoring data community operated
monitors dollars by agencies or facilities. Train citizens
to monitor land, air and water.
There is no formal process for targeting facilities for
inspections. Violations are being ignored by state
Inspectors should believe the citizens complaints. Shift
the burden of proof to facilities to show that are not
polluting
Close gaps in jurisdiction between agencies and states.
Provide resources and training to end power
communities. Communities have incentives to remain
involved because they live there
Mechanism for communities to communicate with
regions. EPA and facilities should carbon copy
communities with information such as inspections,
violations, permit renewals and expansions
Communities need money for experts equipment,
training. This money should come from facilities
Provide on-line computer access to EPA complaints.
EPA offices should monitor these complaints. Use for
targeting, oversight and permitting especially
renewals/expansions
Use the MOU to bring up the standards of State
Inspections
All PPAs should have environmental justice
representation
MOUs should be between the EPA and communities.
Involvement from the grassroots activists in the
community. Grassroots choose who will be involved.
This should happen at all points in the process.
(including permitting). Community members should go
on inspections and be notified immediately by the agency
of any spills, accidents, releases
HOW TO EMPOWER COMMUNITY
Make disclosures to community and raw data in a timely
manner in addition to a crunched summary
Utilize freedom of information act provisions
Designated community ombudsman, liaison,
clearinghouse mechanism
CC: Copies of report (e.g., NOV's inspection reports) to
recognized community contact at time of eventor
decision
Notification of inspections conducted (newspaper, other
media)
Community based involvement in screening/targeting
both methods (e.g., health overlays) and decisions in
whom to target
Focus on when inspections are done
Coordination of agency data for public access umbrella
information accessible data banks
Contact local community when inspections are done on
advice for appropriate sites to conduct inspections (i.e.,
target sites with most complaints
Educate public on violations screening and inspection
techniques
Revisions to checks and balances (i.e Alama Dome)
Mandatory community involvement in memorandum-of-
understanding (MOU) between state and EPA Regional
Office (report cards to all levels of interest community city
state federal (health agencies)
User and reader friendly guide on screening and
targeting process
Don't notify community
Let community know what is found
Inspector duties stretched too far
Technical problem/civil rights problem
Multiple unrelated inspections in a different time and
place
Physical presence at inspection (immediate access)
Data validity
Modeling sample
-------
COMMUNITY MONITORING
Community Monitoring Resources
Gathering evidence
Aware of surroundings
Bottom up assessment
Evaluation and understand environment impact
Citizens watchdog
Selection of monitors
Controlled by community
Community health survey
Review and comment of Legislation
Permits/Governments, Activities
Short term vs long term monitoring
Community collaborate with public health
Department to evaluate community health
Comprehensive case study
Need to network with other community groups
Need epdiemiologists and toxicologists as part of the
heath department
Community connect with university colleges for
assistance
Educate public officials on Environment and health
issues
ATSDR - health assessment
Followup with ATSDR Contact EPA to engage ATSDR
CDC, ATSDR - Quality of data/evaluation
More grants for community from EPA
Video - "Gorilla Media"
Grants - Need to provide training to community
Meet to partner with colleges, universities
Identify private foundations with grant money available
Federal government - polluters
No replacement value for homesKAFB Kelly
Appropriate monitoring to hold up in court
Community ensures they obtain Raw Data (need
resources to get data) hire technical person to evaluate
Lack of local government involvement with federal
facilities issues (i.e Real Estates Assessment
Community use of raw data (i.e Respiratory survey use
for leverage for further testing i.e. for other needs
Trust built at all levels to do survey community needs to
be
In touch with press
Do own press releases
Local news
Need financial help to support communities in suits
Use of National Environment Groups for Citizens Suits
SLAPSUITS
Some states are passing legislation again SLAP SUITS
Give regulators the opportunity to respond to the data
Should have local community monitoring awareness
workshop
Setup community monitoring committees
Put resources so communities can form their own
committees
Have the community monitoring process inclusive of all
agencies, churches, schools, etc.
Keep data easily accessible and in appropriate
languages
Do community newsletters
-------
NEPA - SOCIAL AND CULTURAL IMPACT
Use of "Categorical Exclusion," "Environmental
Assessment" - does not allow public input
Major federal projects require EIS. (Permits, federal
funding, or provide approval) (Potential significant
environmental impact)
Discussion of Process
Need: Community Education based upon Community
region.
Entire process - before it begins (kelly AFB fast track
example)
Public scoping - must came at the beginning of the entire
process
Involve citizens in initiating scoping meetings systemic
efforts to inform community (mail). Early protect
automatically move it to EIS.
Alternative Mitigation and Agencies required to consider
Concern about use of "trade secret" explanation to
protect data specified utilized freedom of information act?
NEPA should be written by Laymans terms raw data
probably will not be included
Minutes/note: of meetings not completely available to
community members
Use a "reporter" to access information
Create a user friendly guide for NEPA
Address " Conflict of Interest" on boards
Citizen presence on CEQ Washington, D.C
Existing Health outcomes, to citizens group to conduct
look at existing level, provide dollar T.A.
Kelly Gardens Jet fuel storage tanks other chemicals, for
former open pit, rain runoff. Community concern re:
future develop - will Title V process address these
issues? Current EIS will address past/current usages
and consider scenario's projecting future usage EIS will
look at cumulative impact
Document available for base closure procedures
RAB Functioning ??
Kelly AFB personnel chair/facilitate RAB
Conflict re: participation on RAB/challenging the process
civil rights issue?
(Training/education - prior to involvement needed)
Create community advocacy function for RAB
Will EIS address generational illness?
Should be addressed
-------
COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION AND COMPLAINT
RESOLUTION
False Premise:
Justice when allowed to sit on CAP
Justice when allowed to make comment
SUGGESTIONS
1. Notification - put in affected community in a facility open
beyond 5 pm and on weekends (REAL ACCESS)
(library, school, fire station, newspapers people read
radio people listen to,)
2. Enforcement - 3 strike law/for violators
3. Air Monitoring - problems with air monitors serve interest
of industry not of community
Not a panacea
4. Environmental Audit Legislation - Be aware of them
Say not to Environmental Audits
Cities Need to Change their attitudes about neighborhoods
Notification Process
Consider cultural aspects of residents
Go to where the people are
local churches
Local newspaper
Do not allow economic development initiatives to by pass
notification process
Agencies need to establish credibility be consistent with
application of "rules"
Don't put polluting industries all in the same place
Use independent studies
Be open about public hearings
Be honest about subject matter - Be a neutral and honest
mediator in the process
Involve local health entities
EPA should not delegate their responsibilities
Make public a list of grant recipients
Community Notification/Complaint Resolution
Recommendations
1. EPA to take delegated authority granted to Texas and
force a reorganization
2. Reliance on Cost-Benefit Analysis to be Reevaluated
3. Get all the politicians together in one place
4. Be clear about what you are notifying about and who will
benefit and who will not
5. Decisions about facility siting: What are options
7. Consider local events, etc when scheduling public
comments (i.e. scheduling on holidays, during revival
meetings
8. Reorganize decision - structure hold those at bottom
responsible for actions
9. Money for communities
10. Consider local information resources
11. Include local communities in contingency plans - don't
leave them behind in emergencies
12. Execute mandated order - don't allow continuances
13. Communities deserves to be involved and considered
need money
public advocate
other resources
14. Make community advisory committees for the community
- let them pick their representatives
15. Field investigation should document their test
16. Economic concerns versus environmental concerns
17. Public officials and the law" should not back down
against business/industry
18. Be honest
Build credibility
Remove the "Blinders" and "wall"
19. Educate ourselves
Get out the vote
20. Examine public policy process
Develop alternatives to public notification process
Follow-up promptly on citizen concerns
Enforce the regulations
21. EPA report analyzing violations of international law
regarding US/Mexico border
22. Relocation of affected people may not be the best option
but if may be the only option
23. Stop licensing facilities until enforcement occurs
24. Its all about ethics, morals, and greed
-------
PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS/
MEMORANDAS OF AGREEMENT
I. Information Disclosure
Information by neutral party
Information not adequate "verbal"
Meeting notification (clear messages)
Information re: permits disclosed to public
Strategy planning includes public input
II. Notification Procedures
Cultural/literacy appropriate
Adequate of notification of meetings
Timely manner with two weeks
III. Approval Procedures
Public participants within a hundred square miles
IV. Ethical Considerations
Illegal solicitations
RECs
Set of national criteria by which the state is made state
acceptable.
Key - do not delegate until this settled (enforcement
personnel
1) title
2) ratio permit personnel/enforcement
3) adequate funding of state environmental agency
4) revoke delegation
Moratorium of any further delegation
Involve NEJAC, or other in process
Sunset process for MOA
Information flow from state to the community (must be
improved)
DOCUMENT: MOA STATES-EPA (FEDERAL)
Build mechanism for public participation
Must be done local level grassroots
Relationship of MOA and MOU community needs
information on this
RECOMMENDATIONS
EPA Oversight: Do something
Appropriate language when providing information
Review PPA/MOA process. Evaluate for effectiveness
(community must be involved)
EPA involvement in community groups at local level.
How do we do that?
EPA look at state environment record (as
criteria/community should be involved in evaluation)
MOAs be provided to public
PPA COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATIONS TO:
EPA inform community about the process
Community representation across the board
EP scrutinize state process
Adopt "NEJAC public participation program" for
community involvement - impacted deals with all
involvement issues
Education on performance agreements
EPA needs to enforce the process
Public participation in MOA in order to affect PPA
(community does not understand)
Pilots - in regions on ? is parceled out. Bring community
on the beginning
Performance partnerships grant, community must
understand how this works and where money is focused
or diverted
Example of the green index - booklet, method to evaluate
[Institute for Southern Studies (NC)]
Education!
-------
"SUPPLEMENTAL" ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
Compliance +
Notebook
Limits
Can be part of citizen suits
EPA looks for opportunities in Federal Settlement
Need user friendly guide for citizens
Internet access
Need access points in state cases (+ education)
Need "How to" Access guides and guidelines to follow.
At what point can we get access.
Need to Re-assess What is "Confidential" in settlement
negotiation
What do we want? How can the SEPs Serve E.J. goals.
What/How should the community be involved?
1. Develop a formal process that solicits community input.
2. Clearinghouse/Roster
Cases filed
Communities affected
Who to call - How to input, create a mailing list
3. Publish Nov/Enf. Acts in paper
4. Eliminate Nexus )or make it more flexible)
5. State - EPA MOA
EPA should require public input meetings (for
SEPs)
State should use SEPs
6. State/Feds - Educate public about SEPs
including city government
7. Ask Go's to solicit public ideas.
8. Gather input into SEP ideas from Law Schools.
9. Must be an intequal part of the decision process.
SEPS and Consent to Decrees
Supplemental Environmental Projects
Overview of What a SEP is and is not
Meaningful involvement by community in SEPs
State level - require that community be involve
Involve grassroots organizations and SEPs
Community election to assign members to advisory
board to assist with SEPs
Standing committee of community to participate in SEPs
- i.e. State Level, Local Level, and Regional Level.
SEPs and CDS
TNRCC - CAPs eliminate or involve active environment
members of community
Represent a diverse group on panels which advise on
SEPs or CDS
Community- Right-to-Know- SEPs- connection
Post signs and adequate warnings near contamination
LEPC Contact: Carl Mixon - 978-0300
Bexar Co. 828-3939
Emergency #
Smith Co.
Emergency # - 903-535-0900
LEPC # - 535-0965
Public access to raw data form TNRCC monitoring Sec.
323
SEPs and CD
-------
Value of Title VI?
Title VI Recommendations
DOJ is a coordinating agency - it does not enforce the
provisions of Title VI. Enforcement is delegated to agencies
who give financial assistance. If they can't secure a voluntary
compliance, then DOJ can step in.
Factors Affecting Implementation of Title VI
Jurisdiction :
1) Does the entity receive dollars from a federal agency?
(Such as a private railroad, a stte highway department)
2) Does the entity receive dollars from another agency that
receives federal fund?
1. Concept of "Continuing Discrimination" is a viable
alternative
2. Access to data for documenting complaint
3. Devlop a strategy that encompasses multiple issues
(such as relocation, cleanup, public health, property, etc)
4. Develop a directory of legal providers who can offer
communities assistance or serve as a resource -
guidance on the approach to take
5. EPA should develop the "will and resources" process
Title VI complaints in a timely manner
6. EPA should be more proactive in finding incidences of
Title VI violations (such as through compliance reviews of
states)
7. Separate "EPA as a beauracracy" vs "EPA in the local
community". Put a representiave in the community
8. Make Title VI enforcement a priority
9. Reexamine the factors that spur action on part of
governments
What triggers the actions
What are the "pressure points"
10. Reorganize EPA process for responding to complaints
Look to DOT and other agencies that have
"successful" programs
11. What is yardstick to prove discrimination? EPA needs a
clear and "public" policy ReL Title VI
12. EPA should take a proactive approach to educating
communities about their options under Title VI
How to select buyers
EQUAL PROTECTION" CASES ARE LOSERS
CLER and public policy from EPA on what is a Title VI
case
Community must be involved in development policy
Citizen = those impacted train them
Educate local people
Title VI and Enforcement
"Confidential" barriers public hearing resident criteria lack of
AG and EPA response Recipient of public funds or a permit
holder
Filing a complaint
- Technical assistance
Enforcement or Change
EPA/DOJ Respond Within Deadlines
3 attorneys/16 cases
More EPA/OCR Attorneys
Educate Citizens to file own complaints
Train/educate EPA/OCR Staff/attorneys
Due Dates for Action on Roundtable recommendations
Mail roundtable minutes to participants
EPA fund travel to meetings like this one
Increase daylight between EPA and industry
-------
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
October 17 through 19,1996
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Tom K. Adamcyk
Economist
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Brooks Air Force Base
3207 North Road, Building 532
Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235-5363
Phone: 210-536-3765
Fax: 210-536-3890
Internet E-mail:
Dominga Adames
Committee for Environmental Justice
3850 Bay Street
San Antonio, TX 78723
Phone: 210-720-8249
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Kathleen Aisling
Environmental Engineer
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: 214-665-8509
Fax: 214-665-6660
Internet E-mail:
Susana Almanza
People Organized in Defense of Earth and its
Resources
55 North Interstate 35, Room 205B
Austin, TX 78770
Phone: 512-472-9921
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Karen Alvarez
Environmental Specialist
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-7273
Fax: 214-665-6762
Internet E-mail:
LaNel Anderson
418 Woodland Street
Channelview, TX 77530
Phone: 713-797-8800
Fax: 713-457-5975
Internet E-mail:
Omega Arteaga-Gamboa
14230 Daylight Ridge
San Antonio, TX 78230
Phone: 210-696-8438
Fax: 210-704-4946
Internet E-mail:
Robert Ashcroft
Adjunct Professor
University of Texas at San Antonio
P.O. Box12325
San Antonio, TX 78212
Phone: 210-734-7329
Fax: 210-354-4491
Internet E-mail:
Shirley Augurson
Environmental Justice Coordinator
Region 6
Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue (6EN)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-7401
Fax: 214-665-7446
Internet E-mail:
Olivia Balandaran
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-6584
Fax: 214-665-6660
Internet E-mail:
John Ballard
Assistant Tribal Administrator
Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma
515 6th Street, SE
Miami, OK 74354
Phone: 918-542-1190
Fax: 918-542-5415
Internet E-mail:
Ekko Barnhill
Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation
1250 Poydras Street, Suite 2200
New Orleans, LA 70113
Phone: 504-592-8122
Fax: 504-592-5749
Internet E-mail:
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE MEETING
San Antonio, Texas. October 17 -19,1996
List of Participants
Luverda Batiste
Executive Director
Model, Inc.
2142 Lavender Street
Port Arthur, TX 77640
Phone: 409-736-3511
Fax: 409-982-2944
Internet E-mail:
David Batson
ADR Liason
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-5103
Fax: 202-564-0093
Internet E-mail: baston.david@epamail.epa.gov
Leslie Beckhoff
DuPont/Conoco, Inc.
One Lakeshore Drive, Suite 900
Lake Charles, LA 70629
Phone: 318-497-4834
Fax: 318-497-4717
Internet E-mail:
Christine Benally
Executive Director
Dine CARE
P.O. Box 1992
Shiprock, NM 87420
Phone: 505-368-5890
Fax: 505-368-5890
Internet E-mail: cjbennally@ncc.cc.nm.us
Ray Benally
Executive Director
Nenahnezad Chapter
Dine Mining Action Center
P.O. Box 1041
Fruitland, NM 87416
Phone: 505-598-5907
Fax: 505-598-5907
Internet E-mail:
Malcolm Bender
Brownfields Analyst
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Ave
Dallas, TX 75202-2773
Phone: 217-665-8378
Fax: 214-665-6660
Internet E-mail:
Kent Benjamin
Program Analyst
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW(MC 5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-2822
Fax: 202-260-6606
Internet E-mail:
Marvin Benton
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
1445 Ross Avenue (MC6EN)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-7401
Fax: 214-665-7446
Internet E-mail:
Jean Bessent
Attorney
Address not provided
Phone:
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Yana M. Bland
Health Economist
16 White Cat Hollow
Kyle, TX 78640
Phone: 512-208-2220
Fax: 512-208-1557
Internet E-mail:
Reverend Reginald Blow
North Texas Journal
P.O. Box 3741
Wichita Falls, TX 76301
Phone: 817-766-6525
Fax: 817-766-6541
Internet E-mail:
Jimmie BlueEyes
Coordinator
Upper Fruitland Chapter
Navajo Nation
P.O. Box 1257
Fruitland, NM 87416
Phone: 505-598-5032
Fax: 505-598-0614
Internet E-mail:
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE MEETING
San Antonio, Texas. October 17 -19,1996
List of Participants
Darlene H. Boerlage
Environmental Justice Coordinator
Office of Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW(MC 2261 A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-2593
Fax: 202-564-0069
Internet E-mail: boerlage.darlene@epamail.epa.gov
David Bolduc
Counselor to the Executive Director
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Phone: 512-239-3900
Fax: 512-239-3939
Internet E-mail:
Richard Boren
Coordinator
International Environmental Alliance of the Bravo
P.O. Box 3367
El Paso, TX 79923
Phone: 915-757-8005
Fax: 915-757-8005
Internet E-mail:
Arthur F. Brock
President
Oak Grove Estates Neighborhood Association
10607 Rimcrest Drive
San Antonio, TX 78217
Phone: 210-653-1313
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Charles Bryant
Principal
Bruce Elementary School
713 Bringhurst
Houston, TX 77020
Phone: 713-226-4560
Fax: 713-226-4562
Internet E-mail:
Robert Bullard
Director
Clark Atlanta University
Environmental Justice Resource Center
223 Brawley Drive, SW
Atlanta, GA 30314
Phone: 404-880-6920
Fax: 404-880-6909
Internet E-mail: rbullard@cau.edu
Frank Bunkers
MARFORRES Operations Officer
U.S. Marine Corps
4400 Dauphine Street
New Orleans, LA 70146
Phone: 504-678-6836
Fax: 504-678-6042
Internet E-mail:
William Burkhart
Manager
Environmental Government Relations
Procter and Gamble
6110 Center Hill Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45224
Phone: 513-634-6366
Fax: 513-634-5481
Internet E-mail:
Tommy T.C. Calvert
Executive Director
Southwest Community Empowerment Center
4334 Sunnyvale Lane
San Antonio, TX78219
Phone: 210-599-4247
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Rosezella Canty-Letsome
Attorney
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-4567
Fax: 202-260-6606
Internet E-mail:
Neil Carman
Sierra Club
P.O. Box1931
Austin, TX 78767
Phone: 512-472-8767
Fax: 512-477-8526
Internet E-mail: neil_carman@txinfinet.com
Chuck Cazalas
Manager
Public Affairs and Community Relations
CITGO
P.O. Box9176
Corpus Christi, TX 78469
Phone: 512-844-4110
Fax: 512-844-5133
Internet E-mail:
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE MEETING
San Antonio, Texas. October 17 -19,1996
List of Participants
Velma Charles-Shannon
Environmental Justice Manager
U.S. Department of Agriculture
14th and Independence Street, SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202-690-3509
Fax: 202-690-2345
Internet E-mail:
Lemuel Chee
Avefa Gravis Committee
P.O. Box 100204
Avefa, UT 84510
Phone: 810-651-3494
Fax: 810-651-3413
Internet E-mail:
Jerry Clifford
Deputy Regional Administrator
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-2100
Fax: 214-665-6648
Internet E-mail:
Luke Cole
General Counsel
Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment
631 Howard Street, Suite 330
San Francisco, CA94105
Phone: 415-495-8990
Fax: 415-495-8849
Internet E-mail:
Tom Cole
Assistant Special Agent in Charge
Region 6
Criminal Investigation Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue (6EN)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-2118
Fax: 214-665-3177
Internet E-mail:
Samuel Coleman
Director
Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue (6EN)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-2210
Fax: 214-665-7446
Internet E-mail:
Mildred Colen
Member
Regional Environmental Justice Committee
308 North Clingman Street
Warren, AR 71671
Phone: 501-226-5527
Fax: 501-226-5527
Internet E-mail:
Robert Collin
Professor
Urban Environment Institute
University of Orgegon
120 Elkay Drive
Eugene, OR 97404
Phone: 541-607-1072
Fax: 541-607-1073
Internet E-mail:
Robin Collin
Professor
University of Oregon
120 Elkay Drive
Eugene, OR 97404
Phone: 541-607-1072
Fax: 541-607-1073
Internet E-mail:
Teresa Cooks
Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue (6EN)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-8145
Fax: 214-665-7446
Internet E-mail:
Lynn Crane
Laidlaw Environmental
Address not provided
Phone:
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
David Cruz
Representative/Organizer
Southwest Public Workers' Union
P.O. Box 830706
San Antonio, TX 78283
Phone: 210-299-2666
Fax: 210-299-4009
Internet E-mail:
Tom Culbertson
Hydrologist
511 Westwood Avenue
San Antonio, TX 78212
Phone: 210-733-7474
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE MEETING
San Antonio, Texas. October 17 -19,1996
List of Participants
Diane Daniels
Director
Osage Tribal Council
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1495
Pawhuska, OK 74056
Phone: 918-287-4041
Fax: 918-287-2322
Internet E-mail:
Robert C. Dawson
President
San Antonio Coalition for Environmental and Economic
Justice
4927 Waycross Lane
San Antonio, TX 78220-1848
Phone: 210-661-6479
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Eileen Deamer
Community Involvement Coordinator
Region 5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Street (P-19J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-886-1728
Fax: 312-353-1155
Internet E-mail:
Janice Dickerson
Community/Industry Relations Coordinator
Office of the Secretary
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 8223
Baton Rouge, LA 70884
Phone: 504-765-2726
Fax: 504-765-0746
Internet E-mail:
Betty Dzierzanowski
Route 9, P.O. Box 107B
Converse, TX78109
Phone: XXX-661-3485
Fax: XXX-667-1152
Internet E-mail:
Rick Ehrhart
Project Manager
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-6765
Fax: 214-665-7263
Internet E-mail:
Charles Faultry
Chief
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-6705
Fax: 214-665-6762
Internet E-mail:
Deeohn Ferris
Director
Washington Office for Environmental Justice
1511 K Street, NW, Suite 1197
Washniton, DC 20005
Phone: 202-637-2467
Fax: 202-637-9435
Internet E-mail:
Angela Fitzgerald
Coordinator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OREEJ
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (MC2442A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-1018
Fax: 202-564-0069
Internet E-mail: fitzgerald.angela@epamail.epa.gov
Major Alain Flexer
Staff Judge Advocate
Marine Forces Reserve
4400 Dauphine Street
New Orleans, LA 70146
Phone: 504-678-1351
Fax: 504-678-6823
Internet E-mail:
Phil Follis
Modoc Tribe Of Oklahoma
Land Management
515 6th Street, SE
Miami, OK 74354
Phone: 918-542-1190
Fax: 918-542-5415
Internet E-mail:
Richard B. Franklin
Committee Chairman
Stop Poteet Medical Waste Incinerator Committee
Route 2, Box 2
Pleasanton, TX 78064
Phone: 210-977-7212
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE MEETING
San Antonio, Texas. October 17 -19,1996
List of Participants
Mary Ann Freitag
Route 9
P.O. Box 106
Converse, TX78109
Phone: 210-661-4098
Fax:210-661-1152
Internet E-mail:
James Friloux
Ombudsman
Office of the Secretary
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 8223
Baton Rouge, LA 70884
Phone: 504-763-3537
Fax: 504-765-0746
Internet E-mail:
Clarice Gaylord
Director
Office of Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW(MC2201A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-2603
Fax: 202-501-0740
Internet E-mail: gaylord.clarice@epamail.epa.gov
Phyllis Glazer
President
Mothers Organized to Stop Environmental Sins
15115 Farmers Market 16 East
Winona, TX 75792
Phone: 903-877-4801
Fax: 903-877-2634
Internet E-mail: Danny Gogal
Office of Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW(MC2201A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-2576
Fax: 202-501-0740
Internet E-mail: gogal.daniel@epamail.epa.gov
Sam Goodhope
Special Assistant Attorney General
209 West 14th Street
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: 214-475-4679
Fax:214-463-2063
Internet E-mail:
Bobbie J. Goodloe
Save Our Martinez Environment
4619 Lavender Lane
San Antonio, TX 78220
Phone: 210-666-4926
Fax: Not Porvided
Internet E-mail:
Barbara Greenfield
Deputy Director
Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue (6EN)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-2210
Fax: 214-665-7446
Internet E-mail:
Mark Gross
Acting Council to the Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC
Phone: 202-514-2172
Fax: 202-514-8450
Internet E-mail:
Kelley D. Gulley
KIP Services
3305 Weller Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46268
Phone: 317-328-2623
Fax: 317-328-1281
Internet E-mail: quinnise@aol.com
Allan Hagerthorn
President
ELO In'ter-ac'tions
Kelly Air Force Base
114 Terrauita Parkway, #1027
San Antonio, TX 78232
Phone: 210-492-3520
Fax: 210-497-3405
Internet E-mail:
Amy Hall
Lawyer
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc.
222 Sidney Baker South, Suite 539
Kerrville, TX 78028
Phone: 210-896-4316
Fax: 210-896-3907
Internet E-mail:
Grover Hankins
Thurgood Marshall School of Law
Texas Southern University
3100 Cleburne Avenue, Room 212
Houston, TX 77004
Phone: 713-313-7287
Fax: 713-313-1087
Internet E-mail:
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE MEETING
San Antonio, Texas. October 17 -19,1996
List of Participants
Albertha Hastens
Community Representative
Legal Services
Client Council
Concerned Citizens of Elberville Parish
32365 Doc Dean Street
White Castle, LA 70788
Phone: 504-545-8917
Fax: 504-545-2905
Internet E-mail:
Patrick N. Hatten
Environmental Safety Manager
Austin Army Aviation Support Facility
2001 East 51st Street
Austin, TX 78723
Phone: 512-465-5010
Fax: 512-406-6950
Internet E-mail:
Walter Helmick
Hydrologist
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-8373
Fax: 214-665-7446
Internet E-mail: helmick.walt@epamail.epa.gov
John Hepola
Chief
Air/Toxics and Inspection Coordination Branch
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: 214-665-7220
Fax: 214-665-7446
Internet E-mail:
Steve Herman
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW (MC2201 A)
Washington, DC 24060
Phone: 202-564-2419
Fax:
Internet E-mail: herman.steve@epamail.epa.gov
Dolores Herrera
Executive Director
Albuquerque - San Jose Community Awareness
Council
P.O. Box 12297
Albuquerque, NM 87195-2297
Phone: 505-243-4837
Fax: 505-243-3085
Internet E-mail:
Sylvia Herrera
Health Coordinator
People Organized in Defense of Earth and Its
Resources
55 North IH35, Suite 205 B
Austin, TX 78702
Phone: 512-472-9921
Fax: 512-472-9922
Internet E-mail:
Brian Holtzclaw
Environmental Engineer
Region 4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
100 Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404-562-8868
Fax: 404-562-8693
Internet E-mail:
Lawrence Hurst
Director
Arizona Issues Management
Strategic Issues and Communications
Motorola, Inc.
8220 East Roosevelt Street (MDR3125)
Scottsdale, AZ 85257
Phone: 602-441-3210
Fax: 602-441-3965
Internet E-mail:
Tinka Hyde
Regional Enforcement Coordinator
Region 5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-886-9296
Fax: 312-353-1120
Internet E-mail:
Edward Jackson
President
Ascension Parish Citizens Against Toxics
121102 Highway 73
Geismar, LA 70734
Phone: 504-673-8696
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Sedonia Jackson
Citizen
Lions Community
215 West 23rd Street
Reserve, LA 70084
Phone: 504-536-2639
Fax: 504-765-0746
Internet E-mail:
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE MEETING
San Antonio, Texas. October 17 -19,1996
List of Participants
Boyd Johnson
Railroad Commission of Texas
Address not provided
Phone:
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
David M. Johnson
Environmental Justice Action
5418 Knoll Crest Street
San Antonio, TX 78242
Phone: 210-670-0007
Fax: 210-533-3888
Internet E-mail:
Dorothy Johnson
Citizen
Lukeville Community
5958 Lukeville Extension
Brusly, LA 70719
Phone: 504-749-8466
Fax: 504-765-0746
Internet E-mail:
Leroy Johnson
Community for Environmental Justice
3859 Bay Street
San Antonio, TX 787237
Phone: 210-433-2967
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Lersey Johnson
Community for Environmental Justice
3859 Bay Street
San Antonio, TX 78237
Phone: 210-433-2867
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Yolanda Johnson
President
Committee for Environmental Justice Action
P.O. Box 830706
San Antonio, TX 78283
Phone: 210-299-2666
Fax: 210-299-4009
Internet E-mail:
Walter Jones
Industrial Hygienist
ITS
25 Lousiana Avenue
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-624-6960
Fax: 202-624-8740
Internet E-mail:
James Kachtick
Manager
Environmental Southern Region
Occidental Chemical Corp
P.O. Box 30
Five Greenway Plaza, Siute 2100
Houston, TX 77046-0500
Phone: 713-215-7886
Fax: 713-215-7686
Internet E-mail: jim_kachtick@oxy.com
Maxine Kescoli
Black Mesa Community
P.O. Box1165
Pinon, AZ 86510
Phone: 520-677-3257
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Robert Knox
Deputy Director
Office of Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW(MC2201A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-2604
Fax: 202-501-0740
Internet E-mail: knox.robert@epamail.epa.gov
August Kruse
Save Our Martinez Environment
Route 9
P.O. Box107D
Converse, TX78109
Phone: 210-662-8597
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Chuck Lesniak
Environmental Quality Specialist
City of Austin
P.O. Box1088
Austin, TX 78787
Phone: 512-499-2699
Fax: 512-499-2846
Internet E-mail:
Georgia Mae Lieck
Save Our Martinez Environment
Route 9
P.O. Box 108
Martinez, TX 78108
Phone: 210-661-3118
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE MEETING
San Antonio, Texas. October 17 -19,1996
List of Participants
Sylvia Liu
Attorney
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: 202-305-0639
Fax: 202-514-4231
Internet E-mail:
Chavel Lopez
Director
Southwest Public Workers' Union
P.O. Box 830706
San Antonio, TX 78283
Phone: 210-299-2666
Fax: 210-299-4009
Internet E-mail:
Seth Lubega
Oakwood College
Huntsville, AL 35896
Phone: 205-726-7059
Fax: 205-726-7056
Internet E-mail:
Charles Lujan
Director
Office of Environmental Affairs
P.O. Box 1099
San Juan Pueblo, NM
Phone: 505-852-4212
Fax: 505-852-4820
Internet E-mail:
Chris Macomb
7301 Carlwood
Austin, TX 78759
Phone: 512-331-9204
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Amadee Madril
Outreach Coordinator
Region 6
El Paso Border Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
4050 Rio Bravo, Suite 100
El Paso, TX 79902
Phone: 915-533-7273
Fax: 915-533-2327
Internet E-mail:
Roy Mardis
Police Juryman for Clayborne Parish
CANT
Homer, LA 71040
Phone: 318-927-4932
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Carol Marshall
Manager
TNRCC
State of Texas
P.O. Box13087
Austin, TX 78711
Phone: 512-239-4000
Fax: 512-239-4007
Internet E-mail:
Steve Mason
Coordinator
Region 6
Chemical Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2722
Phone: 214-665-2292
Fax: 214-665-7447
Internet E-mail:
James McDonald
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-4043
Fax: 202-501-0701
Internet E-mail: mcdonald.james@epamail.epa.gov
Tracy McLoughlin
Sanitation I
Metropolitan Health District
332 West Commerce Street
San Antonio, TX 78205
Phone: 210-207-8853
Fax: 210-207-8039
Internet E-mail:
Albertine Miller
DEC Environmental Justice System
New Orleans Street
San Antonio, TX 78232
Phone: 504-265-4119
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Bert Molina
Attorney
Star Enterprise
12700 Northborough
Houston, TX 77067
Phone: 713-874-7059
Fax: 713-874-7041
Internet E-mail:
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE MEETING
San Antonio, Texas. October 17 -19,1996
List of Participants
Brenda J. Moore
Director
Environmental Negligence Under Fire
3431 Morris
Dallas, TX 75212
Phone: 214-638-8794
Fax: 214-631-2523
Internet E-mail:
Richard Moore
Coordinator
Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic
Justice
P.O. Box 7399
Albuquerque, NM 87194
Phone: 505-242-0416
Fax: 505-242-5609
Internet E-mail:
Gil Murillo
Westfort Alliance
306 Brahan Boulevard
San Antonio, TX 78205
Phone: 210-224-0504
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Bridgette Murray
President
Pleasantville Civic League, Inc.
1403 Laurentides
Houston, TX 77029
Phone: 713-881-9721
Fax: 713-880-0318
Internet E-mail:
Lily Ning Lee
Special Assistant to the Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW(MC 1101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-4724
Fax: 202-260-4852
Internet E-mail: lle.lily@epamail.epa.gov
Mary O'Lone
Office of General Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW(MC 2322)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-1487
Fax: 202-260-8393
Internet E-mail:
Rolinda Oatis
River Area Planning Group
P.O. Box 663
Vacherie, LA 70090
Phone: 504-265-7524
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Efren Ordone
Enforcement Attorney
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-2118
Fax: 214-665-3177
Internet E-mail:
Annalisa Peace
Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas
247 Army Boulevard
San Antonio, TX78215
Phone: 210-299-2696
Fax: 210-299-2696
Internet E-mail:
Armando C. Quintanilla
710 Price Avenue
San Antonio, TX 78211-3420
Phone: 210-923-3875
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Connie Raines
Acting Director
Office of Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
100 Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404-562-8290
Fax: 404-562-9486
Internet E-mail:
Arthur Ray
Deputy Director
Maryland Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD21224
Phone: 410-631-3086
Fax: 410-631-3888
Internet E-mail:
Danny Reinke
Army Environmental Center
4501 Ford Avenue, Suite 1100
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703-379-5600
Fax: 703-379-5609
Internet E-mail:
Margie Richard
Concerned Citizens of Norco
28 Washington Street
Norco, LA 70079
Phone: 504-764-8135
Fax: 504-488-7977
Internet E-mail:
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE MEETING
San Antonio, Texas. October 17 -19,1996
List of Participants
Lynda Rife
Area Manager
Community Affairs
Browning-Ferris Industries
916 Congress Avenue, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: 512-478-7494
Fax: 512-469-0673
Internet E-mail:
Florence Robinson
Environmental Advisor
North Baton Rouge Environmental Association
421 Springfield Road
Baton Rouge, LA
Phone: 504-775-3041
Fax: 504-774-2928
Internet E-mail:
Jeff Robinson
Student
315 Downshire Road
San Antonio, TX 78216
Phone: 210-341-4143
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Marshall Rogers
Facilitator
Indian Dispute Resolution Services, Inc.
1029 K Street, Suite 38
Sacramento, CA95814
Phone: 916-447-4800
Fax: 916-447-4808
Internet E-mail:
Hussein Sadruddin
St. Mary's Clinic
2507 NW 36th Street
San Antonio, TX 78228
Phone: 210-431-5728
Fax: 210-431-5700
Internet E-mail: hsadrud@txdirect.net
Gracie Saenz
St. Mary's Clinic
2507 NW 36th Street
San Antonio, TX 78228
Phone: 210-431-5728
Fax: 210-431-5700
Internet E-mail: aggie95@juno.com
JaneSaginaw
Regional Administrator
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue (6A)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone:
Fax: 214-665-7446
Internet E-mail:
Mary K. Sahs
Attorney at Law
1700 Collier Street
Austin, TX 78704
Phone: 512-444-2185
Fax: 512-444-2187
Internet E-mail:
Mary K. Sahs
Attorney at Law
1700 Collier Street
Austin, TX 78704
Phone: 512-444-2185
Fax: 512-444-2187
Internet E-mail: marysahs@bga.com
Raul M. Sanchez
Associate Professor of Law
School of Law
St. Mary's University
1 Camino Santa Maria
San Antonio, TX 78228
Phone: 210-431-2274
Fax: 210-436-3717
Internet E-mail: sanchez@law.stmary.edu
Monica Schurt man
Director
Human Rights Clinic
St. Mary's University Law School
2507 NW 36th Street
San Antonio, TX 78228
Phone: 210-431-5711
Fax: 210-431-5700
Internet E-mail:
Yolanda Slavin
Lead Compliance Specialist
Alamo Workforce Development Council, Inc.
115 East Travis, Suite 220
San Antonio, TX 78205
Phone: 210-272-3260
Fax: 210-272-3290
Internet E-mail:
Phyllis Smith
Community Liason
Concerned Citizens of Agriculture Street Landfill, Inc.
3001 Press Street
New Orleans, LA 70126
Phone: 504-945-7517
Fax: 504-949-6837
Internet E-mail:
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE MEETING
San Antonio, Texas. October 17 -19,1996
List of Participants
Ruben Soils
Lead Organizer
Southwest Public Workers' Union
226 Wickes
San Antonio, TX 78210
Phone: 210-299-2666
Fax: 210-299-4009
Internet E-mail: swu@icg.apc.org
Dan Soto
Environmental Engineer
Headquarters Air Education and Training Command
U.S. Air Force
266 West F Street
Randolph Air Force Base, TX 78150-4321
Phone: 210-652-3656
Fax: 210-652-3597
Internet E-mail: sotod@hqce.aetc.af.mil
Carla Sparks
Community Activist
1117 North Mellon
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 501-324-9880
Fax: 501-324-9184
Internet E-mail:
Carol Stall
Journalist
University of Texas at Austin
2102 Ford Street
Austin, TX 78704
Phone: 512-326-3179
Fax: 512-326-3179
Internet E-mail: cstall4@mail.utexas.edu
Juanita R. Stewart
President
North Baton Rouge Environmental Association
490 Old Rafe Mayer Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70807
Phone: 504-774-7143
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Patricia Straw
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW(MC 2222A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-2513
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Reverend Nathaniel Taylor
Pastor
San Antonio Coalition for Economic Environmental
Justice
2906 East Commerce Street
San Antonio, TX 78203
Phone: 210-472-1232
Fax: 210-662-0209
Internet E-mail:
Shhonn Taylor
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW(MC 2222A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-2502
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Albessie Thompson
1815 East 38th Street
Little Rock, AR 72206
Phone: 501-682-3105
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
James L. Thompson
Assistant Special Agent
Region 3
Criminal Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Building (3CEOO)
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215-566-2374
Fax: 215-566-2383
Internet E-mail:
Yolanda Ting
Environmental Scientist
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
41OM Street, SW
Washington, DC 52046
Phone: 703-603-8835
Fax: 703-603-9100
Internet E-mail: ting.yolanda@epamail.epa.gov
John Tintiua
Railroad Commission of Texas
Address not provided
Phone:
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE MEETING
San Antonio, Texas. October 17 -19,1996
List of Participants
Alan Titus
Marforres Environmental Manager
U.S. Marine Corps
4400 Dauphine Street
New Orleans, LA 70146
Phone: 504-678-4210
Fax: 504-678-6823
Internet E-mail:
Daniel T. Torrez
Special Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
209 West 14th
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: 210-475-4416
Fax: 210-463-2063
Internet E-mail:
Arthur Totten
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW(MC 2252A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-7164
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Authur Troell
Professor
Geology Department
San Antonio College
922 North Bryant Street
Pleasanton, TX 78064
Phone: 210-208-8106
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Clark Vega
Associate
Harris, DeVille, and Associates
307 France Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Phone: 504-344-0381
Fax: 504-336-0211
Internet E-mail:
Orlando Villa-Jamandre
Environmental Quality Specialist
Environmental Affairs Division
Texas Department of Transportation
125 East 11th Street
Austin, TX 78701-2483
Phone: 512-416-3005
Fax: 512-416-2643
Internet E-mail:
Earl J. Walker
Assistant Secretary
Harvard Place/ East Lawn
2415 East Houston
San Antonio, TX 78202
Phone: 210-227-9844
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Mike Walker
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (2201 A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-2626
Fax: 202-501-1079
Internet E-mail:
Oliver Warnsley
Environmental Justice Coordinator
Superfund Program
Region 5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-886-0442
Fax: 312-886-4071
Internet E-mail:
Arlene Washington
Secretary
Southwest Community Empowerment Center
1706 Nolan
San Antonio, TX 78202
Phone: 210-224-1147
Fax: 210-224-9443
Internet E-mail:
Robert Washington
Professor
University of New Orleans
7315 Benson Court
New Orleans, LA 70127
Phone: 504-280-7102
Fax: 504-246-0259
Internet E-mail:
Cheryl Wasserman
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW(MC2251A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-7129
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ROUNDTABLE MEETING
San Antonio, Texas. October 17 -19,1996
List of Participants
Steve Weaver
Policy Advisor to the Director
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
Phone: 501-682-0892
Fax: 501-682-0891
Internet E-mail:
Art Wells
Environmental Engineer
Marine Corps
4400 Dauphine Street
New Orleans, LA 70146
Phone: 504-678-6805
Fax: 504-678-6823
Internet E-mail:
Patricia West
P.O. Box 851
Poteet, TX 78065
Phone: 210-742-8069
Fax:
Internet E-mail:
Michelle Whitehead
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (2201 A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-4287
Fax: 202-501-1079
Internet E-mail:
Ernest Woods
Regional Tribal Program Manager
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: 214-665-2200
Fax: 214-665-2118
Internet E-mail:
Beverly Wright
Director
Deep South Center for Environmental Justice
Xavier University
7325 Palmetto Street
New Orleans, LA 70125
Phone: 504-483-7340
Fax: 504-488-7977
Internet E-mail:
Susan Zachos
Attorney
Kelly, Hart, and Mailman
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: 512-495-6400
Fax: 512-495-6401
Internet E-mail:
Carlos Zequiera
Enforcement Counsel
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-8053
Fax: 214-665-3177
Internet E-mail:
NinaZippay
Assistant Regional Counsel
Region 5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-353-6726
Fax: 312-353-8937
Internet E-mail:
------- |