ONLY
EXIT ONLY
<»EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
www.epa.gov
EPA 910-R-17-006
September 2017
Environmental Justice
and Air Toxics:
A Blueprint of Best
Practices and Resources
for A Healthier Oregon
-------
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the following for their invaluable collaboration and support in designing and
implementing the March 15'^ workshop and helping to curate the information presented in this report.
Sarah Armitage, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, sarah.armitage@state.or.us
Dan Brown, US Environmental Protection Agency, brown.clan@;epa.gov
Kari Christensen, Oregon Health Authority, kari.a.christensen@state.or.us
Tori Cole, Neighbors for Clean Air, tori@whatsinourair. org
Kristie Ellickson, State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, kristie. ellickson@state.mn.us
Cheryl Grabham, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, cheryl .grabham@ state. or. us
Shalini Gupta, Center for Earth, Energy and Democracy, sgupta@ceed.org
Mary Peveto, Neighbors for Clean Air, mary@whatsinourair.org
Nancy Pionk, DS Consulting, nancy@dsconsult.co
Melody Poland, US Environmental Protection Agency, Poland-Melody@epa.gov
Julie Sifuentes, Oregon Health Authority, julie.sifiientes@state.or.us
Donna Silverberg, DS Consulting, donna@dsconsult.co
Akash Singh, Neighbors for Clean Air, akash@whatsinourair.org
Mary Lou Soscia, US Environmental Protection Agency, Soscia.Maryl ou@epa. gov
Sheryl Stohs, US Environmental Protection Agency, stohs.sheryl@epa.gov
John Wasiutynski, Multnomah County Office of Sustainability, john.wasiutynski@multco.us
Holly Wilson, US Environmental Protection Agency, Wilson.Holly@epa.gov
This report was prepared for EPA Region 10
under EPA Contract EP14 020 Task Order 20 with SPA International
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Background and Contents 1
2. Key Statutory and Policy Frameworks and Tools for Environmental Justice 2
3. Federal and State Air Quality Regulatory Framework in Oregon 4
4. Best Practices and Resources for Community Capacity Building 5
5. Best Practices and Resources for Community Engagement 7
6. Community Educational Resources 9
7. Technical Tools to Support Community Engagement 10
8. Closing 11
APPENDICES
A. March 15, 2017 Workshop Facilitator's Summary & Appendices
B. Resources and Video Links
C. PowerPoint Presentations
-------
1. BACKGROUND AND CONTENTS
Background: The intention of this report is to identify best practices and resources for effective
community engagement regarding air toxics and environmental justice in Oregon. Most of the
information and resources identified in this report were presented at an Environmental Justice and
Air Toxics Workshop held on March 15, 2017 (Workshop). The Workshop's goals were to build
relationships among community members and federal, state and local agencies, and to develop a
shared understanding of regional air quality issues and impacts to communities with environmental
justice (EJ) concerns.
Eighty-four people attended the Workshop representing local community groups; state, local, and
federal agencies; tribal governments; PSU; and national experts on community engagement and air
quality issues.
The Workshop arose out of the broader Portland Making a Visible Difference (MVD) Collaboration
which focused on increasing environmental improvements in communities with serious needs who
had received little attention in the past. Through the Portland MVD work, EPA established a Steering
Committee with representatives from non-governmental organizations and communities; and state,
local and federal governments. The Steering Committee helped identify priority environmental/
public health issues and concerns in Portland communities. Four broad themes emerged from the
MVD Steering Committee, including reducing air toxics, increasing green infrastructure to improve
water and air quality, equitable development; and increasing green jobs in low income communities.
The Steering Committee identified actions to address these priorities and an "Air Toxics Workshop"
focused on environmental justice impacted communities was identified as an important first step in
improving communication between government decision makers and community groups.
The Workshop was a joint work effort of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Neighbors
for Clean Air (NCA), Portland State University (PSU), Multnomah County, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ), and the Oregon Health Authority (OH A). Members of the Steering
Team, whose focused efforts helped plan the Workshop and prepare this Report include: Sarah
Armitage (ODEQ), Fletcher Beaudoin (PSU), Dan Brown (EPA), Kari Christensen (OHA), Cheryl
Grabham (ODEQ), Nakisha Nathan (NCA), Mary Peveto (NCA), Julie Sifuentes (OHA) Mary Lou
Soscia (EPA), Sheryl Stohs (EPA), Maggie Tallmadge (Coalition of Communities of Color), and
John Wasiutynski (Multnomah County Office of Sustainability).
Future workshops are also being planned by community members, EPA and state agencies. These
Phase II workshops will take place in Portland, Corvallis and The Dalles. The workshops will be
designed to provide training for communities impacted by air pollution so they can understand the
regulatory rule- making process and help effectively shape Oregon's new air regulations. The Phase
II workshop objectives are to:
¦ Identify key elements of the rule-making process and how to incorporate actual
community experiences and concerns into the regulatory process.
¦ Provide training on how to use existing tools, data and resources to effectively
communicate community needs and concerns regarding improving air quality.
¦ Provide training about how to make effective public comments that can help
shape the final rule, and role play effective public commenting.
1
-------
¦ Create a space for concerned residents, community organizations and
regulators to come together to learn and understand each other's priorities,
roles and limitations in order to better address air quality
Contents: This report provides an overview of the key federal policy and statutory frameworks for
environmental justice, an overview of the Oregon regulatory framework, and information about the
Cleaner Air Oregon initiative. It also identifies best practices and resources for community capacity
building, engagement and education identified during the Workshop and by the Workshop planners.
It includes links to Workshop video presentations. The Appendices provide supplemental documents
including a summary of the Workshop (Appendix A) and PowerPoint presentations referred to in this
Report (Appendix C).
2. KEY STATUTORY AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS AND
TOOLS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
a. Charles Lee Presentation: In this presentation, Charles Lee, Senior Policy Advisor for
Environmental Justice at the EPA, gives an overview of environmental justice history and
identifies the key statutory and policy frameworks for EJ. He outlines the many tools and
resources that are available to EJ advocates and the public. A summary of the key frameworks
and resources discussed by Mr. Lee is provided below. Mr. Lee's PowerPoint presentation is
attached in Appendix C and his recorded presentation is linked here: https ://www,youtube.com/
watch?v=fUc9H0pIIa0&index=4&list=PLd4xfJU3qzMViN7ehtvBa0wbQQKi 4wvb.
b. The EPA's Definition of Environmental Justice:*
"Fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. "
"Fair Treatment" means:
"no group ofpeople should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental
consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies.
"Meaningful Involvement" means:
1. "1. People have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect
their environment and/or health;
2. The public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision;
3. Community concerns will be considered in the decision-making process;
4. Decision makers will seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected."
* Source: https://www.epa. gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice
2
-------
c. A Systemic View of Environmental
Justice: Figure 1 is an example of what
environmental justice looks like on a
systemic level [Charles Lee, March 15,
2017 PowerPoint presentation. Slide 4].
Environmental justice involves
issues of the built environment, the
natural environment and the social
environment and these produce a set
of impacts that have disproportional
impacts on certain populations.
Over time, responses to these impacts
include: community engagement,
regulatory and collaborative
approaches, and analytic tools and
measures.
d. EJ Policy Framework: Executive Order 12898 and Presidential Memorandum signed by President
Clinton in 1994, called on federal agencies to address disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations
and low-income populations. The Presidential Memorandum that accompanied the Executive
Order is important because it identified how the problem should be addressed: by using existing
environmental and civil rights law.
e. Environmental Statutes: Plan EJ 2014 - Legal Tools: This EPA resource compiles the key legal
authorities, environmental statutes and provisions, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act,
thatcan be used to address issues related to E J.
f. The Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) and EPA's Diesel Initiative: Dan Brown
Presentation: In this presentation, Dan Brown, EPA provides an overview of the EPA's
regulation of Air Quality through the Clean Air Act and Motor Vehicle Emission standards. He
summarizes the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) under which the EPA awards grants
to reduce diesel emissions in areas that are disproportionately impacted by diesel emissions.
The EPA has provided a grant to the Metropolitan Contractors Improvement Partnership to
update technology on non-road and construction equipment for minority-owned businesses in
Oregon. Mr. Brown also identifies "near-port" resources developed by the EPA. Links to these
resources are provided in Section 7 of this report. Mr. Brown's PowerPoint presentation is
attached in Appendix C and his recorded presentation is linked here: https ://www,youtube.com/
watch7v=gO2ovZF3c3Y&index=8&list=PLd4xfJU3qzMViN7ehtyBa0wbOO Ki4wvbK
g. The EPA's Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model: Collaborative
Problem- Solving (2008): This is a handbook for all stakeholders that describes the basic tenets
of the Collaborative Problem-Solving Model. Collaborative problem-solving means that various
stakeholders agree to work together to address a particular issue or concern. In situations involving
environmental justice issues, stakeholders often have to reconcile divergent interests in order to
address complex and interrelated environmental, public health, economic, and social problems in
local communities. When multiple stakeholders work together, they create a collective vision that
reflects mutually beneficial goals for all parties. Collaborative problem-solving, in the context of
environmental justice, involves proactive, strategic, and visionary community-based processes that
IMPACTS
OnproportioiMtr f nvuonmental and Health Burden*
Proximity to Pollution Source*
Poor Housing, Transportation, Health Care, Employment
Natural Disaster*
Health Disparities
PROACTIVE
RESPONSES
Social
Environment
Built
Environment
Natural
Environment
Community Engagement
Analytic Tools and Measures
Regulatory Approaches
• Rules
• Permits
¦ Compliance & Enforcement
Collaborative Approaches
• land Use and Planning
• Equitable Development
• Community Benefits
rintiri? I
3
-------
bring together multiple parties from various stakeholder groups (e.g., community groups, all levels
of government, industry, and academia) to develop solutions to address local environmental and/or
public health issues.
h. Policy Guidance for Incorporating EJ into Rulemaking: The EPA also has created guidance for
analysts and rule-writers for incorporating EJ into the Rulemaking environment:
¦ Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis
¦ Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of Regulatory Actions.
3. FEDERAL AND STATE AIR QUALITY REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK IN OREGON
a. Overview of Oregon's Regulatory Framework: Both EPA and the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) set pollution control standards for Oregon. The state carries out
federal requirements and, in many cases, goes beyond federal law to further protect public health and
tailor programs to meet state needs and policies.
Figure 2 depicts the federal and state roles in regulating air quality in Oregon. More information
regarding these roles is provided in the Cleaner Air Oregon "Air Quality Overview" PowerPoint
Presentation and speaker's notes provided in Appendix C.
Federal
- State roles
Clean Air Act
Oregon Initiatives
Ozone and
• Health based standards
• Community pollution prevention plans
Particulate
• Community clean air plans
Air Toxics
• Benchmarks and monitoring
• Community air toxics reduction planning
• Regulations for industry
• Clean diesel program
• New health based permitting
Permitting
• Title V Permits for large facilities
• State permits for smaller facilities
Engines and
• Engine emission standards
• Clean cars program
• Vehicle inspection and maintenance
Fuels
• Clean fuel standards
Climate
• Clean Power Plan
Change
• C02 reductions from power plants
• Clean (low carbon) fuels
• Greenhouse gas emission reporting
figure 2
• Cap and trade study
b. Cleaner Air Oregon:
The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) are
working together under the Cleaner Air Oregon initiative to reform current industrial air toxics
4
-------
regulations to reflect health-based standards that seek to protect human health, environmental health
and economic health. Cleaner Air Oregon Factsheet
Additional information about the history, status and opportunities to participate can be found at the
Cleaner Air Oregon website. The recorded Workshop presentations of Richard Whitman, Director,
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Gabriela Goldfarb, Environmental
Public Health Section, Oregon Health Authority (OHA) are linked here: https://www,youtube.com/
watch ?v=gGmpiTZC wo&index=5&list=PLd4xfJU3qzMViN7ehtyBa0wbQQ Ki4wvbK and their
PowerPoint Presentation is provided in Appendix C.
c. DEQ's Environmental Justice efforts and EJ Citizen Advocate Position: A summary of how
DEQ's programs and activities integrate the principles and requirements of Environmental Justice is
included in Appendix B.
d. State of Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force Handbook regarding Environmental
Justice: Best Practices for Oregon's Natural Resource Agencies:
This handbook identifies best practices for identifying environmental justice issues and engaging in
capacity building for environmental justice communities in Oregon.
4. BEST PRACTICES AND RESOURCES FOR
COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING
a. Holly Wilson Presentation on Best Practices/Resources: In this presentation, Holly
Wilson, EPA, North Carolina, shares best practices and examples of how the EPA helped
build communities' capacity to effectively participate. A summary of the best practices and
resources identified by Ms. Wilson is provided below. Ms. Wilson's PowerPoint presentation is
attached in Appendix C and her recorded presentation is linked here: https://www.youtube. com/
watch?v=KWbIvraZWPk&index=7&list=PLd4xfJU3qzMViN7ehtyBa0wb QQKi4wvbK
b. Best Practices for Agencies to Help Create Meaningful Involvement
1. Keep the public informed using the Environmental Justice listserve.
2. Provide regular and frequent updates of regulatory actions beyond the Federal Register notices as
people tend not to review the Federal Register.
3. Use diverse methods such as webinars, conference calls, and in-person training to deliver
information on rules and regulatory actions.
4. Bring in all the stakeholder voices: Tribes, regional, state, local agencies, communities, NGO's
and industry.
5. Communication: Provide plenty of notice and use phone calls.
6. Practice Active Listening: Hear the words and try to understand why the person is upset, not just
that they are upset.
7. Create a safe environment during meetings and understand that discussion maybecome animated
because participants are passionate about their concerns.
8. Consider paying for a strong facilitator who is aware of all perspectives and is trusted to manage
the discussions.
5
-------
9. Manage expectations: help the community understand which set of rules are applicable at the
time and to understand how the rule-making process works.
10. Provide training that is driven by the specific needs of the community and ensure that there is a
shared power base within the community.
11. Consider training and paying community members to facilitate and present trainings.
12. Consider providing trainings prior to proposals.
13. Provide training on how to comment and present testimony effectively.
14. Schedule training during times convenient for community members and consider providing food/
child care.
15. Provide interpreters to address and reduce concerns regarding language barriers.
Source: Holly Wilson, March 15, 2017 EJ and Air Toxics Workshop Presentation
c. Examples of Best Practices: The EPA compiles best practices examples to support EJ efforts in
training, engagement and public input. Best practices examples can be found at the website of the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and within the EPA document: Promising
Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews.
d. International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum of Public Participation:
IAP2's Spectrum of Public Participation was designed to help convening agencies determine
the level of participation that defines the public's role in any public participation process. The
Spectrum shows that differing levels of participation are legitimate and depend on the goals, time
limitations, resources, and levels of concern regarding the decision to be made. The IAP2 Spectrum
of Participation is a resource that is used on an international level and can be found in many public
participation plans.
IAP2'S PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SPECTRUM ia|3Ws=r
The IAP2 Federation has developed the Spectrum to nelp groups define the puttie's role in any pu&llc participation process.
The IAP2 Spectrum s quickly Decerning an international standard.
INCREASING IMPACT ON TH€ DECISION
INFORM
CONSULT
INVOLVE
COLLABORATE
EMPOWER
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOAL
To provide the public
with balanced and
objective information
to assist them in
understanding the
probiem, alternatives,
opportunities and/or
solutions.
To obtain public
feedback on analysis,
alternatives aid/or
decisions.
To work directly with
the public throughout
the process to ensure
thai public concerns
and aspirations
are consistently
understood and
considered.
To partner with
the public in each
aspect of the
decision including
trie development of
alternatives and the
identification of the
preferred solution
To place final decision
maKmg in iha nands of
the public.
We will keep you
We will keep you
We will work with
We will look to you
We will implement
U
J
informed.
informed, listen lo
you to ensure thai
for advice and
what you decide.
m
3
and acknowledge
your concerns and
innovation m
a
concerns aid
aspirations are directly
formulating solutions
ill
z
aspirations, and
reflected in the
aid Incorporate your
H
provide feedback
alternatives developed
advice and
£
on how public
and provide feedback
recommendations
Efl
input influenced the
on how public
mto the decisions to
mm
decision.
input influenced the
the maximum extent
u
decision.
possible.
6
-------
Grants for communities:
¦ The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation supports initiatives that help change local conditions
that allow communities and their residents to reach their greatest health potential.
¦ The National Institute of Environmental Health Services may pay communities
to participate in grant review under certain specified circumstances.
¦ Citizen Air Monitoring: There may be EPA grants available for community members to
purchase air quality sensors (cost ranging from $100 to $500) to do local monitoring.
. BEST PRACTICES AND RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Shalini Gupta Presentation on Best Practices/Resources: Ms. Gupta, the Executive
Director, Center for Earth, Energy and Democracy (CEED) shared alternative models to
the traditional stakeholder process that can create more impactful community engagement.
These models are summarized below. Ms. Gupta's PowerPoint presentation is attached
in Appendix C and her recorded presentation is linked here: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=Vg95okeTZvI&index=l 0&list=PLd4xfJU3qzM ViN7ehtyBa0wbQQ Ki4wvbK
Community-Centered Analysis Space
and Community/Resident Education:
Figure 3 demonstrates an alternative
model for community engagement in
which Community/Resident Education
and Community- Centered Analysis Space
are layered into the traditional stakeholder
process.
The model provides an opportunity for the
impacted community to get their questions
answered and contemplates that:
1. Experts are chosen and trusted by the
community who work closely with
academic allies;
2. The process works with the community's agenda, which may be different than the traditional
stakeholders' agenda;
3. The community determines who will best represent the community in the larger process; and
4. The community has a role in determining what is included in final documentation.
Community/Resident Education: This part of the Community-Centered .Analysis model considers
a holistic approach to community education and capacity-building. It anticipates partnership and
investment in building up residents' capacity to engage. Best practices include providing training on
fundamentals such as organizing, what regulations are and how they get developed, and developing
popular education for technical concepts such as "cumulative impacts".
Community-Centered Analysis Space
Controlled by and
accountable to
Community
Focused on a policy/reg
Part of the official policy
process
Figure 3
Health
-
Community
Oris
Policy/
Regulation
Community
-
Community ft
»c*)#mk technic*"
7
-------
d. Community Engagement Are: The
Community Engagement Arc (Figure 4) is
another alternative model for community
engagement. In this model, Community/
Resident Education ideally occurs from the
start of a process with the communities most
impacted. A Community-Centered .Analysis
space is created so that community questions
can get answered by technical experts they
trust. Then, they link up with the larger
stakeholder process. Once the regulation or
policy is adopted, community engagement
continues to ensure accountability during
implementation.
e. Memorandums of Understanding (MOU):
Communities and government agencies can negotiate Memorandums of Understanding with each
other to provide clarity about the relationship, expectations and working protocols between the
Community- Centered Analysis Space and the larger stakeholder process. A template created by
CEED that outlines the questions and considerations for community members and agencies is
attached in Appendix B.
f. Local community recommendations for community engagement: At the March 15, 2017
Workshop, local community members identified specific needs and recommendations for community
engagement in Oregon:
1. Community members would like to see more resources, funding, and compensation to enable
members to effectively participate and reduce the barriers to engagement.
2. Use more accessible ways of conducting outreach with communities, such as: going to
communities that have the most burden, seeking out centralized locations such as businesses,
churches, and hospitals.
3. Empower communities to hire their own experts to interpret data and formulate their questions.
4. Access to data needs to be made available, relevant and understandable by the community.
5. There are concerns about equity and over-representation of industry in processes. There is a
concern that the larger the process, the easier it is for community input to be diminished.
6. Provide transparent timelines, sustainable engagement and accountability that ensures that the
process circles back to the community.
7. Relationship-building between agency staff and community members is a key componentthat
needs attention.
8. Provide interpreters to address and reduce concerns regarding language barriers.
Note: A summary of the full discussion is included in the March 15, 2017 Facilitator's Summary
Iterative Community Engagement Arc
Usually just the larger
Standard Stakeholder
Process Is
institutionalized and
intentionally resourced
- Larger
Standard
Stakeholder
Community- Process
Centered
Analysis Space
Implementation
- Post Reg/Policy
Community
Engagement &
Accountability
Community
/ Resident
Education
Figure 4
8
-------
6. COMMUNITY EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
a. The difference between technology-based and human health-based approach to permitting:
¦ Technology-based approach: Federal law and Oregon's current rules aim to restrict pollution
by imposing technology-specific requirements on industry-specific manufacturing facilities (e.g.,
emissions control devices and work practices for industry-specific equipment/operation). The
rules impose requirements based on the size of a facility and its potential for pollution. While air
pollution rules are intended to reduce industrial air toxics emissions, they do not necessarily cap
the total amount of pollution a facility may release. Nor are they designed to take into account
the local impacts of industrial pollution on human health and, therefore, do not necessarily
restrict concentrations of pollutants based on the health risks they pose for people nearby.
¦ Human health-based regulations for air quality: this approach sets limits
on air emissions for industrial sources based on risks to human health. It
can include defining exposure levels that are protective of human health and
assesses facility emissions based on human health safety standards.
¦ Resources:
• Information on Cleaner Air Oregon's initiative to establish health-based standards.
• EPA Clean Air Act Overview regarding the setting of emission standards: This website
explains EPA air toxics standards including technology and health based approaches. A
PowerPoint presentation that provides an overview of the Clean Air Act and regulatory
process is also attached in Appendix C.
• Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act: This website provides a brief introduction to the
Clean Air Act.
b. Cumulative Risk and Impacts: Cumulative Risk refers to the combined health risk from exposure
to multiple things. People generally are exposed to more than one toxic air pollutant at a time or to
pollutants from more than one source at a time.
Examples of cumulative risk include:
¦ Combined risk from multiple air toxics emitted from a single facility;
¦ Combined risk from air toxics from multiple industrial facilities in an area;
¦ Combined risk from community sources - this means all kinds of sources beyond just industrial
facilities. This would include traffic-related air toxics, residential wood burning, wildfires, etc.
¦ Combined risk from multiple routes of exposure - the most common example
of this is mercury, which is emitted into air where it can be inhaled. It also
settles on soils and water, with which people can come into contact. Mercury
can also be concentrated through the food chain in fish that people eat.
¦ Cumulative risk over time means that some communities may have already had a
disproportionately large exposure to air toxics or other environmental exposures,
potentially making them more sensitive to additional air toxics exposures.
¦ These different examples of cumulative risk are not mutually exclusive of one
another, and could be occurring at the same time. A regulatory system could consider
and, where appropriate, address more than one type of cumulative risk.
9
-------
Additional information on cumulative risk can be found in the Cleaner Air Oregon "Cumulative Risk
and Background" PowerPoint Presentation and speaker's notes provided in Appendix C.
¦ For a description of possible elements of a cumulative risk analysis, see Appendix B.
¦ Presentation on Cumulative Risk analysis in the State of Minnesota: In this presentation,
Dr. Kristie Ellickson, State of Minnesota's Pollution Control Agency, shared information
on Minnesota's process and outcomes relating to including cumulative risk and impacts on
EJ communities in state regulation. Ms. Ellickson's PowerPoint presentation is attached
in Appendix C and her recorded presentation is linked here: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=ie8a5cglh3I&index=6&list=PLd4xfJU3qzMViN7ehtvBa 0wbQQKi4wvbK
¦ Statutory Example Relating to Cumulative Risk: This Minnesota statute
is an example of a state statute that required consideration of the cumulative
effects of pollution in a particular Minneapolis community.
c. Guidance on the rulemaking process:
¦ These links provide guidance on the federal rule-making process: A Guide to the Rulemaking
Process prepared by the Office of the Federal Register and The EPA's Rulemaking Process .
¦ How to Comment Effectively: The Art of Commenting: How to Influence
Environmental Decision-making with Effective Comments (Environmental
Law Institute) by Elizabeth Mullin: This book provides a logical, step-by-
step approach to reviewing environmental documents and preparing comments.
An overview on The Art of Commenting is included in Appendix B.
d. Developing popular education for communities: There are organizations that specialize in
developing popular education for different types of policy such as The Center for Urban Pedagogy in
New York. In addition, CEED has developed popular education around Cap and Trade policies and
Clean Power Plan regulation.
7. TECHNICAL TOOLS TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
a. The EPA website features online screening and assessment tools that communities can access and
use:
b. EJSCREEN allows users to access high-resolution environmental and demographic information
for locations in the United States, and compare their selected locations to the rest of the state,
EPA region, or the nation. The tool may help users identify areas with: minority and/or low-
income populations; potential environmental quality issues; and a combination of environmental
and demographic indicators that is greater than usual. EJSCREEN may also be used to support
educational programs, grant writing and community awareness efforts.
c. Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool (C-FERST) provides access to resources
that can help communities learn more about their environment, exposures, and demographic
characteristics. They may also compare conditions in their community with their county and state
averages.
d. Tribal-Focused Environmental Risk and Sustainability Tool (Tribal-FERST) is an online information
and GIS mapping tool designed to provide tribes with easy access to the best available human health
and ecological science.
10
-------
Near-Port Interactive Tools: Port areas have many diesel pollution sources due to the ships,
locomotives, and trucks that operate there. Port areas often have a disproportionate impact on the
communities adjacent to them. These communities are often also at an economic disadvantage or are
otherwise susceptible to environmental injustices. Specific tools include:
¦ The Port Primer for Communities: this is interactive tool is designed to help communities
participate more effectively in engaging ports in decision-making. It provides
examples of tools and resources that have been used successfully in other areas.
¦ The Community Action Roadmap is a companion to the Ports Primer and is based on proven
engagement principles for building community engagement. It is a tool that provides a
step-by-step process for communities to build capacity and prepare for engagement.
¦ The Draft Environmental Justice Primer for Ports is directed at the Port Authorities and provides
them with more effective strategies when considering to engage communities near them.
¦ EPA's EXPOsure toolBOX (EPA ExpoBox) is a toolbox created to assist individuals
from within government, industry, academia, and the general public with assessing
exposure. It is a compendium of exposure assessment tools that links to guidance
documents, databases, models, reference materials, and other related resources.
Air Sensor Toolbox for Citizen Scientists: This toolbox provides information for citizen scientists
and others on how to select and use low-cost, portable air sensor technology and understand results
from monitoring activities.
. CLOSING
It is hoped that this report and the resources provided will support the community and government
agencies in working together to achieve a healthier Oregon environment for all. The workshop
on March 15, 2017 was intended to be a catalyst for engaging, informing and creating new,
effective relationships between community members and government agencies in order to assist
in the development of sound policies and regulations that protect the health and life quality for all
Oregonians.
The woikshop phnners hope that ths resource guide can help to continue and support ongoing and
effective E J work in Oregon
This report was written by the impartial facilitation team at DS Consulting with information and
input provided by EPA, DEQ, Multnomah County, Neighbors for Clean Air and OHA.
11
-------
For additional information regarding the Workshop, this report or the resources identified, contact:
Dan Brown
Region 10 Lead, West Coast Collaborative,
Clean Transportation and Clean Energy
Office of Air and Waste; EPA Region
10, Pacific Northwest
Oregon Operations Office 805
SW Broadway, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97205
503-326-6832
Brown. Dan@,epa. gov
Cheryl Grabham
Regional Solutions Team Liaison,
Portland Metro Area
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
700 NE Multnomah St., Suite #600
Portland, OR 97232
503-504-7906
Grabham. cheryl@deq. state. or.us
Julie Early Sifuentes
Program Manager
OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY
Public Health Division
Environmental Public Health
Desk: 971-673-0438
Cell: 503-269-3689
Julie. S ifuentes@state. or. us
http:// www, ore gon. gov/OHA
Akash Singh
Community Organizer, Neighbors
for Clean Air
akash@whatsinourair. org
209-263-1774
Neighbors for Clean Air
Mary Lou Soscia
Columbia River Coordinator, U.S. EPA
805 S.W. Broadway, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97205
503-326-5873
http ://soscia.marylou@epa. gov
John Wasiutynski
Director, Multnomah County,
Office of Sustainability
1 SE Hawthorne Boulevard, #600
Portland, OR 97214
503-988-3193
mailto: j ohn. wasiutynski@multco .us
https ://multco. us/sustainability
Holly Wilson
Outreach and Information Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
MD: C304-03, RM: C-305K
Research Triangle Park, NC
27711 919-541-5624 v, 919-541-0942 f
wilson.holly@epa. gov
Respectfully submitted on September 13, 2017Donna Silverberg
Owner, DS Consulting, with support from Nancy Pionk and Colby Mills
12
-------
Appendix A.
March 15, 2017 Workshop Facilitator's Summary & Appendices
(Click on a title to jump to section)
Facilitator's Summary
Workshop Agenda
Presenters' Biographical Information
Lunch Table Discussions Summary
Essential Components of Community Engagement Discussion Summary
Group Commitments Summary
-------
EPA Making a Visible Difference
Portland Environmental Justice and
Air Toxics Workshop Portland
Community Engagement and
Capacity Building
March 15, 2017
Facilitator's Summary
TJis report was prepared under EPA Contract EP14 020 TaskOrckr 20 withSRAIntermtional
1
-------
Table of Contents
1. Background and Goals of the Workshop 3
2. Welcome and Introduction — Session facilitator Donna Silverberg 3
3. Incorporating Environmental Justice into Everyday Actions and Policies
Charles Lee, Senior Policy Advisor for Environmental Justice at the U.S. EPA 4
4. Oregon's Current Air Quality Policies and Local Regulatory Context
Richard Whitman, Director, ODEQ & Gabriela Goldfarb, OH A 5
5. Understanding Cumulative Risk and Impacts
Dr. Kristie Ellickson, State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 7
6. Working Lunch "Open Space" Topics 8
7. Best Practices for Community Engagement on EJ Issues
Ms. Shalini Gupta, Executive Director, Center for Earth, Energy and Democracy 8
8. Developing Policies Using an EJ Lens: Best Practices and Applications of EJ Principles
Dan Brown, EPA 10
9. Developing Policies Using an EJ Lens: Best Practices and Applications of EJ Principles
Holly Wilson, EPA North
Carolina 12
10. Closing: Reflecting on Key Messages, Commitments and Next Steps 13
2
-------
1. Background and Goals of the Workshop
On March 15, 2017, a one-day Environmental Justice and Air Toxics workshop was held at the
Jade/APANO Multicultural Space in South East Portland, Oregon. The workshop's goals were to build
relationships among community members and federal, state and local agencies, and to develop a shared
understanding of regional air quality issues and impacts to communities with environmental justice (EJ)
concerns.
Education around air quality, diesel emissions, health impacts and tools to assess impacts can help build
community capacity to work collaboratively and identify strategies to improve air quality for the area. At
the workshop, community members heard presentations on the EJ regulatory framework and best
practices which may help lead to more constructive engagement on areas for action. Agency attendees
heard presentations that identified many tools for meaningfully and effectively engaging with
environmental justice communities on issues that matter to them. In post-workshop evaluations, many
attendees indicated that the workshop was effective, provided useful information and allowed the
attendees to meet new people.
This workshop was a joint work effort of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Neighbors for Clean
Air (NCA), Portland State University (PSU), Multnomah County, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ), and the Oregon Health Authority (OHA). Eighty-four people attended the workshop
representing local community groups; state, local, and federal agencies; tribal governments; PSU; and
national experts. NCA and PSU will support additional workshops following this session.
This report provides a brief summary of each presentation. Appendices B & C provide links to the full
video and PowerPoint presentations and resources referenced.
2. Welcome and Introductions
Donna Silverberg of DS Consulting served as session facilitator. She welcomed the participants and
noted that the intent was to have the many different communities come together and, hopefully, find new
opportunities to partner with each other. To set the stage for the day's agenda, the group watched a video
that commemorated the history of Environmental Justice within the EPA.
Ben Duncan, Chair of the Governor's Environmental Justice Task Force, recognized that there is a long
history of environmental and institutional racism in Oregon and noted that communities of color continue
to bear over-representation of health impacts. He encouraged community engagement by reminding
participants of the maxim: "Communities that speak for themselves best protect themselves." He noted
that the Oregon statute that created the Environmental Justice Task Force requires that agencies consider
the impact on EJ communities and hold hearings in communities at times that are convenient for them.
Sophia Wilson. Vice-President of the Lincoln High School Sisters of Color student organization said she
was inspired to become an EJ advocate after learning that people of color are on the frontlines of
environmental justice. She is advocating for EJ as a teenager and youth of color, which she believes are
strong factors for being able to change the future. She wants to advocate for clean air so children can
breathe.
Tony DeFalco the Deputy Director of Verde, Living Cully, a Latino community in N.E. Portland,
encouraged the participants to be engaged and emphasized that communities impacted by E J need the
capacity to fight on multiple fronts. Oregon has strong legislation and the community also needs to be
very strong in bringing concerns to officials' attention.
3
-------
Workshop Presentations
3. Incorporating Environmental Justice into Everyday Actions and Policies - Charles Lee, Senior
Policy Advisor for Environmental Justice at the EPA, gave an overview of environmental justice
history and identified key national and state milestones. He identified the key statutory and policy
frameworks for E J and outlined the many tools and resources that are available to EJ advocates, both
nationally at the EPA and from the states, that provide basic guidance, screening, analytic tools and
best practices. This report provides a summary of the key frameworks discussed by Mr. Lee. More
detail is provided in his video and PowerPoint presentation attached in Appendices B & C.
Key Statutory and Policy Frameworks: Mr. Lee reviewed the EPA's Definition of Environmental
Justice with the group. Environmental Justice is defined as:
"Fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national
origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies. "
He presented a picture of what environmental justice looks like on a systemic level: Environmental justice
involves issues of the built environment, the natural environment and the social environment and these
produce a set of impacts which have disproportional impacts on certain populations. Over time, there has
been a series of responses to these impacts: community engagement, regulatory and collaborative
approaches and analytic tools (that undergird assessments) and efforts such as the EJ2020 Action Agenda
which measures progress and what it means to make a difference in environmental communities in terms
of positive outcomes.
Environmental Justice Milestones and the Development of the EJ Policy Framework
Mr. Lee identified key environmental justice milestones that led to the development of the current E J
Policy Framework. He stated that to have a shared understanding of EJ principles, it is important to
understand the historical context.
Creation of the EPA Office of Environmental Justice: In 1982, in Warren County, North
Carolina, a protest relating to a siting of a PCP landfill resulted in some 500 arrests. Mr. Lee and
others' work on this issue ultimately led to the publication of the Toxic Wastes and Race Report
(1987) which was the first national study on the demographics associated with the location of
toxic waste sites. At the time, he thought the report would make a big difference in 50 years. No
more than 5 years later, the EPA established the Office of Environmental Equity (later changed to
the Office of Environmental Justice).
EJ Policy Framework - Executive Order 12898 and Presidential Memorandum and
Environmental Laws: In 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 which called on
federal agencies to address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations. The Presidential Memorandum that accompanied the Executive Order is equally
important because it identified how to address the problem: by using existing environmental and
civil rights law.
4
-------
Environmental Statutes: He also noted the many environmental statutes and provisions, like the
Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, that can be used to address issues related to EJ. These
statutes can be found in a comprehensive compilation created by the EPA: Plan EJ 2014 - Legal
Tools.
Other Tools and Resources: Mr. Lee described the many tools and resources available to support EJ
efforts.
• Collaborative Problem-Solving (2008) and Plan EJ 2014 (2010): These resources provide
guidance for the EJ community to engage in effective problem-solving. He stressed that to make
progress, it is important to be able to consider different perspectives and use dispute resolution so
that innovative solutions can be developed and duplicated. The EPA has also created the Plan EJ
2014 Legal Tools document which compiles key legal authorities for advancing environmental
justice.
• Best Practices: The EPA compiles best practices examples to support EJ efforts in training,
engagement and public input. Best practices examples can be found at the website of the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAOPS) and within the EPA document: Promising Practices
for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews.
• EPA Online Screening Tools: The EPA website features online screening and assessment tools
that can be utilized by communities:
o EJSCREEN is useful for a broad area review;
o C-Ferst and T-Ferst are useful for specific communities.
o Near Port Interactive Tools: These tools support communities near ports. (See Dan
Brown's presentation),
o EPA ExpoBox: a toolbox for assessing exposure.
• Policy Guidance: The EPA also has created guidance documents for incorporating EJ into the
Rulemaking environment:
o Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis
o Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of
Regulatory Actions.
States influence in developing environmental justice policy: Mr. Lee stressed that other states' EJ
efforts are resources and models for local EJ advocacy efforts. His video presentation gives many
examples of states' efforts and tools including California's Enviro Screen Tool and Minnesota's
Cumulative Air Permitting Protocol (See also Dr. Kristie Ellickson's presentation, below).
In closing, Mr. Lee acknowledged Oregon's leadership in the national conversation around EJ and
expressed the EPA's desire to work together with Oregon on EJ issues.
Oregon''s Current Air Quality Policies and Local Regulatory Context
Richard Whitman. Director. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEO) and Gabriela Goldfarb.
Environmental Public Health Section. Oregon Health Authority (OHA) presented information on the
Cleaner Air Oregon process. This is a new statewide initiative in which OH A and ODEQ are partnering
to reform the regulations that control industrial air emissions.
5
-------
4. Background of the Cleaner Air Oregon Initiative: In 2013, the U.S. Forest Service contacted DEQ
about studying urban moss to assess pollution from vehicle emissions. DEQ asked the researchers to look
for metals instead of vehicle emissions. DEQ had been measuring a higher than expected level of
cadmium and other metals in the Portland air shed but did not know where these metal emissions were
coming from. By 2015, this study revealed hotspots of elevated levels of metals around two art glass
manufacturers, Uroboros Glass Studio and Bullseye Glass Company. A subsequent air monitor placed
by DEQ near the Bullseye Glass facility revealed high levels of metals in the air.
This discovery also revealed a significant gap in the state's regulation of industrial facilities. While the
current regulatory system is based on technology available to reduce industrial air toxics from known
sources of emissions, the emission reduction requirements are not specifically developed in consideration
of local impacts on human health. There was a tremendous crisis of public concern regarding this gap
between technology based standards and protection of public health and Governor Kate Brown directed
the two agencies to work together to overhaul state system for regulating industrial sources of air toxics to
align with health.
Approach to Regulatory Reform: Cleaner Air Oregon seeks to: 1) set limits on toxic air emissions for
industrial facilities based on impacts to human health; 2) require evaluations of emissions and risks
relative to health-based standards and potential health impacts; 3) include a comprehensive screening of
facilities that emit air toxics to allow a focus on where emissions need to be reduced to protect public
health; 4) give clear guidance to business on regulations (and will consider the impact on businesses, jobs
and local economies, recognizing that employment is a significant determinant of health); and 5) to
improve public health by improving the air quality for people living near industrial facilities. Cleaner Air
Oregon focuses on industrial sources of air toxics which is only one part of the problem. There are a
variety of air toxics from other sources, such as transportation, marine, rail, paint, solvents, wood stoves,
etc., that also need to be addressed. Air toxic pollution from diesel engines is of particular concern to
some Portland communities.
Rulemaking Process: DEQ and OH A have begun a formal rulemaking process to engage the public in
creating human health risk-based rules for industrial facilities, for consideration by the Environmental
Quality Commission. A technical workgroup and an advisory committee have been convened. The
technical workgroup (an appointed group made up of science, health and air toxics regulation experts)
will discuss and provide an evaluation of human health risk-based air toxics programs for industrial
facilities in other states, and discuss and evaluate key technical issues. It is tasked with providing focused
and specific input to help DEQ prepare policy issues for discussion at public policy forums and advisory
committee meetings.
OHA and DEQ have researched air toxics permitting programs across the country to incorporate best
practices in the Oregon rules including: what the scope should be; the methods for screening emissions;
the protocols for conducting more in-depth assessment; and cumulative impacts analysis.
They have requested emission inventory data from all air permittees in Oregon. This will give the state a
comprehensive picture of potential emissions from a wide range of facilities in the state. The request is for
inventory information, or the amount of some 187 hazardous air pollutants emitted by the industrial
source. These specific hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are regulated under federal law and state laws.
The inventory reports will come in September 2017 and will ultimately be made available to the public.
Engagement and Outreach: An advisory committee with 23 members has also been established to
assist in the rulemaking process by considering policy recommendations that are based on input from,
public policy forums, and the groups they represent. The advisory committee's input will be used by DEQ
6
-------
and OHA in developing draft rules, which will then be proposed for broader public review and comment
as part of DEQ's rulemaking process. In 2016, DEQ and OHA also held several webinars about air
toxics, a series of technical workgroup meetings, and 4 regional public forums. The committee expects to
finish work this summer and a draft rule will be put out for public comment. In the fall and winter, the
emissions inventory will be made public and there will be additional community engagement. The
Cleaner Air Oregon site provides more information on the timeline for this process and opportunities to
participate.
Next Steps and Funding: The Environmental Quality Commission and the Oregon legislature will be
the decision-makers with regard to the rules and funding. The community can help legislators understand
the underlying importance of this program. State resources for this work are currently very limited and
DEQ has a limited number of monitors that are capable of measuring metals and other air toxics.
5. Understanding Cumulative Risk and Impacts
Dr. Kristie Ellickson. State of Minnesota. Pollution Control Agency, shared information on the State of
Minnesota's process and outcomes relating to including cumulative risk and impacts on EJ communities
in state regulation. She led the participants through exercises in which they identified the elements of a
Cumulative Impact Analysis. A summary of those elements follows:
• Sensitivity: This relates to standards based on sensitive life stages. It is the degree of a response
to a stimulus. For example, humans respond to bee stings in different ways: there may be no
impact, an itchy bump, or medication may be required to stay alive. Standards are cumulative if
they protect the most sensitive parts of the population. One possibility in permitting is to develop
health benchmarks for the most sensitive population for a certain pollutant. This could mean
benchmarks for asthmatics, being elderly, having existing diseases; early life exposure (0-2 years
old), etc.
• Additivity: This analysis considers the effects and risks of multiple pollutants, i.e. whether
exposure to each of the pollutants has an additive effect. The analysis could also add pollutants
based on a single health effect relative to one pollutant that is well-known and that sets potency
equivalents. This analysis is also helpful when assessing mixtures that may contain multiple
pollutants.
• Multiple Pathways: These are different ways that people are exposed to pollutants (eating,
drinking, breathing, contact with skin, showering, swimming, etc.) Health benchmarks can be
developed that assume people are exposed to more pathways than one. For example, if one looks
at both inhalation and ingestion at the same time, that is a cumulative component of an analysis.
• Multiple Sources: This approach adds in the effects of other nearby sources such as cars, other
factories, runoff, etc. It could include looking at all the emissions of the facility, not just the
project under consideration. It could include what is already there as well as historical
depositions.
• Non-Chemical Stressors: This approach considers elements/impacts in the environment that are
not chemicals such as chronic stress, noise, crime, historic trauma, aesthetics, lack of green space
and infectious agents such as Cryptosporidium. This is a cutting-edge concept and there is not a
lot of data on this yet
7
-------
• Community Vulnerability: This is an analysis that relates to a community's resilience and
considers that there may be greater susceptibility to pollution due to other challenges. For example,
if a person was stung by a bee, vulnerability relates to the ability to access an Epi pen, healthcare
funds to buy an Epi pen or protective equipment, or living in a community infested by bees. Other
examples include historic exposures, structural racism, access to emergency preparedness and
management funding, land use and stewardship issues, language barriers, lack of health care, lack
of engagement of elected officials, unmaintained housing, etc.
The Minnesota Statute and Approach: In 2008, in Minneapolis, there was statewide opposition to a
biomass burner proposal. The Minnesota statute was developed to require Minnesota's Pollution Control
agency to consider the cumulative effects of pollution in the area where the biomass burner was originally
proposed. Minnesota used existing regulatory tools to do the analysis and have lowered permitting limits
based on the analysis.
First, they used a computer model to estimate air concentrations around the facility to determine criteria
pollutants. They compared each criteria pollutant to screening levels (called a Significant Impact level) to
get a list of pollutants. They did the same process with air toxics and used comparison values that were
health-based (health benchmarks). They developed a list of criteria pollutants and pulled the health
endpoints/benchmarks that were aligned with each pollutant. For example, fine particles have a
cardiovascular and a respiratory endpoint (they impact the lungs and heart). They used the health
endpoints to determine what environmental health data or which of those vulnerabilities and nonchemical
stressors to pull into the analysis. For example, in looking at respiratory impact, they pulled in nearby
traffic sources, environmental tobacco smoke, air quality index rates, data on asthma, hospitalization,
emergency room visits etc. into a report.
As a final exercise designed to help participants fully integrate the information shared, participants
worked with a permitting scenario and discussed how they would create a cumulative impact analysis in
Oregon based on that scenario and different definitions on cumulative analysis.
6. Working Lunch "Open Space" Topics
Participants identified topics for discussion related to air quality and diesel emissions and had discussions
on those topics while eating lunch. Topics included: Toxics Reporting & Community Right to Know (HB
2669/SB 995); Green Jobs: How to give priority to people living in the affected areas so they get the jobs;
What Should be the Priorities for Volkswagen Funding Decisions?; EJ Screening Tools; Cleaner Air
Oregon Advisory Committee: Balancing Representation & Voice; How Uncertainty in the Federal
Regulatory Environment Trickles Down; Air Quality Monitoring & Sensors; How will You Prevent the
Outcome of Pesticide Reporting with No Teeth?; and Follow- Up/More on Cumulative Risk Some groups
also prepared written highlights of their discussion. These highlights are included in the Appendix A.
7. Best Practices for Community Engagement on EJ Issues
Shalini Gupta, Executive Director, Center for Earth, Energy and Democracy (CEED) shared alternatives
to the traditional stakeholder process that can create more impactful community engagement. She noted
that community engagement is an ideal of democracy: those that are most impacted should be part of the
solution-building. Community engagement's fundamental role is to make it possible for the community to
influence decision-making in order to make their community as healthy as possible.
The dominant model for community engagement, the standard stakeholder process with an advisory
committee, is not the preferred way to address EJ issues. In the traditional process, the community gets 1-
2 seats (that are usually hard-fought for seats) among various other stakeholders from industry,
8
-------
academics, government and other interests. The process tends to relegate EJ to a "stakeholder issue"
when it is a fundamental value that should be across the board and part of public-policy making. There are
issues regarding who decides who represents the community; community representatives often are not
chosen by the leadership of EJ groups. There is an uneven playing field in terms of resources/capacities.
There are a lot of professional, paid positions, with resources for research while community organizations
tend not to have the same professional resourcing to be at the table on equal footing.
Community-Centered Analysis Space and Community/Resident Education:
Ms. Gupta introduced an alternative model where Community/Resident Education and Community-
Centered Analysis Space are layered onto this traditional stakeholder process. Within the traditional
process, there is a layer for a Community-Centered Analysis Space, a space for the community to get their
questions answered. This model contemplates using experts chosen and trusted by the community that
work closely with academic allies, and that the process is working with the community's agenda, not
necessarily the stakeholders' agenda. The community has a process to pick who will best represent the
community in the larger process and can negotiate what might be included in final documentation.
The Minneapolis Climate Action Plan process is an example of using the Community-Centered Analysis
Space. The E J community negotiated ahead of time that an E J lens would be included in the appendix of
the Climate Action Plan. City staff also had EJ training by trainers picked by the EJ community. The
process was co-facilitated by a community policy expert and city staff. It included a community-centered
analysis space with community control of the agenda, experts, representation and documentation. In the
final recommendations, the original (unedited) recommendations were included so people could see the
EJ lens on this policy, regardless of what ultimately was decided.
Memorandums of Understanding (MOU): Communities can negotiate Memorandums of
Understanding with government agencies to provide clarity on the relationship, expectations and working
protocols between the Community-Centered Analysis Space and the larger stakeholder process.
Negotiation can include:
• Governance: who serves in the process and how they will be selected, how EJ recommendations
get discussed, voting etc.;
• Communication protocols including notice, documentation and resources provided (stipends,
staffing, printing, translation, etc.);
• Facilitation and Agenda setting (who will facilitate, and how the agenda will be set);
• Training; and
• Fundraising: Funding/resourcing could take different approaches: funding from government
agencies, having some resources staffed by government agencies, agencies raising funds to do
community engagement, foundations providing funding for engagement and capacity-building to
the community. This is an important area for negotiation as there may be some tension between
agencies and organizations due to competition for the same capacity-building funds from funders.
Community/Resident Education: This layer of process considers community education holistically and
consider how to build resident capacity. In traditional processes, there are often set standards on how this
happens. Education and outreach by government staff tends to be held in the area of concern, but the
residents from that neighborhood are not necessarily showing up. There needs to be partnership and
investment in building up residents' capacity to engage. This might mean providing training on
organizing, what regulations are and how they get developed, and education on cumulative impact.
Building capacity means building basic fundamentals, developing popular education, and breaking
concepts down to allow communities to engage. There are organizations that specialize in developing
9
-------
popular education for different types of policy such as The Center for Urban Pedagogy in New York.
CEED has developed popular education around Cap and Trade policies and Clean Power Plan regulation.
Community Engagement Arc:
Another approach to consider is an iterative Community Engagement Arc. In the Arc Model,
Community/Resident Education ideally occurs from the start of a process with the communities most
impacted. A Community-Centered Analysis space is created so that community questions can get
answered by technical experts they trust. Then, they link up with the larger stakeholder process. Once the
regulation or policy is passed, it is important to ensure that there is community engagement and
accountability during implementation.
In closing, Ms. Gupta noted that the traditional process is the only one that currently is institutionalized.
These other processes are happening on an ad hoc basis and there are opportunities and models to make
them part of the community engagement process. She posed the question that if justice in environmental
policy regulations means addressing the distribution of power, then how can these approaches be
institutionalized in order to re-negotiate the power dynamic?
Essential Components for Community Engagement in Oregon: In an interactive exercise, Ms. Gupta
asked participants to identify: 1) an essential component of community engagement that they felt was
critical for the Oregon process moving forward and 2) why it is critical. A summary of the responses is
included in the Appendix of this report. Some highlights and themes are discussed below.
Participants felt that communities are under-resourced regarding capacity-building. Community members
would like to see more resources, funding, and compensation to enable members to effectively participate
and reduce the barriers to engagement. They encouraged more accessible ways of conducting outreach
with communities including going to communities that have the most burden, seeking out centralized
locations, places of business, churches, and hospitals. They suggested that communities be empowered to
hire their own experts to interpret data and formulate their questions. Community education is also
important and access to data needed to be available, relevant and understandable by the community.
There are concerns about equity and over-representation of industry in processes. There is a concern that
the larger the process, the easier it is for community input to be diminished. They stressed the need for
transparent timelines, sustainable engagement and accountability that ensures that the process circles back
to the community. Ultimately, relationship-building between agency staff and community members is a
key component that is needed.
8. Developing Policies Using an EJ Lens: Best Practices and Applications of EJ Principles
Dan Brown. EPA, presented on EPA's Diesel Initiative: A Case Study of Incorporating EJ.
The EPA's Regulation of Air Quality: Dan explained that the EPA regulates air quality through the
Clean Air Act (CAA). There are two main categories of air pollutants: criteria pollutants and air toxics.
Criteria pollutants are commonly occurring air pollutants like particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and
ozone that pose public health threats. The EPA sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards which are
levels of ambient concentrations of pollutants protective of human health. It is the states' role to monitor
the pollution in their state to make sure the ambient levels of air that people are breathing meet the
standards, and if not, develop programs to insure they meet the standards. The other main category of air
pollutants are air toxics. They are referred to as Hazardous Air Pollutants. Congress included 187
hazardous air pollutants in the CAA and mandated that EPA developed standards that limit emissions at
the major known sources. These standards are not health based; they are technology-based, meaning they
generally require the best available technology to reduce pollutants at major industrial sources.
10
-------
Motor Vehicle Emission Standards: The EPA generally regulates engines and fuels together at the
federal level as the CAA prohibits states from setting tailpipe standards for motor vehicles. The EPA
regulated gasoline to take the lead out and then required cars to have catalytic converters to reduce
tailpipe emissions. Similarly, diesel has been regulated to take the sulfur out. The EPA has a very
comprehensive regulatory program with standards for trucks, construction and railroad equipment, and
marine vessels. Collectively, this suite of regulations reduces diesel pollutants by 90 percent. However,
those standards are for new vehicles. Because it takes a long time for a fleet of vehicles to transition over
to the new standards, the EPA does not expect the full benefit of these standards to be realized until 2030.
Diesel Particulate Matter and Health: Mr. Brown explained that regulating diesel engines is important
because they are the source of both criteria air pollutants and air toxics. Exposure to diesel exhaust can
exacerbate asthma and respiratory illnesses, worsen existing heart and lung disease, and result in
increased emergency room visits. Diesel particulate matter is most problematic. The particles are very
small (less than 2.5 microns in diameter as compared to a human hair, which is 50-70 microns in
diameter). It poses the greatest health problems since the tiny particles can get deep into lungs and even
pass into the blood stream.
Diesel pollution through an EJ lens: While national standards that regulate diesel pollution help
produce significant reductions, they do not address disproportionately impacted communities and do not
help prioritize where investments in technology should be made. They are not designed to address urban
areas which tend to have higher levels of diesel pollution concentrations.
Consequently, the EPA has developed EJ-focused tools. In 2005, the Diesel Emission Reduction Act
(DERA) was established. Under DERA, the EPA now has the authority to award grants to reduce diesel
emissions in areas that are disproportionately impacted by diesel emissions. The EPA invites projects with
a priority toward these areas, giving extra credit to projects that indicate a community process was used or
the community was engaged in the proposed project.
The Metropolitan Improvement Project is an example of a project funded in Oregon. The project updated
the technology on non-road and construction equipment for minority-owned businesses. This provides
multiple benefits for the community. The project addresses a population that may not be able to afford to
buy and update their equipment with the clean technology. Also, these companies tend to stay in the local
areas, so the EPA is investing in cleaner equipment that will stay on multiple projects in the same
community. Additionally, when public agencies and universities are funding construction projects, they
can require that the equipment used meet the clean diesel standards. This project helps advance that policy
while reducing barriers for minority businesses to compete.
Ports Initiative: A lot of diesel pollution sources are in port areas due to ships, locomotives, trucks, etc.
Those areas often have a disproportionate impact on the communities adjacent to them. Many times, those
communities are also at an economic disadvantage or are otherwise susceptible to environmental
injustices. Through a stakeholder process, the EPA has put together tools to support these communities.
The EPA has three demonstration projects with the port communities and the Ports of Savannah, New
Orleans and Seattle to demonstrate and improve the tools.
Near-port Community Capacity Building Tools: The Port Primer for Communities is an interactive
tool that is designed to help communities participate more effectively in engaging ports in decision-
making. This occurs by increasing the understanding of the role ports play both locally and in the larger
economic scenarios, and how ports can impact the local land use. The Ports Primer provides examples of
tools and resources that have been used successfully in other areas.
11
-------
The Community Action Roadmap is a companion to the Ports Primer and is based on proven engagement
principles for building community engagement. It is a tool that provides a step-by-step process for
communities to build capacity and prepare for engagement.
Finally, because agencies also struggle to effectively engage with communities, the Draft Environmental
Justice Primer for Ports is directed at the port authorities and provides them with more effective strategies
to consider when engaging communities near them.
These tools and more information on the Ports Initiative can be found at www.epa.gov/ports-initiative
9. Incorporating EJ at the National Level
Holly Wilson, EPA North Carolina, shared specific examples of how the EPA helped build communities'
capacity to effectively participate. She reviewed the EPA definition of E J and the concepts of fair and
meaningful involvement and fair treatment. She presented a continuum of public participation that ranges
from informing to empowering. She noted that the public engagement that is needed is scaled for the type
of regulation/issue. Ultimately, for there to be empowerment, capacity must be built so that people can
effectively participate.
Meaningful Involvement Process — Rulemaking Activities: Ms. Wilson gave examples of activities that
she uses to help create meaningful involvement. Within her group, she does a monthly email of
regulatory actions (as people tend not to review the Federal register). They also use the EJ listserve,
which has over 5000 people on it. They conduct webinars and hold bi-monthly conference calls on
specific topics. They also do in-person training to help deliver information on high profile rules.
Concerning training, it is important that it be community-driven and has a shared power base within the
community. It also is important to have state and industry participation when possible. EPA has started
doing training prior to proposals. They have many capacity building presentations already prepared and
available for use by other communities including: presentations on the Clean Air Act, how to comment,
the public participation process, permitting, woodstoves, presenting testimony in a public hearing, etc.
Training Example — Petroleum Refinery RTR Proposal:
In New Orleans, the community was dealing with a petroleum refinery Risk and Technology Review
(RTR) . They trained the community on how to present testimony at the public hearing. This included
how to handle the impersonal context of the hearing officer ("don't take it personally"), how to talk about
concerns in five minutes, and how to stagger presentations so that the conversations could be continued in
five-minute increments so that the community was able to get the full breadth of concerns. The testimony
was comprehensive, impressive and well-received by the EPA and others.
Training Example - Newport News: there was a facility that had a permit renewal, which had been
grandfathered in multiple times. The training goal was to make sure the community knew how and where
to be involved in the process (e.g. record-keeping, reporting, compliance.) Trainings took place in the
evenings over the phone. The community worked with a local professor and provided comments on the
permit. The permit was paused.
Lessons Learned About Trainings:
• Create a safe environment. People are going to get animated because they are passionate. Have a
good strong facilitator that is aware of all perspectives. The EPA may be able to pay for
facilitators.
12
-------
• Manage expectations: the community needs to understand which set of rules are applicable at that
time. Help people get perspective on what they can live with and help them understand that the
process is not final, but a progression. Agency staff, when new, have a tendency to promise more
than they can deliver. This happens with community too.
• Building relationships means being responsive.
• Try to bring in all the important voices: Tribes, regional, state, local agencies, communities,
NGO's and industry.
• Communication: Do lots of advance notice and phone calls, including operator-assistance calls.
Hear the words: try to understand why the person is upset, not just that they are upset.
• Create trainings that are community-driven and ensure that there is a shared power base with the
community.
Other Tips and Resources:
• Funding: Foundations like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation give grants to community
leaders to solve Wicked Problems with a stipend. The National Institute of Environmental Health
Services will pay for communities to participate in grant review. Her group has also paid
community facilitators and presenters to do training.
• The Art of Commenting by Elizabeth D. Mullin is a great tool for breaking down a regulatory
action. Start with the impact statement or preamble: it is hard to review the entire content of a
rule in a sixty-day period; the impact statement provides a summary.
• Citizen Air Monitoring: Inexpensive air quality sensors that range from $100 to $500 are
becoming available. They are a great tool to do local monitoring. There may be EPA grants
available for purchasing these sensors. There are resources for how to do a study design when
working with these sensors.
10. Closing: Reflecting on Key Messages, Commitments and Next Steps
Multnomah County Commissioner Jessica Vega Pederson acknowledged the participants and the
importance of Environmental Justice from a personal and county government level. She stressed that
Oregon and Multnomah County need to be examples for the rest of the country on prioritizing people and
health first. She said she and her colleagues are doing all they can to support these efforts locally and is
pleased to collaborate with all who attended the workshop.
Charles Lee reiterated that the EPA is here as a resource and it is the EPA's mission to protect the health
and environment of all people. Their goal is to do it in partnership with the community.
Participants discussed what they learned in small groups and were asked to make a commitment on what
each will do differently after this workshop. Participants shared their commitments with the large group.
Themes included continuing to outreach, dialogue and build partnerships within the community,
continuing to advocate for environmental issues and E J, sharing information and resources from this
workshop, and incorporating the E J lens further into their work. A list of commitments is included in the
Appendix of this report.
In closing, Sheryl Stohs, EPA, shared these words from Mary McLeod Bethune, an American educator,
stateswoman, philanthropist, humanitarian and civil rights activist:
"I leave you love. I leave you hope. I leave you the challenge of developing confidence in one
another. I leave you a thirst for education. I leave you a respect for the use ofpower. I leave you
13
-------
faith. I leave you racial dignity. I also leave you a desire to live harmoniously with your fellow
man. I leave you finally a responsibility to our young people. "
This report was written by the impartial facilitation team at DS Consulting. Questions regarding this report can be
sent to Donna Silverberg (donna(a),dsconsult, co) or Nancy Pionk (nancv(a),dsconsult.co).
Respectfully submitted on April 15, 2017
Donna Silverberg
Owner, DS Consulting
14
-------
EPA Making a Visible Difference Portland
Environmental Justice and Air Toxics Workshop
Portland Community Engagement and Capacity Building
LOCATION: Jade/APANO Multicultural Space
8114 SE Division Portland, OR 97206
March 15, 2017
The purpose of this one-day workshop is to build relationships among community members and federal,
state and local agencies, and to develop a shared understanding of regional air quality issues and impacts
to communities with environmental justice concerns.
Education around air quality, diesel emissions, health impacts and tools to assess impacts can help build
capacity to work collaboratively with community and industry members to identify strategies to improve
air quality for the area. People attending the workshop will leave with an enhanced knowledge of state
rulemaking processes, which can help lead to more constructive engagement on areas for action. Agency
attendees will learn tools for meaningfully and effectively engaging with environmental justice
communities on issues that matter to them.
This workshop is a joint work effort of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Neighbors for Clean Air
(NCA), Portland State University (PSU), Multnomah County, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ), and the Oregon Health Authority (OHA). The proposed attendees are local community
groups; state, local, and federal agencies; tribal governments; PSU; and national experts. NCA and PSU
will support additional workshops following this session.
Agenda
8:30 Registration Open
9:00 Welcome and Introduction to the Day — Session facilitators Vernice Miller-Travis & Donna
Silver berg
9:15 Introductions to Local Environmental Justice Leaders and Community Members
• Ben Duncan, Chair, Governor's Environmental Justice Task Force
• Sophia Wilson, Vice-President Lincoln High School Sisters of Color student organization
• Tony DeFalco, Deputy Director, Verde, Living Cully
9:45 Incorporating Environmental Justice into Everyday Actions and Policies—Charles Lee,
Senior Policy Advisor for Environmental Justice at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Charles Lee has been working actively to bring environmental justice issues to the
forefront of thinking and planning at a national level. He will share principles, practices and
examples from of how he and others have successfully integrated EJ into policy making and
thinking.
10:15 Oregon's Current Air Quality Policies and Local Regulatory Context—Richard Whitman,
Director, ODEQ & Gabriel a Goldfarb, Environmental Public Health Section, OHA
Where are we in the Clean Air Oregon process? How can today's discussion and information fit
into that context?
10:45 Break
-------
11:00 Understanding Cumulative Risk and Impacts - Dr. Kristie Eiiickson, State of Minnesota
Dr. Eiiickson will share information on the State of Minnesota's process and outcomes related to
including cumulative risk and impacts on EJ communities in state regulation. This presentation
will be followed by small group discussions on the topic/lessons that could be applied in Oregon.
12:00 Working Lunch (will be available) "Open Space": All participants will be invited to name a
Topic (related to air quality and diesel emissions) and at which table they will be sitting so that
o there may join to discuss the topic
1:15 Best Practices for Community Engagement on EJ Issues — Ms. Shalini Gupta, Executive
Director, Center for Earth, Energy and Democracy
Ms. Gupta will provide information and examples of how her organization has successfully
engaged communities to enhance effective engagement on air polices nationwide. An interactive
format will allow people to engage with her and others at the sessions
2:30 Break
2:45 Message from Multnomah County Chair, Deborah Kafoury
2:55 Developing Policies Using an EJ Lens: Best Practices and Applications of EJ Principles
A panel will address:
• Examples of Incorporating EJ at the National level, Holly Wilson, EPA North Carolina
• EPA's Diesel Initiative: Case Stud}' of Incorporating EJ, Dan Brown, EPA Region 10,
Oregon Operations Office
• Historical Experience at EPA, Charles Lee, EPA Washington DC
4:00 Reflecting on Key Messages, Commitments and Next Steps
Small and large group discussion on the lessons learned and next steps needed in Oregon
4:30 Adjourn
Thank you for your commitment to these issues.
We hope your experience today will support effective engagement now...and in the future!
Thank you to the following for supporting today's workshop:
ealth
Multnomah
County
DEQ
State o( Oregon
Department of
Office of Susta inability Environmental
Quality
-------
March 2017 Air Quality, Diesel Emissions, and Environmental Justice Workshop
Presenters' Biographical Information
Dan Brown, US Environmental Protection Agency, Portland, OR
Dan Brown has spent the past 23 years working for the US Environmental Protection Agency, in both
national and regional offices, implementing voluntary and regulatory programs to reduce air pollution
from energy, industrial and transportation sector sources. He works for EPA's Region 10 Office leading
work on the West Coast Collaborative, Clean Power Plan and the Georgia-Basin/Puget Sound
International AirShed. He has an MS in Environmental Science and Engineering, a BS in Civil Engineering
and is an AEE Certified Energy Manager.
Ben Duncan, Chief Diversity & Equity Officer, Multnomah County and Chair, Governor's
Environmental Justice Task Force
Ben Duncan is the Chief Diversity and Equity Officer for Multnomah County. He has been with the
county since 2004 when he began his career in Environmental Health as a community health worker. He
has since worked as a health educator, policy analyst and manager of the Health Equity Initiative. In
each of these roles, his work has always focused on the relationships between our social, economic, and
environmental conditions and racial and ethnic disparities.
Ben is the founding board member of OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon, an organization that
organizes low income and people of color to build power for environmental justice and civil rights in the
community. He also serves as Chair of the Oregon Governor's Environmental Justice Taskforce, and
recently became Chair of Oregon Public Health Institute's Board.
Kristie Ellickson, State of Minnesota's Pollution Control Agency
Kristie Ellickson joined the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in 2007 after completing her
Ph.D. at Rutgers University and postdoctoral work at both Rutgers and the University of Wisconsin-
Madison. Prior to her academic pursuits, she was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer in the country of
Panama. As a graduate student and post doc she conducted research on trace metal speciation and
bioavailability in a variety of environmental matrices.
Dr. Ellickson's work at the MPCA includes: the incorporation of cumulative risk and impact assessment
principles into regulatory risk; the review of human health risk assessments for large permitted facilities;
and she has been the lead investigator on an EPA community-scale air toxics grant targeting passive and
active air sampling for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in an urban and rural environment.
Tony DeFalco, Verde, Portland, OR
Tony DeFalco is the Living Cully Ecodistrict Coordinator at Verde, coordinating the nation's first equity
driven ecodistrict designed to re-interpret sustainability as an anti-poverty strategy. His expertise in
community economic development, environmental protection and sustainability spans 15 years of
working locally and nationally in environmental advocacy, coalition building and policy advocacy. His
current focus includes redevelopment of a landfill into a park in a low-income neighborhood in Portland
and strengthening communities of color and low-income communities in deriving economic benefit
-------
from environmental investments.
He is a founding board member of the Center for Diversity and the Environment and serves as a trustee
of Earthjustice. He also serves on the Port of Portland's Citizen Advisory Committee and the Portland
Development Commission's Neighborhood Economic Development Council. Tony holds a master's
degree in Natural Resources Planning and Interpretation from Humboldt State University and a
bachelor's degree in Ethnic Studies from the University of California at Berkeley.
Gabriela Goldfarb, Oregon Health Authority's Environmental Public Health Section
Gabriela Goldfarb joined the Oregon Health Authority, Public Health Division in September 2016 as
manager of OHA's Environmental Public Health Section. She oversees the agency's programs to advance
science-based actions that protect people from environmental threats where they live, work, and play,
including lead and other hazardous exposures, climate change impacts, pesticide incidents, food safety,
and more. Before joining OHA, Ms. Goldfarb served from 2012 - 2016 as a natural resources policy
advisor in the Oregon Office of the Governor. Her portfolio included ocean and coastal matters, toxics,
air and land quality, environmental justice, and natural resource impacts of marijuana legalization.
Gabriela's prior experience includes a decade as an ocean and coastal policy consultant, Deputy Director
of For the Sake of the Salmon, Federal Programs Manager for the California Coastal Commission, and
Senior Consultant for a toxics regulatory consulting firm. Gabriela has a Master's in Public Policy from
the Harvard Kennedy School and is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley.
Shalini Gupta, Center for Earth, Energy and Democracy, Minneapolis, MN
Shalini Gupta is the co-founder and Executive Director of the Center for Earth, Energy and Democracy
(CEED). Her work is focused on forging solutions to our environmental crises that are grounded in
economic and social history. Shalini has worked with a range of organizations from local grassroots
groups to international organizations engaging in the promotion of sound environmental policy and
environmental justice. She was a governor appointee to the Minnesota's Next Generation Energy Board,
with prior positions at the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory and as the senior
energy associate at the IWLA Midwest office.
Ms. Gupta currently is on the leadership bodies of the national Climate Justice Alliance and the Midwest
Environmental Justice Network, working to promote equitable and sustainable policies at the
community level and across the country. Shalini is a former Bush Leadership Fellow, holds a B.S. in the
geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago and a Master's degree in environmental
management from Yale University.
Charles Lee, Senior Policy Advisor for Environmental Justice, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington D.C.
Mr. Lee is widely recognized as a true pioneer in the arena of environmental justice. He was the
principal author of the landmark report, Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. He helped to
spearhead the emergence of a national environmental justice movement and federal action including
the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, Executive Order 12898, EPA's
Office of Environmental Justice, National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), and the
Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice.
2
-------
Charles Lee is currently the Senior Policy Advisor for Environmental Justice at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). In this capacity, he leads the development and implementation of EPA's
agency-wide environmental justice strategic plans, i.e., Plan EJ 2014 and now EJ 2020. He has served in
multiple capacities, ranging from creating the United Church of Christ's environmental justice program
to directing EPA's environmental justice office. He was a charter member of the NEJAC, where he
chaired its Waste and Facility Siting committee, as well as serving on Institute of Medicine Committee on
Environmental Justice and numerous other panels. In these capacities, he led efforts to incorporate
environmental justice into EPA's rulemaking process, develop models for collaborative problem-solving,
transform brownfields redevelopment into a community revitalization paradigm, advance approaches to
address cumulative risks and impacts, and lay a strong science foundation for integrating environmental
justice into decision-making.
Mr. Lee has authored numerous papers, reports, journals and articles on environmental justice over the
past three decades. He is the recipient of many awards for his work, including the EJ Pioneer Award
from the EPA Administrator on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the signing of Executive Order
12898. In February 2017, the 122nd Session of the South Carolina House of Representatives passed
Resolution H*3732 to honor his work.
Vernice Miller-Travis, Skeo Solutions, Charlottesville, VA
Vernice is a Senior Associate in the Community Planning and Design Group of Skeo Solutions. She
provides technical expertise for collaborative planning and design services in area-wide brownfields
revitalization, community sustainability and environmental justice. Vernice has expertise in brownfields
redevelopment and community revitalization, collaborative problem solving, multi-stakeholder design
and planning, and environmental justice. Her interests have focused on environmental restoration and
the inclusion of low-income, people of color, and indigenous communities in environmental decision
making at the federal, state, local and tribal levels.
Prior to joining Skeo Solutions, Ms. Miller-Travis served as the Director of the Environmental Justice
Initiative of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a Program Officer at the Ford Foundation, Executive
Director of Groundwork USA, and co-founder of We ACT for Environmental Justice. She also serves on
the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council to EPA, and as Vice-Chair of the Maryland
Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities, where she leads an effort to
encourage state and local governments to consider the environmental and public health dimensions of
local land-use and zoning decisions.
Donna Silverberg, DS Consulting, Portland, OR
Donna is the owner and principal of DS Consulting who has been a practicing mediator/facilitator for
over 25 years. Since 1998, she has been facilitating large, technically complex natural resource and
public health issues in the northwest, with a focus on the interface between state, federal and municipal
agencies and tribal governments, and the communities they serve.
Prior to starting her own firm, she served as the manager of Oregon's Public Policy Dispute Resolution
Program from 1994-1998, with part of that time also serving as Governor John Kitzhaber's Special
Assistant on Dispute Resolution for natural resource issues. From 1990-1994 she was the Assistant
Director of the Center for Municipal Dispute Resolution in San Diego, CA where she mediated a wide
variety of issues involving the City's diverse communities. She received her B.A. in Sociology from Lewis
and Clark College and her J.D. from the University of San Diego's School of Law.
3
-------
Holly Wilson, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Standards and
Planning
Holly focuses her work with the EPA Regional Coordinators to educate local communities across the
nation on air quality concerns. She provides resources and tools to help communities understand and
reduce their risk to air toxics. Prior to this assignment, she produced numerous satellite broadcasts and
videos on new and emerging air pollution control issues. She has worked as a compliance inspector with
the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission, a training manager with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, and as a sales executive with Kraft Foods Inc. Holly received
her B.A. in Psychology from the University of South Florida and now resides in North Carolina.
Sophia Wilson, Vice-President, Lincoln High School's Sisters of Color student organization
Sophia Wilson is a junior at Lincoln High School. She is Vice President of the Sisters of Color, a student
organization established to support a safe place for women students of color at Lincoln. The group
meets regularly to discuss issues about social justice and often take field trips, one of which was a trip to
visit Governor Brown on Valentine's Day to raise awareness about air quality issues in Portland. She also
is Vice President of the Pacific Island Student Union, as well as an active member of Black Student Union.
She is very active in her community and is always looking for things to get involved in.
Richard Whitman, Director, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Richard Whitman grew up in the Boston area and emigrated with his wife Emily to the west coast in
1984 where he worked on community economic development programs in low-income areas around
the State of California. After being inspired to become involved in environmental issues in law school at
U.C. Berkeley, he moved to Portland, where he joined the law firm of Ball, Janik. In 1996, he took the
opportunity to go back into public service, joining Attorney General Hardy Meyers as the head of the
Natural Resources Section in Oregon DOJ. Mr. Whitman became the Director of the Oregon Department
of Land Conservation and Development in 2008, where he led efforts to organize state work on climate
adaptation, to protect the Metolius River, and to improve Oregon's urban growth management
program. In 2011, he was named as the Policy Director of the Governor's Natural Resources Office,
where he coordinated the work of the 14 Oregon agencies involved in environmental protection and
resources management. The Environmental Quality Commission appointed Mr. Whitman as the Interim
Director of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in the fall of 2016, and as the Director in
February 2017.
-------
March 15. 2017 EPA EJ and Air Toxics Workshop - Lunch Table Discussions
Toxics Reporting & Community Right to Know (HB 2669/SB 995) - Kathryn Saltzman
• Community impacts - access to data results in meaningful participation
• We learned that there will be a public hearing on HB 2669 on Monday (3/20) at 3pm!
Green Jobs: How to give priority to people living in the affected areas get the jobs - Patricia
Toledo (MLK Worker Center)
• How to give priority to people living in the affected areas get the jobs
• Contractors working for the city of Portland should be required to look for local workers
• Training local workers in new technology practices
• Regulate/Require city environmental programs to hire local workers where the program
takes place
• In public participation practices and building community knowledge, consider popular
education methodology to explain concepts and collect ideas for solutions
• Do not decide for us, without us
• Enforcement - how you are making sure green jobs requirements will be met
What Should be the Priorities for Volkswagen Funding Decisions? - Kevin Downing (ODQ)
• Supporting work in larger context
• How to engage and reinforce advocacy in political realm
• How to involve the following during outreach:
o Minority, other impacted communities
o Community advisory committee
o Translation services
• Outreach based on EJ factors
o Identify high pollution areas
o Identify EJ & other disproportionate impacts
o Rural vs.Urban populations
o Cost effectiveness
EJ Screening Tools - Sheryl Stohs (EPA)
• Why is the topic important?
o EJ screen provides a way for community members to visualize the problems in
their communities
o EJ screen provides an invaluable tool for planners to understand the underlying
concerns & realities in marginalized communities
o EJ screen provides a visualization on how pollutants & demographics can be
understood together
• What did you learn?
o How to use EJ screen in order to garner data on a community's cumulative risk
within the definition of environmental justice
o How to use EJ screen to create a working assessment of communities that are at
risk (create patterns, etc.)
1 | P a g e
March 15. 2017 EPA EJ and Air Toxics Workshop - Lunch Table Discussions
-------
o Over 70% in the E J percentile raises concerns
• What will happen next to move this forward?
o Spread a working knowledge of EJ screen to community members (workshops,
etc.)
o Make sure to include community output on the tool and the workshop process
o Marry the concepts of environmental justice and cumulative risk to EJ screen as a
tool
o Include EJ screen tool within groups & organizations to increase an understanding
& awareness of environmental justice
Cleaner Air Oregon Advisory Committee: Balancing Representation & Voice
• Importance: Fair representation & balance of voices
• Learned:
o Government needs to be more empathetic when addressing community concerns
o Voices are more equal than thought / perceived
¦ 8-Comm, 6-Gov't, 8-Industry
o Engage community for open comment period
How Uncertainty in the Federal Regulatory Environment Trickles Down
• Taking local enforcement less seriously
• Intensifying already tense budget discussions
• Limiting investment in advancing technologies
• Opportunities for grassroots ownership
(No handwritten notes available for the following topics)
Air Quality Monitoring & Sensors - Holly Wilson (EPA)
How will You Prevent the Outcome of Pesticide Reporting with No Teeth? - Lila Wickham
Follow-Up / More on Cumulative Risk - Kristie
2 | P a g e
March 15, 2017 EPA EJ and Air Toxics Workshop - Lunch Table Discussions
-------
EPA Making a Visible Difference Portland
Environmental Justice and Air Toxics Workshop
March 15, 2017
Shalini Gupta Discussion: Essential Components of Community Engagment
Participants were asked to identify:
1) an essential component of community engagement that they felt was critical for the Oregon
process moving forward and 2) why it is critical.
Effective Outreach and Engagement
• Reach out through community liaisons
o Targeted focus groups
o Technology
• Every community is different
• Localized outreach/issue near facilities
• Targeting places in addition to people
• Many community & neighborhood associations in Portland
• Outreach programs from state to groups
• School health nurse as gateway to community
• National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (NEJAC)
• Open line of communication between state and community
• Widespread dissemination of information
• Find access points
• Be at the forefront of the mind
• "Nothing about [investing in community spaces] us without us."
• Need clarity and agreement on definition of indigenous communities to cover tribes and
urban native populations
• Knowing community - get in the weeds
• Communicate to the communities that are affected that they are being affected
• Go where your stakeholders are at - engage their leaders
Reduce Barriers For Engagement
• The affected community needs to be part of conversation and reducing barriers.
o Traditional methods are not conducive to this as community members are not paid
to attend workshops,
o Having meetings in the evening and child care is not sufficient
o All-day forums are not practical
• Have meetings in centralized / convenient locations, accessible by the community:
churches, hospitals, radio, community centers.
o Go where the people are, places of business and talking to workers there
1|Page
March 15, 2017 EJ Air Toxics Workshop - S. Gupta Discussion: Essential Components of Community Engagement
-------
o Adjust communication standards to make sure there is understanding and
engagement
Essential elements needed for Cleaner Air Oregon Process
Timely Question: Can Oregon develop a cumulative health benchmark?
Minnesota Pollution Control Authority identifies not having a cumulative health benchmark as a
barrier within their state.
Oregon's Gaps - Need for:
• Syncing up OHA & DEQ data
o Mapping health data or data collected by health agencies with DEQ data
including: demographics, cancer, asthma, radon, water toxics
• Community-level engagement
o Actual positions within DEQ & OHA that focus on community-level
communications & relationship building
• Industry has had a greater voice in OR DEQ processes
• Clean Air Oregon
o Stakeholder process
o Tally today showed more even
• Inequity among representatives at the table - AOI vs Community group
Building Capacity to Engage
• Community is under-resourced to engage
• Avoiding tokenization and exploitation (providing compensation for community
members to participate). Food and babysitting is not enough.
• Resource the community; when writing a grant, hire community members instead of
asking for volunteers
• Deal with under-resourcing by providing child care and food
• Make knowledge not just data accessible to the public and share so people don't have to
re-invent the wheel. The community already know what they need/impacts
• Empower communities to have/hire their own experts to interpret data and formulate their
questions
• Empower communities to understand how to influence action, at what level of
government - hard for average resident to know what to do or who to approach
• Access to data and information are empowering tool for communities
o Needs to be available and legible.
o Use Technology that is relevant/understandable by the community
o Use language that is accessible
• Allow time and capacity for average citizen to engage
• Create avenues for engagement
2|Page
March 15, 2017 EJ Air Toxics Workshop - S. Gupta Discussion: Essential Components of Community Engagement
-------
• Foundations and other community institutions need to step up to resource community
groups/leaders
• Foster leadership and paths to decision-making positions for people of color and low
income populations
• Pushing for education/professional institutions to graduate/hire people from target
communities
• There must be pre-work; Funding could come from penalties that are currently being
allocated to the general fund
• Get money to groups that don't have means to go to events to be able to attend
workshops/meetings
Stakeholder Process
• Need transparent timeline for EJ community; need all communities to be engaged
• Need meaningful input from community members; they don't need to feel engaged but
to be engaged. "Nothing about us without us."
• How to keep full community engagement through the entire process
• Keeping the process as a sustained process - follow through with committments to the
very finish
• Need a clear path from the community analysis space to the final decision.
• Accountability: there needs to be a commitment from leadership regarding
accountability. The process needs to circle back to the community.
• The larger the process, the easier it is for the community input to get diminished.
• How to listen to community representatives
• Concern about equity
• Industry has significant voice - is over-represented and paid to be there.
o Community needs to be over-represented.
o Building relationships - greater accountability - relationships exist and there is
accountability to those relationships.
• Community-centered analysis space
• Sustained process, commitment
• Creating Memorandums of Understanding
• Interactive - Key Piece
o Community input
o Have to include community
• Community input is needed on enforcement mechanism. Community enforcement needs
to be viable. Need a critical focus on long-term management - more than just sending
letters
Relationship Building
• Pre-existing relationships
• Trust
• Provide education opportunities around issues and allow individuals from impacted
communities to tell their own stories.
3|Page
March 15, 2017 EJ Air Toxics Workshop - S. Gupta Discussion: Essential Components of Community Engagement
-------
• Listen to community stories with intention. Agencies need to listen - communities need
to tell. That is also empowering.
• Hear from the community with the valued expertise
• Acknowledging community difference
• Challenge to agency representatives:
o As managers - should be judged on ability to sustain community engagement
o Have specific staff assigned to maintain these relationships
o Hire people from communities based on experience not education,
o "Never ask a question you don't really want an answer to."
4|Page
March 15, 2017 EJ Air Toxics Workshop - S. Gupta Discussion: Essential Components of Community Engagement
-------
EJ Air Toxics Workshop - Commitment Notes
Workshop attendees provided commitments in response to...
"In order to advance the ideas and actions put forward today, I commit to doing the following":
Work on long-term plans for building partnerships with community partners to address
environmental justice.
JS
OHA
Continue enviro outreach via non-profit Fernhill Wetlands Council - both directions up to
elected's and out to the voice of the people. Civic engagement through supporting clean air,
water, soil - protected and more enviro. Sensitivity in our forests. Community organize - help
connect local groups from the kitchen table to action in our democracy. Humans over party
politics.
Victoria Lowe
Fernhill Wetlands Council
Advocating for environmental justice for clean air and other natural resources. I will try methods
mentioned to conjure community involvement from a diverse group of perspectives. I will make
sure that other members on the commission I serve on, know just how much disproportional
effects affect people of diverse backgrounds, hopefully resulting in due action & consideration.
Melanie Estrada
Forest Grove Sustainability Commission
• Report to my neighborhood association & my coalition (SE Uplift) on this meeting
• Share meeting report/videos, etc. with the above groups and anyone else I can interest
• Continue to track/attend Clean Air Oregon process & meetings
• Continue to track legislation & write those letters via Neighbors for Clean Air
updates/alerts
Linda Nettekoven
HAND
Serve the marginalized, under-served, and low-income communities to provide equal access to
sustainable practice, green spaces, and environmental education as well as to empower future
environmental leaders and stewards.
Samantha Springs
Confluence Environmental Center/Americorps
Portland Public Schools
I commit to incorporating the environmental justice lens in my forthcoming preparation of
testimony for my agency in regard to HB2669: Toxics Community Right to Know.
Perry Cabot
Multnomah County Health Department
1|Page
March 15, 2017 EPA EJ Air Quality Session - Commitments
-------
I will bring the lessons learned today to my work team and incorporate them into our workplan,
development and community engagement processes.
Jennifer Karps
Portland Environmental Services
Ensure that Oregon's EJ laws, policies, priorities are a part of decision making processes that I
am involved in at the Oregon Health Authority.
Kari Christensen
Oregon Health Authority
Follow up with some of the resources Holly presented. Question my assumptions about how to
engage with community, and improve. Make clear commitments and follow through. Investigate
MOU as tool of effective and authentic community partnerships between government and
community.
Tim Lynch
Multnomah County Office of Sustainability
• Develop more relationships
• Learn about sensors & citizen science
• Help with PSU study monitoring
• Testify
• Outreach to electeds
Shana Canote
South Portland Air Quality
Keeping Oregon's EJ statute at the forefront of my thoughts/plans and work.
Matt Davis
Soon to be Oregon DEQ
To remain in dialogue with environmental justice communities seeking to protect and restore
their health, to have their voice heard in decisions that affect them when state government takes
action.
Gabriela Goldfarb
Oregon Health Authority
To continue meaningful outreach to EJ communities... to recognize their experiences and honor
their truth... and to advocate for brownfield redevelopment that results in the creation of assets
that will benefit the existing and historical community.
Claudia Christensen Garcia
City of Portland - Brownfield Program
Continue to reach out to community members earlier in the process before a regulatory action
happens, to build relationships and learn from the community what matters to them.
Nina DeConcini
2|Page
March 15, 2017 EPA EJ Air Quality Session - Commitments
-------
Oregon DEQ
• Look for the opportunities to engage communities in advance of need.
• Learn cross-cultural communication techniques.
Kevin Downing
Oregon DEQ
Learn about the best practices agencies can use to engage with communities and put them into
practice.
EPA
Work in partnership for collaborative solutions for all Oregonians.
Sophia Aguilera
OEC
Explore county analysis in decision making, inform myself on EJ lens (to better recognize tenets)
and support resourcing communities to facilitate & lead efforts to serve their own needs/values.
Julia Babcoch
Oregon Solutions
Be available and listen for the voices of the EJ community.
Jo Niehaus
Lane Regional Air Protection Agency
Engage more with my community.
Keep the conversation going.
Work to find ways to involve community groups in many DEQ processes.
Bring lessons learned to my counterparts at the regional solutions team.
Cheryl Grabham
Oregon DEQ
Building bridges between underserved PDX communities and government agencies and non-
profits. And planting more trees, of course!
3 | Pa
March 15, 2017 EPA EJ Air Quality Session - Commitments
-------
Appendix B.
Resources & Video Links
(Click on a title to jump to section)
Environmental Justice Citizen Advocate Position
CEED Template Points of Agreement: Policy Community Engagement Workshop
Handout
Summary of the Elements of a Cumulative Impact Analysis
The Art of Commenting: Overview
Video Links & Online Resources
-------
Environmental Justice Citizen Advocate Position
Background
Oregon DEQ is committed to the principles of Environmental Justice and strives to ensure that
the agency's actions address the interests of Oregon communities, including minority, low-
income and other traditionally underrepresented communities, including rural communities.
DEQ's environmental justice efforts are guided by state and federal laws.
Federal laws include Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Federal Executive Order 12898.
With implementation of Oregon's Environmental Justice law (Oregon Revised Statutes 182.535-
182.550) in January 2008, Oregon DEQ and other state agencies became subject to new
environmental justice requirements. The law requires agencies to consider environmental justice
when determining whether and how to act, providing greater public participation to all people
affected by decisions, and creating a citizen advocate position to support this work. The state
definition of this work follows:
182.545 Duties of natural resource agencies. In order to provide greater public
participation and to ensure that all persons affected by decisions of the natural resource
agencies have a voice in those decisions, each natural resource agency shall:
(1) In making a determination whether and how to act, consider the effects of the
action on environmental justice issues.
(2) Hold hearings at times and in locations that are convenient for people in the
communities that will be affected by the decisions stemming from the hearings.
(3) Engage in public outreach activities in the communities that will be affected by
decisions of the agency.
(4) Create a citizen advocate position that is responsible for:
(a) Encouraging public participation;
(b) Ensuring that the agency considers environmental justice issues; and
(c) Informing the agency of the effect of its decisions on communities
traditionally underrepresented in public processes. [2007 c.909 §4]!
DEQ's near-term EJ work
DEQ's programs and activities integrate the principles and requirements of Environmental
Justice into their operations. The efforts noted below represent DEQ's commitments through
internal practices and cooperative work with local, state and federal partners for the 2016-2018.
DEQ's EJ citizen advocate participates in some of this work.
In 2016-18, Oregon DEQ will continue efforts to further the progress of EJ in Oregon. This will
include:
1 Note: 182.535 to 182.550 were enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a part
of ORS chapter 182 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further
explanation.
-------
Partnerships
• Collaborate with EPA and other states to share information about current EJ issues,
activities and events applicable to Oregon
• Coordinate with other state natural resource and health agencies, and local environmental
public health agencies to develop and share tools for EJ activities in Oregon, such as a
tool to take into account demographic indicators for prioritizing work and sharing
environmental public health with communities with environmental justice concerns
• Consult with the Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force for guidance about tools to
more deeply integrate EJ principles and requirements into DEQ operations
• Participate in, and work with EPA on, any national or regional EJ efforts or initiatives,
such as EPA Region 10's Making a Visible Difference steering committee
• Coordinate with EPA to develop EJ trainings for specific Oregon DEQ programs
• Consult with state and local environmental public health agencies to incorporate EJ
considerations into programs, such as priorities for air toxics site investigation
• Collaborate with EPA to identify LEP individuals who need language assistance using
data such as EJ Screen, the latest census data, or information from DEQ
Outreach
• Diversify Oregon DEQ's advisory committees and workgroups, including, but not limited
to, participants representing environmental justice issues
• Establish DEQ protocols for culturally appropriate community engagement, taking into
account demographic indicators and Limited English Proficiency
Tools
• Develop a tool to take into account demographic indicators for prioritizing DEQ's work
• Explore opportunities to focus Supplemental Environmental Project funds resulting from
civil penalties for environmental law violations in communities with environmental
justice concerns
• Develop a Limited English Proficiency implementation plan with measureable outcomes
to address the identified needs of LEP populations and provide guidance for Oregon DEQ
• Continue to develop an agency implementation and staff training plan, with outcome-
based measurements, for using EPA's EJ Screen when DEQ decisions may affect
communities with identified or potential EJ concerns
Accountability
• Consult with the Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force to measure success while
developing the Environmental Justice section of the next PPA; review work completed
during the previous grant cycle and seek task force input about how to improve moving
forward
• Reduce localized impacts of air toxics in communities with environmental justice
concerns statewide through the Cleaner Air Oregon regulatory reform program
• Incorporate EJ and cultural competency expectations and understanding implicit cultural
bias in Oregon DEQ manager position descriptions and performance management
materials
-------
• Ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This includes
participating in EPA sponsored training and/or guidance to help achieve compliance with
Title VI
• Take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to programs and activities that impact
LEP persons, by following the four factors according to 69 Fed. Reg. 3502 (June 25,
2004), at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2004-06-25/pdf/04-14464.pdf
(1) the number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be
encountered
(2) the frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with or impacted by
program/activities
(3) the nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the
ODEQ to people's lives; and
(4) the resources available including costs considerations
• Provide notice to LEP persons that language services are available and that they are free
of charge
Training
• Maintain an online training for environmental justice that is available to all employees
• Strongly encourage all managers and staff whose primary work responsibilities include
permitting or field work to complete the online EJ training
• Provide all DEQ employees opportunities to access training in cultural competency and
understanding implicit cultural bias
• Provide all DEQ employees opportunities to access training about DEQ's tool to evaluate
demographic indicators for prioritizing work and engaging communities
• Coordinate Technical Assistance/Training needs for Title VI and LEP with EPA
• Provide training to managers and staff regarding LEP policies and procedures
• Provide training in the use of EJ Screen, in collaboration with EPA, with a strong focus
on managers and staff whose primary work responsibilities include permitting,
enforcement, or field work
If additional funding for EJ work in Oregon is available and awarded, Oregon DEQ will use it
for the activities below:
• Reduce barriers to participation by communities with environmental justice concerns in
public meetings and hearings convened by Oregon DEQ, by providing childcare, food
and opportunities for interpreters
• Improve outreach for public meetings and hearings convened by Oregon DEQ to include
targeted materials based on demographic information for communities. For example,
work with county environmental public health agencies to understand languages spoken
in communities, and translate outreach and communication tools as appropriate
• Implement recommendations in Oregon DEQ's statewide Toxics Reduction Strategy to
reduce toxic pollution to Oregon's air, water and land, which may have disproportionate
effects on environmental justice communities
• Implement recommendations from the Portland Air Toxics Solutions Recommendations
that address Environmental Justice communities as determined by the Environmental
Justice Analysis conducted for the project
-------
[CEED Template]
Points of Agreement between (Government
Agency)
and (Community Group(s))
Purpose: To be clear on expectations among the two parties, so as to not have mis communication,
establish working protocols, and build a solid basis for long term engagement on policy development
and implementation.
This relates specifically to the policy planning process that is underway by the
State'City of . Articulation of this relationship will enhance the long term
environmental and social sustainability of the policy, as frontline community (those that are most
impacted by the policy) meaning6j1 engagement is central to good policy-making and democratic
lir.nifii nn-making
The following are key areas ofdiscussion - the points listed are starting points to determine what is
important for your community's specific policy and engagement goals with the government agency for a
specific policy. They were developed through CSSD's e?perience with policy stakeholder processes and
workshop training around Elective Community Engagement Models for EJ Policy-Juhking You can
haw different agreements depending on the policy regulatory process or agency. CEED recommends
the following steps :
1. A community group or coalition have a facilitated discussion among their members on these key
points to first determine their own priorities and needs.
2. Enter into a facilitated discussion with an official with decision-making}sighting capacity at the
government entity you are focusing on, to negotiate final points of agreement.
3. You can hire a facilitator or ask the government entity to provide the resources for a neutral
party.
4. You may want a legal review ofthe final document that results, but not required if resources are
limited
5. Ivkike sure all parties sign the final agreement, so you haw it and can reference it for future
accountability and work.
I. Communication
• Amount of notice time government agency should give community groups on key decision points?
• Who is the official point of contact at the government agency for the community groups?
• What is the community's exp ectation of a communication plan (during policy development and
during implementation) by the government agency to inform frontline community residents, the
broader public, that may not part of any official policy stakeholder planning process?
• "Will there be coordination of community engagement done by the official government agency
process with the community groups (co-planning)?
• Multilingual needs o f documents, at meetings?
Template Points of Agreement - Workshop Handout
Center for Earth, Energy and Democracy (CEED)
Updated Much 2017
N
-------
[CEED Template]
II. Policy Body Governance
• Process by which who from the community side will serve on the stakeholder process will be
made (i.e. community group/coalition elects their representative or government body
decides)?
• Decisi on making process, voting, etc. (of individuals versus those representing coalitions -
weight of vote)?
• Make-up of the stakeholder panel - how many seats, what is fair representation?
• What does meaningful representation mean? Do you need a separate space for an
environmental justice working group on the policy?
• How will EJ/community recommendations be documented and retained (i.e. as an appendix)
before they enter any larger stakeholder negotiated language?
• What resources will be provided for community group representatives, if any, to participate
on panel? (paiking, stipends, food, etc...)
• What resources will be provided to community organizations for outreach on the policy?
• What resources will be provided to community organizations for research they control (i.e.
decide the researcher, the questions that get researched) so they have the technical support
they need?
• How will community groups will be communicated with if government agencies seek
foundation dollars for civic engagement activities, to not compete with community
organizations for funding, and so that proposals can be submitted in a partnership manner that
builds the capacity of both parties?
• What staff at the stated ity will be providing technical support to the community
representatives? What is the level of experience of that staff member (not entry-level)?
• What will be the community engagement process for determining mitigation
resources'efforts investments in the community (i.e. from regulatory fees, legal settlements,
etc)?
• "Will there be joint-facilitation of policy/stakeholder agenda setting process? What is the
process of identifying a neutral facilitator, a facilitator with EJ experience?
• "Will the facilitators be equally compensated?
• How will community groups and government agencies reach joint understanding of key
decision points and timeline of when key decisions are made, ahead of time, so community
has time to reflect, research and deliberate?
• What will be the prioritization process of policy recommendations when moving to
implementation phase?
V. Training
• "Will the government agency be needing any further trainings around environmental justice?
• On what topic, who decides who the trainers are? Is it a policy training, community
engagement training?
III. Resources
IV. Facilitation and Agenda-Setting
Template Points of Agree ment - Workshop Handout
Center for Earth, Energy and Deraoc racy (CEED)
Updated fvkrch 2017
-------
Summary of The Elements of A Cumulative Impact Analysis
Source: Dr. Kristie Ellickson. State of Minnesota. Pollution Control Agency.
• Sensitivity: This relates to standards based on sensitive life stages. It is the degree of a
response to a stimulus. For example, humans respond to bee stings in different ways:
there may be no impact, an itchy bump, or medication may be required to stay alive.
Standards are cumulative if they protect the most sensitive parts of the population. One
possibility in permitting is to develop health benchmarks for the most sensitive
population for a certain pollutant. This could mean benchmarks for asthmatics, being
elderly, having existing diseases; early life exposure (0-2 years old), etc.
• Additivity: This analysis considers the effects and risks of multiple pollutants, i.e.
whether exposure to each of the pollutants has an additive effect. The analysis could also
add pollutants based on a single health effect relative to one pollutant that is well-known
and that sets potency equivalents. This analysis is also helpful when assessing mixtures
that may contain multiple pollutants.
• Multiple Pathways: These are different ways that people are exposed to pollutants
(eating, drinking, breathing, contact with skin, showering, swimming, etc.) Health
benchmarks can be developed that assume people are exposed to more pathways than
one. For example, if one looks at both inhalation and ingestion at the same time, that is a
cumulative component of an analysis.
• Multiple Sources: This approach adds in the effects of other nearby sources such as
cars, other factories, runoff, etc. It could include looking at all the emissions of the
facility, not just the project under consideration. It could include what is already there as
well as historical depositions.
• Non-Chemical Stressors: This approach considers elements/impacts in the environment
that are not chemicals such as chronic stress, noise, crime, historic trauma, aesthetics,
lack of green space and infectious agents such as Cryptosporidium. This is a cutting-edge
concept and there is not a lot of data on this yet
• Community Vulnerability: This is an analysis that relates to a community's resilience
and considers that there may be greater susceptibility to pollution due to other challenges.
Forexample, if a person was stung by a bee, vulnerability relates to the ability to access
an Epi pen, healthcare funds to buy an Epi pen or protective equipment, or living in a
community infested by bees. Other examples include historic exposures, structural
racism, access to emergency preparedness and management funding, land use and
stewardship issues, language barriers, lack of health care, lack of engagement of elected
officials, unmaintained housing, etc.
-------
Overview — The Art of Commenting
2nd Edition
Elizabeth D. Mullin
Environmental Law Institute
http://store.westacademic.eom/s.nl/it.A/id.9157/.f
$30 online new ($2.99+ used)
Free 4 page booklet adapted from book @ http://eli-ocean.org/wp-content/blogs. dir/2/files/Making-
Y our-V oice-Heard.pdf
Tips for Submitting Effective Public Comments by NO A A Fisheries Service @
https:// alaskafisheries .noaa. gov/ sites/ default/files/ effectivecomments .pdf
~ Track agency actions to know when things come up
• Federal Register
• Agency websites
• Various publications that report on current environmental events (BNA)
• RSS feeds
• Get on mailing, email lists and listservers
• Find an Agency staff "buddy"
~ Know the deadlines for receipt of comments
• How to comment information generally up front in notices
o General comment period is 30 days
• Ask for an extension if you think you'll need one
~ Coordinate your comments with others to strengthen your position
• Like-minded groups, organizations or businesses (environmental groups, community organizers)
• Coordinate with others who you expect will comment (environmental law clinics)
• Groups who may have slightly different positions (trade associations)
~ Identify supplemental background information
• Statues and law governing regulation
o Statues are legally binding. If document is not consistent with statute or pertinent
regulations, there may be grounds for a lawsuit. Statues can have broad goals such as
NEPA Section 101 https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA File/nepa statute.pdf
o Free legal resources at www.law.cornell.edu (links to federal and state environmental
laws)
• Case law interpreting statues
• Other pertinent regulations
• Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
• Permits
• Agency materials, guidelines, guidance and toolkits
• Studies, reports, data, analyses
• Newspaper clippings
1
-------
Comments from sister agencies
Consent decrees, orders
~ Collect background information
• Agency Websites
• Agency Libraries
• Government Printing Office (www.gpo.gov)
• National Technical Information Service (www.ntis.org)
• Government Depository Libraries
• Dockets
• Hotlines
• Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc. gov) - goes back to 1973
• Freedom of Information Act Requests (FOIA)
o www.foia.gov
o www.nfoic.org - National Freedom of Information Coalition links to FOIA information
for each state
o Cost associated with request, some provisions exist for waiving fees (Agency-by-Agency)
o Try free online resources first
• Nongovernment sources (environmental law clinics)
• Your Agency "buddy"
~ Find sample documents and review comments
• www.regulations. gov - regulatory port, view comments on other regulations
~ Make a checklist
• Identify all items to address in comments
• Note key statues or language
~ Review the document
• Check for improbably assumptions
• Improper methodologies
• Failure to follow required or accepted practices (laboratory, engineering)
• Misleading or unclear statements
• Unsupported conclusions
• Legal errors or emissions
• Inconsistencies within the document (table/text don't match, data inconsistent with tables/text)
• Inconsistent cited references
• Look for major problems or themes that may have emerged
~ Define your objectives
• Determine what you want to see happen, what are your priorities?
• Craft comments and set priorities based on your objectives
• Focus on what you care about most, set lesser ones apart
2
-------
• Don't overwhelm the recipient
• Don't get nitpicky, focus on substance
~ Writing your comments
• Think about your recipient, what comments would you want to receive?
• Identify the document being reviewed
• Establish who you are - include your name, position, describe your organization and/or what
knowledge, expertise, or concern you have about the action
• If you provided comments previously, cross-reference or provide a copy of earlier comments
• Identify any attachments included in the comment submittal
• Separate comments into three parts, keep as concise as possible
o General Comments - list big issues/changes that may be needed
o Major Comments
o Page-By-Page Comments - for lengthy documents or multiple concerns
¦ Cross reference specific place within document (Example: §9 page 4-5)
¦ Provide a brief summary of your concern (Example: Given the likely length and
complexity of the draft plan, the bill should allow at least 30 days for public
comment. Currently the bill provides for only 14 days).
• Use headings to separate out individual issues and subheading for lengthy comments.
o Once comments are received, EPA organizes and responds to comments by issue
¦ EPA received 2.7 million comments on Greenhouse Gas New Source
Performance Standards for Electric Generating units
o Example: Risk Assessment Understates Risk. The risk assessment grossly
underestimates the chemical's possible effects on human health.
• Begin each new comment and each paragraph with a topic sentence
o Put topic sentence first, it expresses a central thought
o Topic sentence is underlined
o Topic sentence should state exactly what is wrong or what change is needed
o Other sentences add to or clarify thought but are not the central idea
¦ Example: The cost of the reclamation plan far exceed any conceivable benefit.
The draft plan would require expenditure of $ 10M to revegetate 5 acres of land.
Located in a heavily industrialized area, the land has virtually no potential for
wildlife, recreation, or any other nonindustrial use. The area needs vegetative
cover to control erosion, not landscaping.
• Use good sentence structure
o Use sentences with less than 50 words
o Use active (not passive) voice
o Don't ask questions
¦ Commenting is not a conversation
¦ Example: what about the impact on wetlands? (Versus) The EIS should address
the impact of the proposed project on wetlands.
• Be respectful
o Be firm, dignified, and respective
o Don't call anyone's integrity or motives into question
3
-------
o Don't suggest employees are not doing their job or living up to the agency mission
~ Types of issues to raise
• Don't engage in personal attacks, allege lack of integrity, conflict of interest or bad faith.
• Raising legal issues.
o Separate out legal relevant facts from other facts.
o Specifically describe or quote any pertinent language, citation and specific
issue/violation of concern
o For Example: The old farm house down the street has rich and interesting history
(versus) EPA should require a historical survey. Under 40 C.F.R. §6.301, EPA must take
steps to preserve historic resources. The old farm down the street has a rich and
interesting history and possibly many artifacts. At a minimum, there should be a historic
survey to assess the property and mitigate measures to preserve anything of historical or
cultural value.
• Raising factual issues.
o Information is presented, but it is wrong or misleading
o Information is incomplete
o Facts are presented but not relied on or given sufficient weight in the decision
• Raising process issues.
o Inadequate notice of opportunity for involvement
o Not enough time for review
o Right people not involved
o Format of involvement was inadequate
o Not enough background materials were available for meaningful participation
o Docket excluded important documents
~ Provide specific language
• Type specific language changes in the Page-By-Page section
• Use software "track changes" "redline/strikeout"
• Instead of indicating what words to remove or add, rework sentence for recipient
• Indicate what you support as well as what you disagree with
• Give specific examples to illustrate your concerns
o Example: Construction of the proposed parking lot would exacerbate the existing
flooding problem. In February, it rained two inches of a 24-hour period. As the enclosed
photograph indicates, the resulting flood nearly reached the high school. The new lot
would increase the amount and speed of surface runoff into the stream, leading to more
frequent and larger foods.
~ Provide supplemental information
• Respect copyright laws when submitting supplemental information
• Supply solid, well-documented information
o Include only information with supporting details
o Provide citations of source when referencing books, articles, or other publications
o Provide the date, photographer and location when submitting photographs
4
-------
~ Offer helpful solutions
• Best comments offer solutions to the problems raised
• Options could include changes in timing of an action, mitigating measures, offsets, conditions,
emergency exemptions, or other solutions
~ Other options
• Speak at a public meeting or hearing
o Request one if not scheduled
o Oral comments should be a summary of your major concerns
o Write down and submit text of oral presentation to the Agency
o Send follow-up letter to express additional information and request its inclusion in the
record
• Rally support for your position
o Rally support from federal, state, or local agencies, businesses, organizations, or citizens
groups
• Meet with decision makers
o Within the agency conducing the action
o Involve a legislator
• Get Publicity
o Combination of media resources
o Internet, social media, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, flyers
5
-------
LINKS TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RESOURCES
Videos of March 15, 2017 Workshop Presentations
Key Statutory and Policy Frameworks - Federal
1.
Executive Order 12898
2.
Presidential Memorandum to Executive Order 12898
3.
Toxic Wastes and Race Report (1987)
4.
Plan EJ 2014
5.
Plan EJ 2014 - Le^al Tools
6.
Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews
7.
EPA's Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem Solving Model
Community/Stakeholder Involvement — Federal
1. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAOPS)
Community/Stakeholder Involvement —State
1. ECOS Green Report on Community Engagment and Equity Considerations in Permitting
Guidance — Federal
1. Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis
2. Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of Regulatory
Actions
3. EPA ExpoBox
EPA's Exposure Toolbox provides guidance on EJ questions such as:
i. Characteristics related to proximity to source or stressor
ii. Differential exposures to a stressor
iii. Population characteristics
Screening and Assessment Tools — Federal
1. Website: EJSCREEN; EJSCREEN Fact Sheet (2016) English; EJSCREEN - Hoia
Informativa (2016)
2. Website: C-FERST; C-FERST Fact Sheet
3. Website: Tribal-FERST : T-FERST Fact Sheet
Screening and Assessment Tools — State
1. Website: CalEnviroScreen
-------
Kristie Ellickson: Minnesota Cumulative Analysis Air Permitting
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/air-permitting-south-minneapolis
Richard WWtman / Gabriela Goldfarb: Cleaner Air Oregon
Cleaner Air Oregon
Dan Brown: Near Ports Initiative
www.epa. gov/ports-initiative
Holly Wilson: EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Air Sensor Toolbox for Citizen Scientists
-------
Appendix C.
PowerPoint Presentations
(Click on a title to jump to presentation)
Clean Air Act Overview
Cleaner Air Oregon: Air Quality Overview, Sarah Armitage, ODEQ
Cleaner Air Oregon: Cumulative Risk & Background and Setting & Administering Acceptable
Risk Levels
Cumulative Analyses in a Regulatory Environment, Kristie Ellickson, PhD
Environmental Justice in the Policy Process & Community Engagement Interface, Shalini
Gupta, Executive Director of Center for Earth, Energy and Democracy (CEED)
EPA's Diesel Initiative as a Case Study of Incorporating Environmental Justice into Air Quality
Programs, Dan Brown, EPA
Incorporating Environmental Justice into Everyday Actions & Policies, Charles Lee, Senior
Policy Advisor for Environmental Justice, EPA
Incorporating Meaningful Involvement at the National Level, Holly Wilson, EPA North Carolina
Update on Cleaner Air Oregon, Gabriela Goldfarb, OHA; Richard Whitman, ODEQ
-------
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Clean Air Act Overview
June 2014
-------
Objectives
• Provide context for Clean Air Act (CAA).
• Describe major provisions of CAA.
• Explain overall regulatory process and
opportunities for public involvement.
-------
o
Air Pollution in the Real World
• Mobile Sources
• Stationary Sources
• Natural Sources
• Impacts:
- Health, environmental,
economic
3
-------
History of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
1963: Funding to study and clean up air
pollution.
1970: CAA enacted.
1977: Prevention of significant deterioration.
1990: Acid rain, ozone depletion and toxics.
-------
The Clean Air Act Calls For...
Meeting health-based air quality
standards
Controlling stationary and mobile
source emissions
Reducing toxic emissions
Reducing acid rain
Reducing regional haze
Protecting the ozone layer
Reducing greenhouse gas
emissions
Involving states, tribes and
stakeholders
m
-------
Titles of the Clean Air Act
• Title I—National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
Hazardous Air Pollutants
- SIP, NSR and Technology Standards
• Title II—Mobile Sources
• Title III— Emergency Powers and Tribal Authority,
Public Involvement
• Title IV—Acid Deposition
• Title V—Operating Permits
• Title VI—Stratospheric Ozone
-------
o
Air Quality Management Cycle
«« ft;M
i I
¦ - ' *, •/ ' (.'
\ f
i' VvC'
Ik ft ft A A 1 & ii 1 ¦ Uft ft
JLi
EPA Designates
Nonattainment
Areas
EPA revises National
Ambient Air Quality
Standards,
Monitoring Reqts.
Scientific
Research
r
K O1 <12
liCOv 03 02 CJ C» 5B Of
Air Agency Assesses Expected Improvement
From Federal Measures,
and Develops Additional Control
Strategies to Attain Standards
Ongoing Evaluation by EPA and Air Agency:
Air Quality Monitoring, Traeking Emissions
and Implementation of Control Programs
Air Agency Submits Plan to EPA and
Implements Control Strategies
Through Regulatory and
N on-regulatory App roaches
-------
Air Quality Management
Responsibilities
• Federal government
- Sets standards
- Provides oversight
• State governments
- Develop implementation pi
- Issue permits
- Enforce standards
-------
o
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS)
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
EPA Administrator
Air Quality
Assessment
Division
Air Quality
Policy
Division
Health and
Environmental
Impacts
Division
Outreach
and
Information
Division
Sector Policies
and Programs
Division
9
-------
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)
• Set for "criteria
pollutants"
— "reasonably be
anticipated to endanger
public health and
welfare."
— presence in the ambient
air come from numerous
and diverse mobile or
stationary sources.
10
-------
Statutory Requirements
• Primary standards protect public health.
• Secondary standards protect welfare.
• EPA may not consider cost in setting NAAQS,
only health risks.
11
-------
NAAQS Criteria Pollutants
Particulate Matter (PM)
- PM10and PM25
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Dioxide (N02)
Sulfur Dioxide (S02)
Ground-level ozone or smog
(o3>
Lead (Pb)
-------
Q
Attainment Areas
• EPA designates all areas
in the country as:
- "Attainment" (meeting
the standards)
- "Nonattainment"
(exceeding standards)
- "Unclassifiable" (not
enough data to know)
13
-------
NAAQS Implementation
State Implementation Plans are the core
policy tool
Preconstruction permitting.
Regional haze.
State, tribal and local program measures.
-------
State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
• A collection of regulations, programs and policies.
• Used to attain or maintain air quality standards.
• Includes public involvement requirements.
• Mandatory for states and voluntary for tribes.
-------
The State Implementation Plan Process
SIP Process and Ro es
Opportunities for Input
State / local agencies start to develop SIP
Meet w/state SIP development team, join SIP stakeholder
group, get on mailing list
State drafts SIP and submits to EPA for informal review
State modifies SIP based on EPA comments
Work w/regional office to provide input and community or
tribal perspective
State holds public hearing and comment period
<
Attend and speak at public hearing, submit written
comments
State revises SIP to respond to public comment
State adopts & officially submits SIP to EPA regional office 4 Public can seek judicial review of state action
~
EPA performs completeness review (EPA has 6 months)
^ Work w/regional office to review and provide input
~
EPA publishes proposed notice in Federal Register
~
EPA holds public comment period
a Attend and speak at public hearing, submit written
comments
EPA publishes final action responding to public comment
4 Public can seek judicial review of final EPA action
- Work w/EPA and state to ensure controls are in place and
working
SIP is now federally enforceable
16
-------
o
Compliance with SIPs
States subject to
-- sanctions
- mandatory planning
California Environmental Protection Agency
©BAir Resources Board
Home Reducing Air Pollution , Air Quality I Business Assistance Laws
Tuesday, May 27,2014
Up Links
»> Reducing Air Pollution - ARE
Programs
O Air Quality and
Transportation Planning
o State
Implementation
Plans (SIP)
Program Links
q Background
O Local Air District Directory
O Related Links
O Ambient Air Quality
Standards (AAQS)
O AAQS Chart
O Area Designations
o Workshops / Meetings
Resources
0 Contact Us
& Join the SIP Email List
o RSSI NewsfeedU
California State Implementation Plans
This page last reviewed May 23,2014
The California Infrastructure SIP revision is now available The Board approved the revision at a
public hearing on January 23. 2014 The Infrastructure SIP revision is administrative in nature
and covers the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (federal standards) for ozone (1997 and
2008). fine particulate matter (PM2.5: 1997. 2006 and 2012). lead (2008), nitrogen dioxide
I (2010), and sulfur dioxide (2010). The proposed revision describes the infrastructure
(authorities, resources, and programs) California has in place to implement, maintain, and
enforce these federal standards. It does not contain any proposals for emission control
What is a State Implementation Plan?
The table below includes information on SIP activities for ozone, carbon monoxide and particulate matter More specifically it
provides links to the attainment plans and and corresponding documents that are available on ARB's website
By selecting a nonattainment area on the far left, you will be linked to ARB and District supporting documentation including staff
reports, submittal letters, and resolutions. If you prefer to only view the plan, identify the criteria pollutant and select the
appropriate year under the attainment plan column on the right. You may also use the district link tool below to scroll to a
specific district.
Resolutions and Executive Orders
ARB uses Board Resolutions and Executive Orders to act on proposed SIP revisions and authorize their inclusion in California's
SIP. The area-specific links in the "ARB and Supporting Documentation" portion of the table below provides links to Board
Resolutions and Executive Orders that are available electronically
District Link
i Antelope Valley ~_(
ARB and District Supporting
Documentation
Attainment Plan (Ozone, Particulate
Matter and Carbon Monoxide)
Lead and
Nitrogen
17
-------
V-'
New Source Review (NSR)
• Requires stationary sources of air pollution to
get permits before starting construction.
• Also known as "preconstruction permitting"
or "construction permitting/'
-------
o
What are the Components
of the NSR Program?
Major NSR
in attainment
areas (PSD)
Minor NSR
in all areas
Major NSR
in nonattainment
areas (NA NSR)
New Source
Review
(NSR)
Program
19
-------
0.
PSD Permit Requirements
• Main requirements:
— Install Best Available
Control Technology
(BACT)
— Perform air quality
analysis
— Assess impacts
— Allow public involvement
20
-------
NA NSR Permit
• Main requirements:
- Install Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER)
technologies
- Obtain emission offsets.
- Perform alternative sites
analysis
- Show statewide facility
compliance
- Allow public involvement
Requirements
21
-------
Minor NSR Permit Requirements
• CAA does not have specific requirements.
• New sources and modifications cannot
interfere with attainment of the NAAQS.
• State program requirements vary greatly.
22
-------
p
Title V Permits
Established in 1990
Gives a facility one
combined permit
Issued by states and
tribes
Self-funded through a
fee program
Connecticut Department of
Energy & Environmental Protection
Bureau of Air Management
Engineering & Enforcement Division
Revision Application for an Existing Title V or Title IV Permit
Complete this form in accordance with the instructions (DEEP-TV-
1NST-100R) to ensure the proper handling of your application.
Print of type unless otherwise noted. There is no fee required.
["870J
This form is to be used for a Title V or Title IV permit revision as
described in RCSA section 22a-'74-2atfi. EXCEPT to reflect a
transfer in ownership or operation control (license transfer)
pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-2a(f)<2XE).
If a license transfer of a Title V or Title IV permit is required,
complete License Transfer Form (DEP-APP-006) and submit it as
directed.
Questions? Visit the Air Permitting web page or contact the Air
Permitting Engineer of the Day at 860-424-4152.
Part I: Permit Information
Title V App No__
Title IV App No.:_
CPPU USE ONLY
Program/El/App Type:
Air Engineeringsitle V/Revision
Air Engineering/Title IV/Revision
Indicate the permit numbers) and the expiration date of the permit(s) to be revised.
If your TMe IV penrit has been fully incorporated inlo your Title V permit and you no longer have a stand-
alone Title IVpermit please leave the "Title IV Permit No.' and associated"Expiration Date" fields blank.
Title V Permit No.: Expiration Date:
Title IV Permit No.: Expiration Date:
Part II: Applicant Information
• If an applicant is a corporation, limited liability company, hmited partnership, limited liability partnership, or a
statutory trust, it must be registered with the Secretary of State. The applicant's name shall be stated exactly
as it is registered with the Secretary of State. Please note, for those entries registered with the Secretary of
State, the registered name wit be the name used by DEEP. This informal/on can be accessed at the
Secretary of Stele's database (CONCORD). lvrmconMrd-50ts.aooWCONCORDfindeysol
• If an applicant is an individual. provide the legal name (include suffix) in the following format: First Name:
Middle Initial: Last Name; Suffix (Jr. Sr.. II. III. etc.).
• If there are any changes or corrections to your company/tacHHy or individual mailing or billing address or
contact information, please complete and submit the Request to Change Company/Individual Information to
the address indicated on the form. If there is a change in name of the entity holding a DEEP kcense or a
change in ownership, contact the Office of Planning and Program Development (OPPD) at 860-424-3003. For
any other changes you must contact the specific program from which you hold a current DEEP license.
DEEP-TV-APP-'COR
Rev. OSttB/2013
23
-------
Title V Permit Implementation
All major sources and
some minor sources
must obtain permits.
Source must apply for
permit.
States have lead on
issuing permits.
-------
What are "Air Toxics"?
• Also known as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).
• 187 substances specified by Congress
- Can cause health effects.
- Can't link to ambient concentrations, thus no NAAQS.
-------
Air Toxics May...
• Cause cancer or other serious health effects.
• Have potential adverse environmental effects.
• Have diverse physical and chemical characteristics.
• Cause exposure in multiple ways.
• Be transported locally, regionally, nationally or globally.
• Persist in the environment and/or bioaccumulate.
-------
V
CAA Requirements for Air Toxics
Set technology-based Maximum
Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards.
CLEAN
AIR
Residual risk assessment
Technology reviews
27
-------
MACT Floor
C
o
u
I/)
c
o
V)
I/)
CD
>
-------
The General Air Toxics Risk Assessment Process
Planning/Scoping/Problem Formulation
Exposure
Toxicity
Assessment 1
Who is exposed?
What chemicals are they exposed to?
How does the exposure occur?
¦
Is a chemical toxic?
What is the
relationship
between the dose
of a chemical
and the response
that results?
n
What is the likelihood that the exposure will result in
an adverse health effect?
How sure are we our answers are correct?
29
-------
So, just what is the risk?
Risk Assessment
Risk Management
30
Statutory and legal
Considerations
Toxicity
Evaluation
Public Health
Considerations
Risk Management
Decision
Economic
Factors
Risk
Management
Options
Exposure *
Assessment
-------
0
What is the Residual Risk Program?
• Assess risks remaining after MACT standard
• Set additional standards if MACT does not
protect public health or the environment
31
-------
Residual Risk Decision Framework
r ^
r i
r i
Risk is
Risk may be
Risk is
acceptable with
acceptable
unacceptable
ample margin
Look at health Issues
Take action
No further
to reduce risks
action needed
Then consider costs/
technical feasibility
Can only
before deciding if
consider health
emissions reductions
A
are needed
1 in 1 million
RISK
100 in 1 million
N J
L J
L r
32
-------
o
Summary of Requirements
NAAQS Criteria Pollutants
RACT
(Reasonably Available Control Technology)
Existing sources in non-attainment
areas.
LAER
(Lowest Achievable Emission Rate)
New major sources in non-attainment
areas.
BACT
(Best Available Control Technology)
New major sources in attainment
areas.
NSPS
(New Source Performance Standards)
New sources or modifications to
existing sources.
Air Toxics
MACT
(Maximum Achievable Control Technology)
All sources in a source category,
existing or new.
Residual Risk Standards
One-time requirement to address
remaining risk.
Technology Reviews
Done every eight years.
33
-------
Opportunities for Public Participation
• Join air agency email groups or listservs
• Participate in air agency technical work groups
• Participate in public advisory committee / stakeholder
groups
• Arrange ad hoc meetings with key decision makers
• Participate in public hearings and webinars on
proposed state, tribal, or federal agency actions
• Submit public comments on proposed state actions
• Submit public comments on proposed EPA actions
34
-------
ADDITIONAL
REFERENCE SLIDI
,'IUMUl
-------
Regulations Affecting Stationary
Sources: EPA and States
• Standards for Criteria
Pollutants
- New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS)
- 129 Standards for
municipal waste and
landfills
• Standards for Toxics
- Area source standards
- Maximum Available
Control Technology (MACT)
36
-------
CURRENT NAAQS
Primary Standards
Secondary Standards
Pollutant
Level
Averaging Time
Level
Averaging Time
Carbon
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
8-hour
None
Monoxide
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
1-hour
Lead
0.15 (jg/m3
Rolling 3-Month Average
Same as Primary
Nitrogen
Dioxide
100 ppb
1-hour
0.053 ppm
(100 (jg/m3)
Annual
(Arithmetic Mean)
bame as Annual Primary
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
150 (jg/m3
24-hour
Same as Primary
Particulate
Matter (PM2 5)
15.0 (jg/m3
Annual
(Arithmetic Mean)
Same as Primary
35 (jg/m3
24-hour
Same as Primary
0.075 ppm (2008 std)
8-hour
Same as Primary
Ozone
0.08 ppm (1997 std)
8-hour
Same as Primary
0.12 ppm
1-hour
Same as Primary
Sulfur
Dioxide
75 ppb
1-hour
0.5 ppm
(1300 (jg/m3)
3-hour
37
-------
Anticipated NAAQS
Implementation Milestones
(updated March 2013)
Pollutant
Final NAAQS
Date (or
Projection)
Infrastructure
SIP Due
Designations
Effective
Attainment
Demonstration
Due
Attainment
Date
PM2 5 (2006)
Oct 2006
Oct 2009
Dec 2009
Dec 2012
Dec
2014/2019
Pb (2008)
Oct 2008
Oct 2011
Dec
2010/2011
June
2012/2013
Dec
2015/2016
N02 (2010)
(primary)
Jan 2010
Jan 2013
Feb 2012
none
none
S02 (2010)
(primary)
June 2010
June 2013
August 2013
(+2 rounds)
Feb. 2015
Aug 2018
Ozone (2008)
Mar 2008
Mar 2011
July 2012
Mid 2015
2015/2032
PM25 (2012)
Dec 2012
Dec 2015
Early 2015
Mid 2016
2021 (Mod)
2025 (Ser)
Ozone (2014)
2014
2017
2016
2020
2020/2037
38
-------
o
NAAQS Review Process
/ EPA \
'proposed \
decisions on
Xstandards/
/ EPA final N
decisions on
\standards ,
Public comment
Interagency
review
Interagency
review
Peer-reviewed
scientific studies
Workshop on
science-policy issues
Agency decision
making and draft
proposal notice
Public hearings
and comments
on proposal
Agency decision
making and draft
final notice
Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee
(CASAC) review
Integrated Review Plan (IRP): timeline and key
policy-relevant issues and scientific questions
Integrated Science Assessment (ISA): evaluation and
synthesis of most policy-relevant studies
Policy Assessment (PA): staff analysis of
policy options based on integration and
interpretation of information in the ISA and REA
Risk/Exposure Assessment (REA):
quantitative assessment, as warranted, focused
on key results, observations and uncertainties
39
-------
Integrated Review Plan
• Kickoff" workshop to inform IRP
- Public participation: Workshop open to any
interested participants
• Prepare IRP to guide entire review
> Public review process: CASAC and public
review of draft IRP
-------
Integrated Science Assessment
• Evaluates and synthesize policy-relevant
science
• Characterizes available scientific evidence
• Serves as scientific foundation to inform
Risk/Exposure Assessment
> Public review process: CASAC/public review of
multiple ISA drafts
-------
Risk/Exposure Assessment
• Conduct needed quantitative assessments
• Estimate risks to public health & welfare
• Identify uncertainties
> Public review process:
- CASAC consultation/public review of REA planning
document
- CASAC/public review of one or more drafts
-------
Policy Assessment
• Develops policy options for consideration by
EPA Administrator
- Organizes what is known
- Integrates ISA and REA
- Assesses possible regulatory options
- Provides foundation for interagency review
> Public review process:
- CASAC and public review of one or more drafts
-------
0
Rulemaking
• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
>Public review process: Public comment period,
including public hearing(s), follows publication of
proposed rule
• Final Rulemaking Notice
44
-------
APPENDIX
-------
Available Resources
• Overview of section 112 (this includes the list of HAPs):
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/overview.htnril
• For further explanation of major and area sources and a list
of source categories please visit:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pollsour.htnril
• For a listing of all of the NESHAP/MACT final rules please
visit: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nriactfnlalph.htnril
• For an overview of the risk and technology review program
please visit: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html
• Plain English guide to Clean Air Act:
http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/
• State, local, tribal and federal partnerships:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/stprogs.html
-------
Image Sources
(Slide number references shown in parentheses)
Smokestacks (3): [unknown]
Mountain (3): [unknown]
Woods (5): [unknown]
Skyline (5): [unknown]
Air quality management cycle (7):
[unknown]
Uncle Sam (8): Library of Congress
United States (8): U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs
Doctor and patient (10): Centers for Disease
Control
Congestion (10): U.S. Department of
Transportation
Smoggy skyline (12): U.S. EPA
Huntington Power Plant (13): Utah
Geological Survey
Meeting (15): [unknown]
• Website screen shot (17): California
Environmental Protection Agency Air
Resources Board
• Stationary source (18): [unknown]
• Stationary source (18): [unknown]
• Facility worker (20): [unknown]
• Smokestacks (21): [unknown]
• Title V Permit (23): Connecticut
Department of Energy & Environmental
Protection
• Soccer field (25): [unknown]
• Basketball players (25): [unknown]
• Stream (26): [unknown]
• Hospital (26): [unknown]
• Facility (35): [unknown]
47
-------
Cleaner Air Oregon Advisory Committee
Air Quality Overview
October 18, 2016
1 CleanerflirOregon
-------
m
Air Quality Program Vision
The Air Quality Program is dedicated to ensuring healthy air quality
for all of our state's communities.
We do so by using good science, collaboration, and Oregon law.
Our work reflects our values of:
• Leadership, partnership, integrity and commitment;
• Open and clear communication;
• Consistent implementation of federal and state regulations; and
• Empowering skilled staff to solve problems.
CleanerflirOregon
-------
Air pollutants of concern in Oregon
Ground Level Ozone
Particulate Matter
-^^7-
Fine particles enter
deeply into the lungs
Healthy Airway Inflamed Airway
Toxic Pollutants
3 Wb. -
'v~ * - _ "
P8UNCU "HLff. eoS I 3mm
!
mm
Diesel Particulate
Benzene
| Arsenic
Pollution Affecting
Climate Change and Ecosystems
CleanerflirOregon
-------
Federal Air Quality Standards
"Criteria Pollutants"
Carbon Monoxide,
Ozone (smog).
Particulate Matter,
Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide
Criteria Pollutants and Air Toxics
Air Toxics
Oregon Ambient
Benchmark
Concentrations (52)
Federal Hazardous Air
Pollutants (187)
PATS Pollutants
-------
K
Actions to reduce air pollu
&
Cp
$
CleanerflirOregon
-------
Air Quality Program
Monitoring
and
Assessment
Compliance
and
Enforcement
Establishing
Strategies
Standards
Assisting
1
Permitting
Businesses
and
and
Authorizing
Individuals
L A
^^9
Activities
L A
CleanerflirOregon
-------
¦
Federal
Health based standards
Community clean air plans
Regulations for industry
Title V Permits for large facilities
Engine emission standards
Clean fuel standards
C02 reductions from power plants
Engines and
Fuels
Climate
Change
Air Toxics
Permitting
Ozone and
Particulate
Clean Air Act
State roles
Oregon Initiatives
State permits for smaller facilities
Community pollution prevention plans
Clean cars program
Vehicle inspection and maintenance
Clean Power Plan
Clean (low carbon) fuels
Greenhouse gas emission reporting
Cap and trade study
Benchmarks and monitoring
Community air toxics reduction planning
Clean diesel program
New health based permitting
-------
Air
Permits (104)
body Shops, Crematories
General Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (2083)
Simpler permits, small emitters
Gasoline stations, Dry Cleaners, Coffee Roasters, Grain Elevators
Simple Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (147)
Simple permits, small emitters
Data Centers, Metal Foundries, Wastewater Treatment Plants, Printers, Publishers
Standard Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (133)
Complex permits, medium emitters
Particleboard, Plywood, Fuel Terminals, Semiconductor, Bakeries
Title V Permits (109)
Most complex permits, largest emitters
Electricity Generation, Landfills, Fiberglass, Pulp and Paper, Steel Mills
Quality Permits
Basic Air Contaminant Discharge
Simplest permits, smallest emitters
Rock Crushers, Asphalt Paving, Auto
-------
Assessing air quality - monitoring locations
<•
VjHnnylte
»
Fernet
di egort
CleanerflirOregon
-------
Air toxics monitoring
>;
W
m
Long-Term
Trend Monitors
• Portland
• La Grande
Year-Long
Assessments
• Med ford
• Klamath Falls
• Hillsboro
• North Portland
Air toxics monitoring equipment
Special Studies
• North Portland
• SE Portland
• The Dalles
http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/forms/annrpt.htm
Community air toxics assessment in North Portland
North Portland Air Quality
P.lonitoring Project
vaeyosqta vtss
•anAir ijxics* f.)e:3is
-------
m
Progress meeting federal air standards
Portland
La Grande
Hermiston
Salem
Prineville
Eugene-Springfield
akridge
Burns
Grants Pass
Klamath Falls
Medford-Ash and
Lakeview
~
Ozone and particulate
standards reached
A
EPA's PM2.5 (24-hour) standard (ug/m3)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20 -
150 ug/m3
65 ug/m3
35 ug/m3
r^-
oo
-------
Sources of toxic air
CleanerflirOregon
-------
m
Oregon's Air Toxics Program
Permits
Oregon Low
Emission
Vehicles
Cleaner Diesel
Vehicles and
Equipment
Federal Engine and Fuel Standards
Assessment and Solutions
Opt into Low
Emission
Gasoline
Vehicles
Oregon Benchmarks
Federal Air Toxics
Standards for Industry
Statewide:
• Clean Diesel Engines
• Heat Smart
•Gasoline Fueling
Portland Air Toxics Solutions:
• Wood Burning
• Diesel Engines
• Cars and Trucks
• Metals Facilities
Smaller Facilities
• Dry Cleaners
• Auto Body Shops
• Metal Plating
Large Facilities
• Wood Products
• Foundries
• Vehicle Painting
CleanerflirOregon
-------
¦
Portland Air Toxics Solutions
A geographic approach to understanding
and reducing air toxics
Five priority categories for reduction
Residential wood burning
Cars and trucks
Heavy duty vehicles
Construction equipment
Industrial metals facilities
Portland Air Toxics
Solutions
Tlmoa flbovo Benchmark
Suueof dragon
Ocpaituwrnl of
Hnvlronmort&l
Quality
All Sources
Reference:
20 Mile©
-------
Safety Net Program
•Address potentially high risk emissions at stationary
sources that are not covered by federal standards,
geographic planning or state rules
Monitoring
• Rare cases
Selection
Place Measures in Permit
Determine Emission
Reduction Measures
CleanerflirOregon
-------
£g J ¦ | ¦ H
Portland Metals and Moss Study
fcstimatea cadmium
concentrations
'w^tjn B>t ai#w ««•!
v-allWy*
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0Q48969716306Q52
Estimated Cadmium Air Concentrations
CO omission
lt>uul
(
-------
What is the Industrial Facility Risk Gap?
Unaddressed Air
\ Air ToxicsProi
Federal Air Toxics Regulations
• Technology- best performing
• Residual risk—8 year review
• Substantial emission reductions
• Generic- gaps in coverage
CleanerflirOregon
-------
Public engagement: formal process
CLEANER AIR OREGON
Creating human health-based industrial air toxics regulations
Timeline for puoli'c engagemerrr that fos-ers active participation
April 2016
EQC MEETING ON
TEMPORARY RULES
June 2016
HUMAN HEALTH RISK-
BASED RULES WEBINAR
September 2016-0ctober 2016
POLICY FORUMS
May-Only 2017
PUBLIC NOTICE S-
T PERIOD
Novemlber Q.QY7
RECOMMENDATION FOR
PERMANENT RULES
ONGOING ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR E
2 016
June. July, 20J6
TECHNICAL WO
*2016
ADVISORY COMMITT
ROUP
August-October 2017
DEQ AND OHA REVIEW,
RESPOND AND PUBLISH
COMMENTS
borctio1- with community-based organization!
'
i d others TBD
May 2016
INDUSTRIAL AIR TOXICS
REGULATION WEBINAR
February, April 2017
FISCAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
You are here!
cleanerair.oiegon.gov
December 2017 COMMISSION CONSIDERS PROPOSED RULES
CleanerflirOregon
-------
Air Quality Overview
Any Questions?
19 CleanerRirOregon
-------
m
Advisory Committee
Cumulative Risk and Background
and
Setting and Administering Allowable Risk Levels
November 17, 2016
CleanerAirOregon
-------
m
Cumulative Health Risk
What do we mean by cumulative health risk? Risk from:
• Multiple air toxics emitted from a facility
• Multiple facilities in an area
• Community sources of air toxics levels in ambient air
(background air quality)
• Multiple routes of exposure such as soil, water and air
• Cumulative risk over time
2 CleanerAirOregon
-------
m m ¦
Cumulative Risk and Environmental Justice
^•arrvi — •
EJ 2020 ACTION AGENDA
&EPA
THE U.S. EPA'S ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR 2016 - 2020
Statu ok Okkcon
KNVI KON.V1 KN'I'AI. rJ IJHTIOK
Task Force
En'jirGnmentG.l Justin: Best Practices for Orcein s
Natural Rescxirct S±HcncUs
Idcnti&i&g Zn\-roomcnial Ju3ric: I=iuc3 and Zr.sogia5in Capacity
Bui!is; for Ennritmemsl Just::* Communln^c
4
U'-nfing Chtar lo Community
Ja-uary 8MO ^ 1
V
3 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Cumulative Health Risk
Environmental
Justice
Environmental Justice Task Force said:
• Begin the permitting process with clearer communication to
EJ stakeholders about likely cumulative risks from multiple
emission sources, as well as disproportionate sensitivity to
health impacts from air toxics and other social determinants
of health.
• Require cumulative impact assessment and enhanced
community engagement for communities with EJ concerns if
disparate impact predicted.
• Provide EJ stakeholders with targeted technical assistance to
weigh in on the commensurate exposure from different
emission sources.
i CleanerfiirOregon
-------
mm
Cumulative Health Risk
''
Policy Forum ranked, in the following
order, cumulative risk from:
• Multiple air toxics together
• Air toxics released by multiple industrial
facilities in the same area
• a facility plus community sources in the
area
Multiple routes of exposure
5 CleanerRirOregon
-------
Program Element 8: Cumulative Risk from Multiple
Air Toxics from a Sinale Facilit
° O C Benzene
Arsenic
Formaldehyde
e CleanerftirOregon
-------
Toxicity of Mixtures
Antagonism: 1+1 = 1
Additivity: 1+1 = 2
Synergy: 1+1 = 4
1 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 8: Cumulative Risk from Multiple
Air Toxics from a Sinqle Facilit
Technical Workgroup said:
• Look at all air toxics from a single facility
• Consider screening approach with
conservative levels that take into
account multiple air toxics
• Assume additivity
s CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 8: Cumulative Risk from Multiple
Air Toxics from a Sinale Facilit
Potential Elements
A. Sum the individual cancer risks for multiple air toxics from a single source to estimate
cumulative cancer risk
B. Slim the organ-specific risks for multiple non-carcinogen air toxics from a single source
C. Do not include assessment of cumulative risks from multiple air toxics
D. Placeholder for elements developed by Advisory Committee members
Page 9 of Cumulative Risk and Background Discussion Paper
CUMULATIVE RISKS AND BACKGROUND*
Include cumulative risk? If so, there are several program elements
where it could be addressed.
Program Element 6: Cumulative Risk from Multiple Air Toxics
from a Single Facility
Program Element 9: Cumulative Risk from Multiple Sources
within an Area
Program Element 10: Use of Background/Ambient
Concentrations in the Assessment of Risk
Program Element II: Cross-media Exposure Pathways
Program Element 12: Past Risk
9 CleanerAirOregon
-------
Program Element 9: Cumulative Risk from Multiple
Industrial Sources in an Area
Cumulative air toxics emissions from industry
10 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 9: Cumulative Risk from Multiple
Industrial Sources in an Area
• Not included - Rhode island
• Included;
o WA: Models nearby sources
within a 1.5-km radius
o NY: Integrated into
calculation of maximum off-
site air concentrations, which
are then compared to risk-
based levels
11 CleanerflirOregon
-------
Program Element 9: Cumulative Risk from Multiple
Industrial Sources in an Area
tAilAAL
Technical Workgroup said:
• Address multiple industrial sources that
may be under screening thresholds.
• Modeling multiple sources for
cumulative risk requires a good
emissions inventory.
• Fugitive emissions are very hard to
quantify for cumulative risk.
12 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 9: Cumulative Risk from Multiple
Industrial Sources in an Area
CUMULATIVE RISKS AND BACKGROUND*
Include cumulative risk? If so, there are several program elements
where it could be addressed.
Program Element 6: Cumulative Risk from Multiple Air Toxics
from o Single Facility
Program Element 9: Cumulative Risk from Multiple Sources
wrtnin an Area
Program Element 10: Use of Background/Ambient
Concentrations in the Assessment of Risk
Program Element II: Goss-medio Exposure Pathways
Program Element 12: Past Risk
Potential elements for cumulative risk from multiple sources within an area
I he following are elements that l)KQ and OH A are seeking additional discussion and input from the
Advisory Committee oil. If there are additional elements nor included below, please raise them.
Please note that if cumulative risk from multiple sources is included, the permitting program could
address this in many different ways. It could be included in an early screening step or at a later step in risk
assessment. These elements are discussed in the "Screening and Risk Assessment" discussion paper.
Potential Elements
A.
Include industrial facilities within a set distance (for example. WA uses 1.5 km)
B.
Include facilities nearby - determined on a case-by-case basis
C
Use monitoring to try to determine contributions from other industrial facilities in an area
D.
Do not include nearby industrial facilities
E.
Placeholder for elements developed by Advisory Committee members
Page 12 of Cumulative Risk and Background Discussion Paper
13 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 10: Accounting for Community
Sources
Cumulative air
toxics emissions
from community.
14 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 10: Accounting for Community
Sources
Technical Workgroup said:
• Build community source contributions into
the estimated ambient concentrations
when developing permits.
• Monitoring data is excellent to calculate
background concentrations but is very
costly and time consuming. Care should be
taken to avoid double counting monitored
and modeled pollutants.
15 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Tools for Understanding Community Air Toxics
Emissions
How could the ambient concentrations from
community sources be calculated?
PAIS 2017
MQOEJWG HfcSIAIS
BENZENE
NCTlMlimi
i*
G3« •«
M » » ww
•> iW Irw>»'
sne^-i
Air
monitoring
results
Portland Air Toxics
Solutions local model
for benzene
y>EFW 2011 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) App art to »
Iv —
0
f •
4 v -
A. . [* A.
*7
$ w-
TpBa-iu
*
~ A"
l-Iil
1 1
Atm
'
-
¦
•''TP" 'L-'V
1 '4 4
H" ' • '
J. >
—• -«^»S 1 OC$P5 1 wtic. C-.
Iml
fcriCK
Concentration from
NATA at relevant
census-tract level
15 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 10: Accounting for Community
Sources
CUMULATIVE RISKS AND BACKGROUND*
Include cumulative risk? If so, there are several program elements
where it could be addressed.
Program Element 6: Cumulative Risk from Multiple Air Toxics
from o Single Facility
Program Element 9: Cumulative Risk from Multiple Sources
wrthiri an Area
Program Element 10: Use of Background/Amb.enf
Concentrations in the Assessment of Risk
Program Element II: Goss-medio Exposure Pathways
Program Element IQ: Past Risk
Potential elements for use of community/ambient concentrations in the assessment of
risk
The following are potential elements that DEQ and OHA want the Advisory Committee to discuss. If
there are additional elements not included below, please raise them.
Please note that if consideration of communirv air toxics concentrations is included, the permitting
program could address this in many different ways. It could be included in an early screening step or at a
later step in risk assessment. These elements are discussed in the "Screening and Risk Assessment"
discussion paper.
Potential Elements
A.
Calculate background levels using National Air loxics Assessment data
B.
Calculate background levels using monitoring data if available
C.
Calculate background levels using local model if available (e.g.. Portland Air Toxics Assessment)
D.
Calculate background levels by modeling sources with n 1.5 km
E.
Dc not include consideration of background levels
r
Placeholder for elements developed by Advisory Comtnittee members
Page 14 of Cumulative Risk and Background Discussion Paper
17 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Elements 8, 9, and 10: Regulatory Advantages
and Challenges in Considering Cumulative Risk
Cumulative risk
Advantages
Challenges
8. Multiple air
toxics at single
facility
• Control multiple pollutants
• Identification of risk drivers
• Cost related to complexity
• Understanding what is emitted and when
• Emission estimation uncertainty
• No community sources
9. Multiple
industrial sources
of air toxics in an
area
• More accurate estimate of potential
exposures
• Better understanding of potential
hotspots and local risk drivers
• More cost related to complexity
• More complex task of understanding what is
emitted and when
• More uncertainty in estimation
• No community sources
10. Community
emissions of air
toxics
• More accurate estimate of potential
exposures
• Better understanding of potential
hotspots and local risk drivers
• Continued focus on community sources
• Monitoring data limitations
• Beyond Portland, limited data on community
emission sources
• Model uncertainty and data quality
limitations
• Potential competitive disadvantages
18 CleanerAirOregon
-------
o
X
ILL J
CO
if)
O
6
0)
E
0)
LU
E
03
D) _£Z
2 co
n_ o_
>
CO
O
bo
cu
O
a
cu
a
CO
_QJ
LJ
-------
Program Element 11: Cross-media Exposure
Pathways
Technical Workgroup said:
• Consider multi-pathway exposures, ecological
effects and risks especially for sensitive
populations.
• Chemicals often have different health effects and
different target organs depending on whether
they are swallowed or inhaled, making it difficult
to add up the risk across exposure pathways.
• Look at inhalation during the initial screening step
but considers other pathways of exposure during
subsequent tiers of analysis.
20 CleanerAirOregon
-------
Program Element 11: Cross-media Exposure
Pathways
CUMULATIVE RISKS AND BACKGROUND*
Include cumulative risk? If so, there are several program elements
where it could be addressed.
Program Element 6: Cumulative Risk from Multiple Air Toxics
from o Single Facility
Program Element 9: Cumulative Risk from Multiple Sources
wrthiri an Area
Program Element 10: Use of Background/Ambient
Concentration in the Assessment of Risk
Program Element II: Goss-medio Exposure Pathways
Program Element IQ: Past Risk
Potential elements for cross-media exposure pathways
The following are elements that DEQ and OHA are seeking additional discussion and input from the
Advisory Committee on. If there are additional elements not included below, please raise them.
Please note that if cumulative risk from cross-media exposure pathways is included, the permitting
program could address this in many different ways. It could be included in an early screening step or at a
later step in risk assessment. These elements are discussed in the "Screening and Risk Assessment"
discussion paper.
Potential Elements
A.
Include bioaccumulative. persistent chemicals
R
Tnchide cross-media considerations for all chemicals
C.
Analyze potential for cross-media impacts chemical bv chemical
D.
Do not include cross-media impacts
E.
Placeholder for elements developed by Advisory Committee members
Page 17 of Cumulative Risk and Background Discussion Paper
21 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 12: Past exposures and sensitive
ooulations
22 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 12
sensitive populations
Current
cumulative
air toxics
exposures and
Psychosocial stressors
Chemical exposures from
other sources
Access to nutrition
Pre-existing disease
Transgenerational exposures
Past chemical exposures
23
CleanerAirOregon
-------
Program Element 12: Past exposures arid sensitive
ooulations
Technical Workgroup said:
• Consider past exposure by doing multiple risk
assessments overtime.
• Acknowledge previous exposures that we don't
know how to quantify and discuss qualitatively in
the uncertainty section of risk assessment.
• Litigation and looking at responsible parties is
not best way but has developed some
sophisticated analyses.
• Academic longitudinal epidemiological studies
require a lot of research and resources.
24 CleanerflirOregon
-------
Program Element 12: Past exposures and
sensitive populations
CUMULATIVE RISKS AND BACKGROUND*
Include cumulative risk? If so, there are several program elements
where it could be addressed.
Program Element 6: Cumulative Risk from Multiple Air Toxics
from o Single Facility
Program Element 9: Cumulative Risk from Multiple Sources
wrtnin an Area
Program Element 10: Use of Background/Amb.enf
Concentrations in the Assessment of Risk
Program Element II: Goss-medio Exposure Pathways
Program Element 12: Pasf Risk
Potential elements for past exposure
The following are elements that DEQ and OHA are seeking additional discussion and input from the
Advisory Committee on. If there are additional elements not included below, please raise them.
Potential Elements
A.
Acknowledge there are previous exposures that we may not technically be able to quantify
B.
Discuss past exposure to air toxics qualitatively in the uncertainty section of a risk assessment
C.
Do not address past exposures to air toxics
D.
Placeholder for elements developed by Advisory Committee members
i
Page 18 of Cumulative Risk and Background Discussion Paper
25 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Cumulative Risk
Discussion
Include:
Multiple Air Toxics from a Single Facility?(page
Multiple Sources within an Area?(Pagei2)
9)
Community Sources in the Assessment of Risk? (Page i4)
Cross-media Exposure Pathways?(page 17)
Past Risk and Sensitive Populations?(pageis.)
25 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Setting and Administering Allowable Risk Levels
27 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
CleanerfiirOregon
Health Risk-Based Industrial Air Toxics Permitting Program General Framework
II
II1?
•-W
3
¦- * E h I 3
5. 2
r rrr
¦If'
S t
r I i ! |
i E [ j
F 5 i "i D
mviiii
pin -§
I ¦ JF I i I R § I
slf Irl
111 II H
-------
CO
0
>
0
0
o
O <
IHOOO o o
HOOOO
ho o o
CD
fD
fD
—
CD
>
a;
bo £
E a!
e 1/5
a)
CD
>
CD
CD
>
CD
CO
CD
CD
_o
"fD
C
o
CU)
CD
O
o
CO
O"
CO
O
u
fD
fD
CD
U
CD
CE
\—
CD
C
fD
_QJ
LJ
cn
fM
-------
Allowable Risk
Environmental
Justice
Environmental Justice Task Force said:
• Promulgate health-based standards for
industrial source air toxics and base permit
decisions on compliance with such
standards.
• Apply enhanced permitting requirements to
new and renewal permits, with shorter
renewals to account for changing
demographics, health science, and
technology.
30 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
m
Cancer vs. Non-Cancer Risk Levels
Cancer risk = Air Toxics Concentration x Unit Risk Estimate
Non-Cancer risk Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Air Toxics Concentration
Threshold
Cancer Risk Based Concentration = Allowable Cancer Risk
Unit Risk Estimate
Non-Cancer Risk Based Concentration = Threshold x allowable non-cancer
risk ratio (HQ)
31 Cleaner Oregon
-------
Everyday Risks/Allowable Risks
background
cancer rate
1 chance in 3
Range of risk allowed by many
state and federal regulatory
agencies
Existing Oregon
Ambient
Benchmark Goal
home accident
stroke car accident
\
lightning
1 chance in 100
1 chance in 10
1 chance in 10,000
1 chance in
100,000
1 chance in
1,000,000
1 chance in 1,000
32 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
p
The Balance of Allowable Risk
Individual
characteristics
Social and economic
environment
Physical
environment
-------
Program Element 13: Setting Initial Screening Levels
(1 air toxic at a time; 1 piece of equipment)
Technical Workgroup said:
• A cancer risk that is 1 in 1 million or
less is an allowable initial screening
health risk level.
• A Hazard Quotient that is 1 or less is
typically used as the allowable level
of non-cancer risk.
34 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 13: Setting Initial Screening Levels
(1 air toxic at a time; 1 piece of equipment)
Potential elements for setting the initial screening levels for allowable cancer and non-
cancer risk
The following are potential elements for which DEQ and OHA are seeking additional discussion and
input from the Adv isory Committee. If there are additional elements not included below, please raise
them.
Potential Elements
A. 1 in 1 million cancer risk and hazard quotient of one for non-cancer risk
B. Placeholder for elements developed by advisory committee members
Page 5 of Setting and Administering Allowable Risk Discussion Paper
SETTING AND ADMINISTERING
ALLOWABLE RISK LEVELS*
What risk levels will be used in calculating risk based
concentrations, de minimis, significant emission rales, and in risk
assessment?
Program Element 13: Setting the Initial Screening Levels fcHE
Allowable Cancer and Non-cancer Risk
Program Element 14: Allowable Risks Levels
Program Element 15: Different Risk Levels for Existing
and New Sources
35 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 14: Allowable Risk Levels
(All emissions; whole facilit
Technical Workgroup said for
whole regulated facilities:
• Most-typical range of cancer risk levels
1 in 1 million up to 100 in 1 million
• Non-cancer risk levels with hazard
quotients: target organ-specific hazard
indices from 1 to 5
35 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 14: Allowable Risk Levels
(All emissions; whole facilit
Should Oregon allow higher risk levels for
sources that have:
Installed Best Available Control
Technology?
Installed Lowest Achievable Emission
Rate?
Employed pollution prevention?
Thermal Oxidizer (afterburner)
pollution!
prevention
37 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 14: Allowable Risk Levels
(All emissions; whole facility)
Technical Workgroup said:
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
allows 1 in 1 million without T-BACT and 10
in 1 million with T-BACT for new individual
pieces of equipment.
• In Washington, T-BACT is usually required
before permits will be approved.
• Many people believe T-BACT is not enough
for air toxics. Additional protection could
include pollution prevention.
38 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Example of Use of Range of Cancer Risk Targets
in Air Permittinq - SCAQMD, California
53/million NATA
average estimated
cancer risk in
Muftnomah County
(38/million statewide)
~830/million LA
monitored
average ambient
background
1/10
Lower
probability
of cancer
incidence
l/lOO
1 000/ million
100/million
25/milfon
10/million
1/million
Higher
probability
of cancer
incidence
SCAQMD
requires
Toxics Best
Available
Control
Technology
(TBACT)
SCAQMD
permit
approval
range
SCAQMD
maximum
allowable level
-risk reduction
and audit plan
required
39 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 14: Allowable Risk Levels
(All emissions: whole facilit
f/flmH
Q
Policy Forum input:
• Do not allow facilities to emit air
toxics at levels that pose a higher
risk to health if pollution controls are
installed and used properly
40 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 14: Allow
All emissions; whole facilit
Potential elements for allowable risk levels
The following are potential elements for which DEQ and OHA are seeking additional discussion and
input from the Advisory Committee. If there are additional elements not included below, please raise
them.
Potential Elements
A. Allow higher cancer risk levels for entire facility if control technology such as TBACT is
installed. Other programs have allowed risk in the range of 3.8 in 1 million to 100 m 1 million.
Some program do not have a limit on allowable risk levels.
B. Require control technology, without considering cost or energy in the decision (Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate - LAER) if entire facility risk of cancer or non-cancer effects is
above a specified level.
C. Allow higher hazard mdex for non-cancer effects if control technology such as TBACT is
installed. Other programs have allowed from a 1 to 5 hazard index. Some program do not have a
limit on allowable non-cancer effects levels.
D. Require LAER if entire facility hazard mdex is:
a. Above 1
b. Above 5
c. Above some other level
Page 8 of Setting and Administering Allowable Risk Discussion Paper
SETTING AND ADMINISTERING
ALLOWABLE RISK LEVELS*
What risk levels will be used in calculating risk based
concentrations, de minimis, significant emission rales, and in risk
assessment?
Program Element 13: Setting the Initial Screening Levels fc-
Allowable Cancer and Non-cancer Risk
Program Element 14: Allowable Risks Levels 4^
Program Element 15: Different Risk Levels for Existing
and New Sources
-------
Program Element 15: Different Risk Levels for
Existinq and New Sources?
Some programs require a
more protective risk level
for new facilities than
existing facilities, because
new facilities can be
designed to meet lower
risk levels.
i
42 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 15: Different Risk Levels for
Existinq and New Sources?
t A-i.AAAS
MW M' V "
7M
F tun***** f © ,
/ 5— T oa
Technical Workgroup said:
• South Coast Air Quality Management District allows
10 in 1 million with T-BACTfor new individual pieces
of equipment and 25-100 in 1 million for the
existing whole facility for all air toxics.
• Give existing units more time to comply, whereas
new units must comply immediately.
Policy Forum input:
• Do not allow existing facilities to emit air toxics at
levels that pose a higher risk to health than new
facilities.
43 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Program Element 15: Different Risk Levels for
Existina and New Sources?
Potential elements for allowing different risk levels for existing and new sources
The following are potential elements for which DEQ and OHA are seeking additional discussion and
input from the Advisory Committee. If there are additional elements not included below, please raise
them.
Potential Elements
A. Allow existing facilities higher cancer risk levels, up to 10 in 1 million risk. Other programs have
allowed between 7.5 in 1 million and 100 in 1 million risk levels. Some programs do not have a
limit on the allowable risk.
B. Do not allow existing facilities higher risk than new or modified sources
C. Placeholder for elements developed by advisory committee members
SETTING AND ADMINISTERING
ALLOWABLE RISK LEVELS*
What risk levels will be used in calculating risk based
concentraiions, de minimis, significant emission rales, and in risk
assessment?
Program Element 13: Setting the Initial Screening Levels fc-
Allowable Cancer and Non-cancer Risk
Program Element 14: Allowable Risks Levels
Program Element 15: Different Risk Levels for Existing
and New Sources
Page 10 of Setting and Administering Allowable Risk Discussion Paper
44 CleanerfiirOregon
-------
Setting and Administering Allowable Risk Levels
Discussion
Where should the initial screening levels
for allowable cancer and non-cancer risk be
set? (page 5)
What should the allowable risks levels be?(pages)
Should Oregon have different risk levels for existing
and new sources? (Pageio)
45 Cleaner
-------
Cumulative Analyses in a Regulatory Environment:
Moving from Is It Cumulative? to How Cumulative is it?
Kristie Ellickson, PhD
Kristie.ellickson@.state.mri.us
651-757-2336
(A Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
1/35
-------
PuzzleRoomWilderness ItDepends
Baker NationalParks DataAnalyst
AnxiousFlyer SchoolVolunteer ^ ,
DinnerAsAFamilyintrovertMysteryBooks
PeaceCorpsVolunteer Hiker SlowMarathonRunner
CoffeeDrinker RoadTrips
Collaborates . Scientist
BitterBeer|\/JOni
Camper
-------
Elements of Cumulative Impact Analysis
Sensitivity
Standards based on sensitive life
stages
"4
m
r
N '
' >1
f Q
Additivity
•Multiple contaminants with similar
effects
Multiple Pathways
•Total exposure via drinking, eating,
swimming...
Multiple Sources
•Added effects of cars, factories,
runoff...
Non-Chemical Stressors
•Impacts from noise, traffic,
aesthetics ...
Community Vulnerabilty
•Greater susceptibility to pollution
due to health care, housing, other
challenges
Quantitative
Qualitative
Analysis
Methods, Data
More Available
Analysis
Methods, Data
Less Available
MPCA Can
Compel Action to
Address
MPCA Can
Influence
?
-------
Table Activity 1
• Every table has sticky notes and a copy of the
image "Elements of a Cumulative Impacts
Analysis".
• After each slide, I will pause for 1 minute to
allow tables to write indices or tasks in
addition to the ones that I list and post them
on your cumulative impacts analysis figure.
-------
pditivity t
Multiple contaminar
imilar effects
Elements of Cumulative Impact Analysis
Quantitative
Analysis
Methods, Data
More Available
MPCA Can
Compel Action to
Address
1
hsoresA ^sh
./W**~ ~Zti.
MPCA Can
Influence
Analysis
Methods, Data
Less Available
J,
r o* tViSCA* *aM
I his is where we are going...
-------
Health
benchmarks
developed for
most sensitive
population
-------
M y Itiple co rita minants with si milar
effects
-------
-------
-------
-------
Table Activity 2
• I will pause with the "Vulnerability" slide up
and have tables write examples of what
makes a community vulnerable or less
resilient.
• Once the tables have had time to add some
vulnerability indicators, I will go through
what the MN Environmental Justice Advisory
Group came up with.
-------
Emergency
preparedness
and
management
>1
&
$
0>
Ct
Or
O V
c, %
Commuoi
&
&
*0t
%-
V
&
s«c
-^V
<*°
Ge
.*ev
&°
&
A
\P
iv
S?
<$&
K*
SO^V^
,e^>
&e 4 Ve
*-an
bar,
SUggQ
Vers
-------
Minnesota Statute, Section 116.07, Subdivision 4a:
Subd. 4a. Permits, (a) The Pollution Control Agency may issue, continue in effect or deny permits, under such conditions as it may prescribe for the prevention of pollution, for the emission of air
contaminants, or for the installation or operation of any emission facility, air contaminant treatment facility, treatment facility, potential air contaminant storage facility, or storage facility, or any part thereof, or
for the sources or emissions of noise pollution.
The Pollution Control Agency may also issue, continue in effect or deny permits, under such conditions as it may prescribe for the prevention of pollution for the storage, collection transportation,
processing, or disposal of waste, or for the installation or operation of any system or facility, or any part thereof, related to the storage, collection transportation processing, or disposal of waste.
The agency may not issue a permit to a facility without
analyzing and considering the cumulative levels and effects
of past and current environmental pollution from all sources
on the environment and residents of the geographic area
within which the facility's emissions are likely to be
Hennepin County that meets all of the following conditions:
(1) is within a half mile of a site designated by the federal government as an EPA superfund site
due to residential arsenic contamination;
(2) a majority of the population are low-income persons of color and American Indians;
(3) a disproportionate percent of the children have childhood lead poisoning, asthma, or other
environmentally related health problems;
(4) is located in a city that has experienced numerous air quality alert days of dangerous air
quality for sensitive populations between February 2007 and February 2008; and
(5) is located near the junctions of several heavily trafficked state and county highways and two
one-way streets which carry both truck and auto traffic.
, provided that the facility is located in a community in a city of the first class in
-------
Minnesota Statute, Section 116.07, Subdivision 4a:
Subd. 4a. Permits, (a) The Pollution Control Agency may issue, continue in effect or deny permits, under such conditions as it may prescribe for the prevention of pollution for the emission of air
contaminants, or for the installation or operation of any emission facility, air contaminant treatment facility, treatment facility, potential air contaminant storage facility, or storage facility, or any part thereof, or
for the sources or emissions of noise pollution.
The Pollution Control Agency may also issue, continue in effect or deny permits, under such conditions as it may prescribe for the prevention of pollution, for the storage, collection transportation,
processing, or disposal of waste, or for the installation or operation of any system or facility, or any part thereof, related to the storage, collection transportation, processing, or disposal of waste.
The agency may not issue a permit to a facility without analyzing and considering the cumulative
levels and effects of past and current environmental pollution from all sources on the environment
and residents of the geographic area within which the facility's emissions are likely to be deposited,
provided that the facility is located in a community in a city of the first class in
Hennepin County that meets all of the following conditions:
(1) is within a half mile of a site designated by the federal government as an EPA
superfimd site due to residential arsenic contamination;
(2) a majority of the population are low-income persons of color and American
Indians;
(3) a disproportionate percent of the children have childhood lead poisoning,
asthma, or other environmentally related health problems;
(4) is located in a city that has experienced numerous air quality alert days of
dangerous air quality for sensitive populations between February 2007 and February
2008; and
(5) is located near the junctions of several heavily trafficked state and county
highways and two one-way streets which carry both truck and auto traffic.
-------
-------
s
li-
Ait3isk-aad___^^
Criteria Pollutant
Analyses
Assessing
mixtures
All emissions
at a facility
Including
what's already
there.
Adding in
nearby
sources
-------
(Air Risk^nd
Criteria Pollutant
Analyses
Inhaling
Health
benchmarks
developed for
most sensitive
population
Eating fish
ding polluta
based on pote
equivalents
Eating fruits
and
vegetables
Adding
hazards of
multiple
chemicals
Adding risks of
multiple
chemicals
-------
-------
Endpoint
Short Term
Long Term
All Health
Endpoints
Facility data, national and state air
pollutant modeling, criteria
pollutant and air toxics
measurements, nearby sources,
SES
Facility data, national and state air
pollutant modeling, criteria pollutant
and air toxics measurements, nearby
sources, SES
Respiratory
Traffic, Environmental Tobacco
Smoke (ETS), AQI, asthma data
Traffic, ETS, AQI, asthma data
Developmental
Superfund site
Drinking water, superfund site, blood
lead
Cancer
Not Applicable
ETS, traffic, AQI, drinking water,
superfund site, blood lead, cancer
rates
-------
Communicating somewhere
between...
"Don't worry, it's fine."
- HLRV Air Dispersion Modeling and Air Permit Application
Heat Input
(MMBtu/hr)
Heightf
"»
Velocity
_lnVsL
svooi and SV020 are the same exhaust point. They are model
1 The HLRV MAUI, MAU2, MAU3, and MAIM all exhaust internally. The units are interlocked with exhaust fans when in operation,
re emissions are assumed to exhaust from the interlocked exhaust fan locations.
-------
Cumulative Risk Assessment
EPA Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment, 2003
"...the combination of risks posed by aggregate
exposure to multiple agents or stressors (biological,
chemical, physical, and psychosocial) in which
aggregate exposure is exposure by all routes and
pathways and from all sources of each given agent
or stressor... "cumulative risk assessment" is
defined as an analysis, characterization, and
possible quantification of the combined risks to
human health or the environment from multiple
agents or stressors/'
-------
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS:
BUILDING A SCIENTIFIC
FOUNDATION
Linda S. Adams. Se
Ca'lfornlo Envlroranenral Prcteclon Agercv
Joon t. D?ntai, Ph.D., D rectsr
rtf Fnvrr*im«ntnl H»olth Hrvnrti
Cumulative impacts means expo-
sures, public health or environmen-
tal effects from the combined emis
sions and discharges, in a
geographic area, including envi-
ronmental pollution from all
sources, whether single or multi-
media, routinely, accidentally, or
otherwise released. Impacts will
take into account sensitive popula-
tions and socio-economic factors,
where applicable and to the ex-
tent data are available.
Cumulative Impacts: Building a Scientific
Foundation. Cal EPA, OEHHA.2010
-------
Cumulative Effects Definition
"the impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present;
and reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency (Federal or non-
Federal) or person undertakes such other
actions."
-Notional Environmental Policy Act language
-------
Table Activity 3
• Every table has one definition and the
individual rungs of the ladder.
• Determine which "rungs" this definition
would suggest that you include.
-------
Table Activity 4 (Final)
• Each table will have a permitting scenario, the 3
cumulative analysis definitions, the Elements of a
Cumulative Analysis figure.
• Discuss how to develop a cumulative analysis for
the particular scenario that is at your table AND
USE the definition in your hand out with a star on
it.
• You can pull in the rungs of the ladder that align
with the definition, and the sticky note tasks that
would assist in informing the outcome.
• You have 10 minutes.
-------
My Contact Information
Kristie.Ellickson@state.mn.us
651-757-2336
Cumulative Impacts in South Minneapolis
Permitting Website:
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/air-
permitting-south-minneapolis
-------
Additional Slides....
-------
Table 2
General example for presentation of results for Cumulative Levels and Effects Reports.
Specific Descriptors
General Discussion
• Ambient air toxics measurements
• Similar to other urban areas in St. Paul/Minneapolis
• Ambient PM25 measurements
• Lower than National Standard, similar to other urban areas in St. Paul/Minneapolis
Existing Stressors
• Traffic densities
• Similar to 10x statewide averages
• Exposure to tobacco smoke
• Tied for highest smoking rates in metropolitan area
• Potential exposures from nearby facilities (point sources)
• -8 nearby facilities with potential exposures
• Asthma hospitalizations and emergency room visits
• -1.5—2 times higher than Minneapolis city-wide average
• Cardiovascular hospitalizations
• High variability, uncertain
Descriptions of Vulnerabilities
• Socioeconomic status and minority populations
• Percent of Population without health insurance
• Potential environmental equity area
• One of the higher in Hennepin County
• Ranking in AAFA 100 Cities Asthma ranking
• Ranked best place in nation to live with asthma
• Comparisons with Healthy People 2020 Objectives
• Asthma hospitalizations and ED visits in Stud}" Area do not meet 2020 Healthy People objectives
Pathways/media
• Outdoor air, indoor air (ETS surrogate), ingestion of homegrown produce, incidental ingestion of soil
Routes
• Inhalation, ingestion
Subpopulations
• General population in the Study Area
• Consideration for children included (early lifestage exposure)
Endpoints
• Short-term respiratory and cardiovascular effects
• Geothermal heating
• Reduced NO2 emissions
• Permit limits on daily and annual paint use
• Reduced particulate and VOC emissions
• Permit limits on annual natural gas use
• Reduced NO2 emissions
Proposer Risk Reduction Activities
• Biofiltration gardens
• Reduced run-off from the site
• Double panel filters on paint spray booth exhaust
• Reduced particulate emissions
• Permit limits on specific metals in paints
• Reduced metallic emissions: chromium, lead, manganese, nickel or cadmium
• Public transit is a lower impact activity than individual vehicles
• Reduced vehicle emissions (NO2, particulate)
-------
• Is the analysis adequate?
• All available data, reasonable "hard look" at
potential facility contributions to existing
cardiovascular and respiratory events
* Considering all of the information presented,
would you recommend to move forward with a
draft permit?
• Is the draft permit adequate to limit potential
facility impacts to the community?
• Are there any further voluntary efforts that the
agency would suggest?
-------
Environmental Justice in the Policy Process &
Community Engagement Interface
EPA Making a Visible Difference Portland
Environmental Justice and Air Toxics Workshop
Portland Community Engagement and Capacity Building Session
March 15th, 2017
Shalini Gupta, Executive Director
Center for earth, Energy and Democracy
www.ceed.org
-------
Why do we have Community Engagement?
• Ideals of democracy:
Those most impacted should be
part of the solution building
• Fundamental Role (What CE is
supposed to do):
So a community can influence
decision-making in order to make
their community as healthy as
possible
-------
Standard Stakeholder Process
State Agency
Local Agency
Community
Technical
Industry
Environmental
Nonprofit
Policy/
Regulation
Business
Health
Professional
Academic
-------
Intersecting Layers Needed for Policy Impact
/
Community /Resident
Education
Community-Centered
Analysis Space
Stakeholder Process
i
-------
v Minneapolis
Climate Action Plan
• 2011. City Stakeholder process begins. No Indigenous,
community of color organizations. City 46% COC.
• 2012. EJ community petitions for inclusion; points of
agreement established; official City Environmental
Justice Working Group established (9 months).
• EJWG has co-facilitated (with city staff support)
community-centered analysis space with community
control on agenda, experts; representation in
stakeholder process and documentation.
• Final Plan Passed City Council in June 2013 -
unanimously with council members citing economic and
racial equity components inserted by EJWG.
/
L
^
s
Minneapolis
City of Lakes
-------
WORKSHOP: Building Environmental Justice &
Cumulative Impacts into Local Decision Making
sin]
rm
Ironbound
NEWAR!
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION
THE NEW SCHOOL
MILANO
Environmental Policy and
Sustainability Management
NJEJA
mm:
National Environmental Justice Training Conference
March 9, 2017, Washington, DC
Ana Isabel Baptista, PhD, Assistant Professor of Professional Practice, The New School
Molly Greenberg, MSW, Environmental Justice Policy Manager, Ironbound Community Corporation
Cynthia Mellon, MA, Co Chair, City of Newark, New Jersey Environmental Commission
Nicky Sheats, Esq. PhD, Director, Center for the Urban Environment, Thomas Edison Sate College
-------
>•
i ¦ .lilllJI
-nun iiiiiiin
5
CD
co —
>
u
u
03
Ql
E
O)
>
"43
(U
E
3
u
o3
CO
£
03
7u
Ql
i —
0
1 MM*
c
=3
O
_a>
o
cc
o
Q_
03
>*
u
03
u
o
>
"D
<
co .i=
¦4—'
u
03
Ql
E
CD
>
"-P
CD
E
D
u
M—
o
>
!>_
o
4-J
CO
~™~>
z
¦s
V_
03
£
CD
Z
^
CD
z
U
c
03
c
03
• Ml I
X3
i—
CD
o
Z
u
c
• ——
1 I 1
CD
i i i
L_
u
o
c.
<4—
03
CO
c
CO
-a
i_
O
CD
u
O
i—
CL
u
LLJ
C
o
k_
•-P
o
03
H—
4-»
>-
u
c
CD
03
U
O
E
_CD
>
Q-
~U
<
E
h rvj ro ^
-------
Community-Centered Analysis Space
Controlled by and
accountable to
Community
Focused on a policy/reg
Part of the official policy
process
Community
Orgs
Health
Expert
Community
Orgs
Policy/
Regulation
Community
Orgs
Academic
Technica
-------
Intersecting Layers Needed for Policy Impact
/
Community /Resident
Education
Community-Centered
Analysis Space
Stakeholder Process
I
-------
Memorandum of Understandings as a Tool
• Between Community-Centered Analysis Space and any larger
Stakeholder Process
• To be clear on expectations among the two parties - establish
working protocols, for the policy/reg in question.
• Negotiated points can include:
• Governance Protocols (who serves on SP, how EJ recs get
discussed, voting, etc)
• Communication Protocols (amount of notice on decision
making, documentation in final reports, etc)
• Resources provided (stipends, staffing, printing, etc)
• Facilitation and Agenda Setting (who, how)
• Trainings (for residents, for state/city staff, who trains, etc)
• Fundraising
-------
Community / Resident Education
Build Basics/Fundamentals:
What are regulations?
How do they get developed?
What is cumulative pollution?
What are the key issues
identified by the community
for the policy/reg?
Organizing
Pop Ed
Workshops
Community
m Debates
Education
Roll Playing
-------
Iterative Community Engagement Arc
Usually just the Larger
Standard Stakeholder
Process is
institutionalized and
intentionally resourced
^ Larger
Standard
Stakeholder
Community- Process
Centered
Analysis Space
Implementation
- Post Reg/Policy
Community
Engagement &
Accountability
Community
/ Resident
Education
-------
Justice in environmental policy and regulations
means addressing the distribution of power...
. . . the unequal distribution of power, in oil its forms, is the
major source of inequity, and that community empowerment
can have a sustained impact on this distribution of power
'Empowerment' refers to the process by which communities
re-negotiate power in order to gain control over the factors
that shape their lives, including access to information and
opportunity; decision-makers, and policy making/'
(Jandu, Bourcier, Choi, & Yen, p. 2)
-------
Interactive
• Goai: Indigenous, low income
and communities of color
disproportionately impacted
by industrial air pollution in
Oregon can influence
decision-making and make
their community as healthy
as possible.
• Activity: Each table come up
with an essential component
of community engagement
they feel is critical to the
Oregon process moving
forward. Speak to why it
would be critical.
-------
vy
Thank You
Shalini Gupta, Executive Director
Center for earth, Energy and Democracy (CEED)
612.276.5632
sgupta@ceed.org
www.ceed.org
www.facebook.com/Center.Earth.Energy.Democracy/
ra @CEED_Justice
-------
«p
Needs resources for
re search/analysis
and process
participation
Standard
Stakeholder
Process
Community-
Centered
Analysis Space
Needs trainings and
accountability metrics,
definitions, evaluation
MOU governs (his interaction
Work needs to be done in all areas
-------
EPA's Diesel Initiative as a Case
Study of Incorporating EJ
into Air Quality Programs
Dan Brown
EPA Region 10, Office of Air and Waste
March 15, 2017
Portland EJ and Air Toxics Workshop
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1
-------
NVd~0
~ Al
*
JcaNi
How Do Public Agencies Work
together to Protect Air Quality
The Clean Air Act (1990)
- Describes federal and state roles and
responsibilities
- Prescribes how EPA is to set standards for sources
of air pollution
- Establishes funding to help supports State Agencies
Two main categories of Air Pollutants:
- Criteria Pollutants (National Ambient Air Quality Standards)
- Air Toxics
-------
Regulation of Diesel Emissions
• CAA prohibits states from setting standards
for motor vehicles (with limited exception for CA)
- States do maintain the right to regulate the use
and operation of vehicles.
• EPA sets standards for vehicles and fuels
- Gasoiine (taking lead out)"^ enabled emission
controls on cars
- Diesel (taking sulfur out) ¦~enabled emission
controls on cars
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
3
-------
Diesel Engine Standards
• clean diesel regulations do a lot for new engines:
• 90% reduction in diesel emissions with annual health
benefit of $290 Billion & cost of $15 Billion
• But do nothing to reduce emissions from existing*
engines (even though the technology exists)
("except) Locomotive
/Marine
sales 40,000 marine engines,
1,000 locomotives / yr
6B gallons / yr
final rule 2008
fully phased in 2017
Nonroad Diesel
sales over 650,000 / yr
12B gallons / yr
final rule 2004
fully phased in 2015
Heavy-Duty Highway
sales 800,000/yr
40B gallons / yr
final rule 2000
fully phased in 2010
-------
Diesel Particle Matter (DPM)
and Your Health
• Exposure to diesel exhaust can
- lead to asthma and respiratory
illnesses
- worsen existing heart and lung
disease
- result in increased numbers of
emergency room visits.
-------
Potential Health Problems
PM2.5 (such as
from diesel
exhaust) poses
the greatest
problems since it
can get deep into
lungs and even
pass into the
blood stream
6
50-70
(microns) <*am«er
W PM10
Dust, poJIen. mold, etc
0|jm (mtc/ons) in diameter
90 Mm (morons) n Oameter
FINE BEACH SAND
HUMAN HAIR
CPM2.5
Combustion particles, orgaruc
compounds, metals, etc.
< 2.5 (.1 m (miauns) in diameter
-------
Environmental Justice Lens
0 10X benchmark
NOTE: Aieai beyond the modeling
domain (color-shaded region) are
beyond the scope of this project.
RtKRCNCtS.
Concentration data from OJQ Portland
AlrToxic* Study (PATS)
R.tw^m.in frftm Mrfrn anrt FSRI data
• National regulations produce significant reductions
over time, but do not address disproportionately
impacted communities.
National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) Map App
-------
National Clean Diesel Campaign
Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA)
1 Established by Energy Policy Act of 2005, gives EPA
authority to award grants to reduce diesel emissions in
areas disproportionately impacted by diesel
emissions.
1 EPA requests proposals for projects that use a
community-based multi-stakeholder collaborative
process to reduce emissions
1 Implemented by EPA Regional Offices through public-
private collaboration.
W'llSILI WEST COAST COLLABORATIVE
A public-private partnership to reduce diesel emissions
'~v . Mid-Atlantic «";ii'4ar
MIDWEST CLEAN DIESEL Diesel Collaborative INOITOSt IISS8I'
NITI \JJ/ V E Diesel Collaborative /1\
-------
Reducing Air Emissions Associated Witli
Ooods Movement: Working Towards
Embroilment a 1 Justice
NOVEMBER 2009
A Report of Advice
-------
Collahoratively-developed Near-port Community
Capacity Building Tools
Near-Port • Draft Port Primer for
Communities Communities
• Draft Community Action
Roadmap
Draft Environmental Justice
Primer for Ports
r. \ K
Stf
» f r l'
r«i. n.
^ .-ESSE; i
~ ~
v">f. i fc •
www.epa.qov/ports-initiative
TalkAboutPorts@epa.gov
10
-------
EPA-AlO-iy-lb-QQf-^ *
October X1S
For more information: ww ep*aoyjp&&jat(fau)>e.
Prepared by: EPA's Office of Ttansponatlon and AJr Quairty
Draft
A Ports Primer for Communities
An Overview of Ports Plann'ng and Operations
to Support Community Participation
An interactive tool and reference document
that characterizes the port industry sector
including environmental and community
health impacts associated with port
activities
Draft
Ports Primer for Communities
Help community's participate
effectively in decision-making
process by increasing local
understanding of:
•The role of ports;
•How ports can impact
local land use, economy
and environment; and
•Tools and resources that
have been successful in
other communities.
-------
7.2. Air Emissions
Near-port communities are often disproportionately impacted by air
emissions due to port operations, goods movement operations and
other industries that may be co-located with ports. Air emissions at
ports also impact regional air quality.
EPA sets national air quality standards that are implemented by
states and tribal agencies. There is also growing momentum within
the port sector to reduce emissions and improve air quality.
Pollutants from Diesel Engines1
Reducing pollutants from diesel engines is a significant
concern for ports and near-port communities. Equipment,
vehicles and marine vessels that burn diesel fuel are the
primary source of combustion-related emissions at port
facilities.
Because of the environmental and health impacts of diesel
emissions, many ports that have developed air quality
programs include a central focus on reducing NOx, SOx
and PM.2
<8
Diesel engines are also a source of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and affect climate change. A number of
strategies can help reduce impacts of diesel emissions on
air quality, as well as on global climate concerns such as
impacts on ecosystems, sea level, weather patterns and
agriculture.
Pollutants released by diesel engines include particulate
matter (PM). nitrogen oxides, (NOx), carbon monoxide
(CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), and air toxics. The level of sulfur
in the fuel being used is directly proportional to the level
of SOx emissions generated. Levels of other pollutant
emissions are related to the physics and chemistry of
the diesel combustion process. Additionally, some of
the pollutants are inversely linked in the combustion
process. This means that engines designed to reduce one
pollutant will naturally raise the levels of another pollutant.
Therefore, engine modifications must be combined with
other emission control technologies in order to effectively
reduce the levels of all four of the primary diesel emission
pollutants. It is good news for improving community health
that EPA has developed regulations requiring production
of cleaner diesel engines. However, diesel equipment lasts
a long time so the turn over to newer equipment can take
quite a while.
Pollutants from Diesel Engines
Emission Reduction Approaches
Clean Air Programs at Ports
)
Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Regional Air Quality
1
EPA SmartWay Program
North American Emission Control Area
12
-------
WmfM
Community Action Roadmap
Empowering Near-port Communities
vvERA
For more information. ivww2epa.gov/porTS-iniTiairve
Prepared by.- EPA'e Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Step 5: Make Your Case
Step 6: Build Momentum for Change
Community Action Resources
bl
Step 4: Develop an Action Plan
A companion to the Ports Primer
providing step-by-step process for
building capacity and preparing
community stakeholders to engage
nearby port facilities and influence
decision-making on issues of
community interest
June 2016
Community Action Roadmap
Step 1: Prioritize Goals and Concerns
Step 2: Identify Levers for Change
Step 3: Build Relationships
-------
Steps in the Good Neighbor Roadmap Process
Collaborate on an early-win project, maintain
momentum with consistent action and
communication, formalize community
partnerships and share progress regularly.
Assess the nature of your port's relationships with
the broad spectrum of stakeholders and begin
building trust and connections with near-port
community organizations and leadership.
Develop a strong policy foundation reflecting
your port's commitment to meaningfully engage
the near-port community in decisions and strive
for solutions that improve their quality of life.
Designed to inform the port industry
sector of the perspectives, priorities, and
challenges often unique to communities
with EJ concerns.
This resource provides step-by-step
guidance to improve the effectiveness of
port-community engagement.
Work in partnership with the community
to document how and when the port and
related agencies plan to engage the near-port
community and address priority concerns over
the next 3-5 years.
Engage the near-port community to gather
current community goals and concerns, even
those that may seem beyond current port
jurisdiction.
Identify upcoming plans and projects at the port
as well as related public, private and non-profit
agencies to identify opportunities to involve the
near-port community and address community
goals.
-------
Summary
• The Clean Air Act dictates how EPA sets standards.
• National standards advance clean technology, but do not
target highly impacted communities.
• Outside the Clean Air Act, we have limited resources to
develop voluntary/collaborative approaches to address
highly impacted communities
• We have had support from Congress to pursue such
projects under the Diesel Emission Reduction Act
- DERA Grants - New 2017 RFP to be announced soon
- Capacity Building Tools - Community Action Roadmap
• Pilot Projects in Seattle, Savanah and New Orleans
• Feedback welcome at TalkAboutPorts@EPA.GOV
15
-------
Incorporating Environmental Justice
into Everyday Actions and Policies
EPA Making a Visible Difference Portland
Environmental Justice and Air Toxics Workshop
Portland Community Engagement and Capacity Building
Portland, Oregon
March 15, 2017
Charles Lee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
J Workshop Goals
¦ Develop shared understanding of EJ
principles for air toxics issues in Oregon
¦ Build relationships across sectors and
achieve meaningful interactive
communications
2
-------
Definition of Environmental Justice
¦ "Fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
all people regardless of race, color, national
origin, or income with respect to the develop-
ment, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
3
-------
IMPACTS
Disproportionate Environmental and Health Burdens
Proximity to Pollution Sources
Poor Housing, Transportation, Health Care, Employment
Natural Disasters
Health Disparities
PROACTIVE
RESPONSES
Natural
Environment
Built
Environment
Social
Environment
Community Engagement
Analytic Tools and Measures
Regulatory Approaches
• Rules
• Permits
• Compliance & Enforcement
Collaborative Approaches
• Land Use and Planning
• Equitable Development
• Community Benefits
-------
Key Milestones in
I Environmental Justice
¦ Warren County, NC (1982)
¦ Toxic Wastes and Race Report (1987)
¦ EPA Office of EJ (1992)
¦ New Hampshire EJ Policy (1993)
¦ Executive Order 12898 (1994)
¦ California EJ Law (1998)
¦ EJ Collaborative Problem Solving (2004)
¦ Oregon EJ Task Force (2009)
¦ Plan EJ 2014 (2010)
-------
Key Statutory and Policy
Executive Order 12898 (and
Presidential Memorandum)
EJ Legal Tools Document
EJSCREEN (CalEnviroScreen)
Rulemaking Guidance
Promising Practices - NEPA
EJ Collaborative Problem Solving
Promising Practice*
for E| Methodologies
in NEPA Scrim
Frameworks
-------
Key Statutory and Policy
J Frameworks - State
¦ California
¦ Connecticut
¦ South Carolina
¦ Minnesota
¦ New York
¦ Massachusetts
¦ Maryland
-------
Community/Stakeholder
Involvement - Federal
OAQPS Efforts in training,
engagement and public input
EJSCREEN public release
process
Community collaboration
tools and near port pilots
y •" «*
8
-------
Community Involvement
State
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
Community Involvement Efforts
ECOS Green Report on
"Community Participation and
Equity Considerations in State
Permitting Programs"
-------
J Guidance - Federal
¦ EPA EJ and Rulemaking Guidance
¦ Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice
During the Development of Regulatory Actions
¦ Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental
Justice in Regulatory Analysis
¦ EJ Related Questions for Analysis
¦ Characteristics related to proximity to source or
stressor
- Differential exposures to a stressor
- Population characteristics, particularly those
contributing to greater vulnerability
10
Guidance on Considering
Environmental Justice During the
Development of Regulatory Actions
-------
Screening and Assessment
Tools - Federal
~SCREEN
¦ Nationally consistent EJ screening and
mapping tool
¦ Combines environmental & demographic
indicators
C-FERST/T-FERST
¦ Learn about environmental issues & risks in
their communities
¦ Compare conditions
¦ Explore exposure & risk reduction options
mm:.* mi Micro
The Environmental Protection Agency's Commurity-
Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool (D-FERST)
and Its Potential Use for Environmental Justice Efforts
11
-------
Screening and Assessment
Tools - State
CalEnviroScreen
¦ Identifies California communities disproportionately
burdened by multiple pollution sources
¦ Resulted from development of scientific foundation
for cumulative impacts
Minnesota Cumulative Air
Permitting Protocol
¦ Resulted from unique statute requiring assessment
of cumulative levels and effects
¦ Applies to area in South Minneapolis
OufORNM Communities
Environmental Heaith Scheming
Tool, Vssion 2.0
(CaiEnvsoScshn 2.0)
GuCawCE Sa&ihS'K, TOCL
: O
- o
How to Conduct a Cumulative
Air Emissions Risk Analysis
-------
J Take-Aways
¦ Understand statutory and policy
frameworks
¦ Basic guidance, screening and analytic
tools now exist
¦ Make use of best practices in stakeholder
communications and engagement
13
-------
1
Incorporating Meaningful
Involvement at the national
Level
Portland Community Engagement
and Capacity Building Workshop
Portland, OR
March 15, 2017
Holly Wilson
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC
-------
2
Background
~ What is EJ and Meaningful Involvement
and engagement?
-------
3
EPA Environmental Justice
~ E.O. 12898 calls for federal agencies "to the greatest
extent practicable and permitted by law, to identify ...
and address... as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of
agency programs, policies and actions on minority
populations and low income populations"
~ EPA defines Environmental Justice (EJ) as "the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin or income with
respect to the development, implementation and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and
policies"
-------
Fair Treatment and Meaningful
Involvement
~ "Fair Treatment" means that no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the negative environmental
consequences of industrial, governmental and commercial
operations or programs and policies.
~ "Meaningful Involvement" means that:
1. potentially affected community members have an
appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about a
proposed activity that will affect their environment and/or
health;
2. the public's contribution can influence the regulatory
agency's decision;
3. the concerns of all participants involved will be considered in
the decision-making process; and
4. the rule writers and decision-makers seek out and facilitate
the involvement of those potentially affected.
-------
5
How Does Meaningful
Involvement and Engagement
Apply to OAR Actions?
> Rulemaking and Guidance Development
> EJ and Permitting
> Capacity Building
-------
6
IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation
Increasing Level of Public Impact
Inform
Provide
Information
• Fact Sheets
• Websites
• Open
Houses
Consult
Obtain
Feedback
• Public
Comment
• Public
Meetings
• Focus
Groups
Involve
Two-Way
Conversations
• Advisory
Groups
• Workshops
• Deliberative
Polling
Collaborate
Partner with
Public to
Develop
Preferred
Solution
• Consensus
Building
• Participatory
Decision-
making
Empower
Public Makes
Decisions
• Voting
• Citizen Juries
• Delegated
Decision-
making
International Association for Public Participation
-------
Policy and Tools That Support
Meaningful Involvement
~ Plan EJ 2014 and Plan EJ 2020 is a roadmap helping EPA integrate environmental justice into the
agency's programs, policies, and activities.
~ Programs, Policies and Tools to help support meaningful engagement
~ OGC EJ Legal Tools (complete)
~ A living document using terms "could" and "can" far more than "cannot" with respect to CAA programs
and authorities.
~ EJ in Rulemaking Process Guidance (Complete)
~ EJ should be a consideration early, often and throughout EPA actions.
~ EJSCREEN
~ OAQPS instrumental in the development.
~ Technical Guidance for Assessing EJ in Regulatory Analysis (2D 16)
~ Many principles within the draft document are predicated on activities already taking place within
OAQPS.
~ EJ in Permitting -
~ https://'www. federal re gister.gov/ docum ents/2D 12/06/26/2D 12-156D5/epa-activities-to-promote-
environmental-justice-in-the-permit-application-process
~ OAR is the lead on this workgroup.
-------
Examples of EJ analysis/outreach
impacting rulemaking
~ Mercury Air Toxics Rule - necessary and appropriate finding, identified
several populations impacted by mercury from power plants through
subsistence fishing or high fish diets, including low SES blacks in the southern
US, Tribal communities with subsistence fishing, some Asian populations
~ PM NAAQS - identified low SES populations as "sensitive" and thus needing
protection under the NAAQS.
~ Petroleum Refinery Residual Risk and Technology Review - identified fence
line monitoring as a compliance tool for the proposed rule based partially on
input from communities.
~ Clean Power Plan - public involvement requirement, encouragement of EJ
analysis by states and CEIP
-------
Meaningful Involvement Process -
Rulemaking Activities
~ Priority given based on EJ analysis or community concern
~ Activities may include:
• EJ monthly email of recent and upcoming activities
• Webinars
• Bi-monthly conference call
• In person trainings for high priority rules
-------
Meaningful Involvement Process -
Rulemaking
10
~ Training Planning
¦ Community driven
¦ Include upfront discussion of authority used in the rule
¦ State and industry participation, when possible
~ Timing Possibilities
¦ Prior to proposal
¦ Post proposal to help support comments
¦ Post promulgation to help with implementation
-------
Meaningful Engagement-
Capacity Building
11
~ Clean Air Act (CAA) 101
¦ Helps communities understand the authorities in the CAA
¦ Helps build relationships and strengthens community
engagement
¦ Identifies how to work with EPA and States
~ Permitting Training
¦ Helps communities to understand the different types of CAA
permits
¦ Helps communities work with states and industry on
appropriate permits
-------
12
Meaningful Involvement Activities
~ In Person Training Activities
¦ EPA Clean Air Act (CAA) Rulemaking and Permit Training,
Community Air Permitting Workshop, Birmingham AL
¦ CAA and Permitting Training, Detroit Ml
¦ EPA CAA Rulemaking and Permitting Train the Trainers for
EJ/Communities Organizations, RTP NC
¦ Community Involvement Air Permitting Training, Worcester,
MA
¦ Many Tribal Trainings with and independent of ITEP
-------
Recent Rule specific In-person
Training
13
~ Petroleum Refinery RTR proposal
¦ New Orleans, LA and Oakland, CA
~ Clean Power Plan
¦ Preproposal - Washington DC
¦ Post proposal
~Tribal governments training at TAMS Center
~Community trainings
¦ Port Arthur TX, Farmington NM, Tuba City AZ and
Washington DC
-------
Trainings in FY16 - Making a Visible
Difference Communities
14
~ Detroit Ml - Monitoring and analysis using publically
available information (requested by Region 5 and
communities)
~ New Jersey - CAA Permitting (requested by community)
~ CAA and Permitting - New Port News VA (requested by
community)
~ Rule specific Training for Mossville on PVC
-------
Lessons Learned About
Trainings - In Person Training
~ Create a safe environment
~ Good facilitator
~ Good ground rules
~ Manage Expectations -
~ Community - help people understand what you can and
can't do
~ Your own - you're not going to make everyone happy
~ Other participants (Industry and States)
~ Try to bring all important voices
~ Regional Office
~ state, local agency
~ Industry
-------
Lessons Learned About
Trainings - In Person Training
16
~ Community Driven Design
~ Trainings may not look the same but will have
buy in from the community and you will give
them not only EPA's information but also what
they see as a need.
~ Be flexible to adjust the agenda
~ Do your homework - explore culture, history and
sensitivities for the community
~ Hands on activities are important!
-------
Lessons Learned - Best
Practices for Webinars and
hone Calls
~ Provide Plenty of Advanced Notice
~ Operator-assisted calls can help with large meetings
~ Start with housekeeping
~ Webinars
~ Dry runs
~ Make sure internal roles are clear
-------
Lessons Learned and Helpful
Hints
~ Don't take public anger as a personal attack - it's really
not about you.
~ Listen - We have two eyes, two ears and one mouth we
need to use them proportionately
~ Don't promise more than you can deliver and deliver what
you promise.
~ Follow up! Building relationships means being responsive.
~ Return phone calls, emails, including on-going
discussions.
-------
Appendix- CORE VALUES AND GUIDING 19
PRINCIPLES FOR THE PRACTICE OF PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION - NEJAC Model for Plan for Public
Participation
~ People should have a say in decisions about actions which
affect their lives.
~ Public participation includes the promise that the public's
contribution will influence the decision.
~ The public participation process communicates the
interests and meets the process needs of all participants.
~ The public participation process seeks out and facilitates
the involvement of those potentially affected.
~ The public participation process involves participants in
defining how they participate.
~ The public participation process communicates to
participants how their input was, or was not, utilized.
-------
20
CORE VALUES AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE
PRACTICE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public participation process provides participants with the
information they need to participate in a meaningful way.
Involve the public in decisions about actions which affect their lives.
Maintain honesty and integrity throughout the process.
Encourage early and active community participation.
Recognize community knowledge.
Use cross-cultural methods of communication.
Institutionalize meaningful public participation by acknowledging
and formalizing the process.
Create mechanisms and measurements to ensure the effectiveness
of public participation.
interact is published by the International Association of Public
Participation Practitioners, a non-profit corporation established in
1990 to serve practitioners throughout the world seeking practical
experience designing and conducting public involvement
programs.
-------
Holly Wilson, Lead
Community Air Program
Outreach and Information Division
Office of Air Quaity Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919)541-5624 ,
wilson.hollv@epa.gov
-------
Update on Cleaner Air Oregon
Gabriela Goldfarb
Oregon Health Authority
Richard Whitman
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
CleanerflirOregon
-------
Cleaner Air Oregon - DEQ
Sources of toxic air pollutants
CleanerflirOregon
-------
Cleaner Air Oregon Background Information
- Existing regulations reduce toxics for many facilities
- Gaps
• Federal regulations aren't Oregon-specific
• Don't cover all industry types and toxics
• Don't account for impact to health of people living near facilities
- New opportunity for regulations that address health
- Washington, California and other states have programs to learn from
CleanerflirOregon
-------
Cleaner Air Oregon & Environmental Justice
Exploring:
• Cumulative Impacts from Multiple Pollutants from a Single Facility
• Cumulative Impacts from Multiple Facilities in Close Proximity
• EJ Screen, Other Tools to Inform Implementation
CleanerflirOregon
-------
What Cleaner Air Oregon will do
• Set health-based limits on industrial emissions
• Assess emissions based on human health safety
standards
• Cover a comprehensive range of air toxics and
industrial facilities statewide
• Give clear guidance to business
• Improve public health by reducing air toxics
CleanerAirOregon
5
-------
Understanding Air Toxics Emissions
• Emission Inventory
• Estimate air toxics emissions
• Identify pollutants causing the most risk
• Identify facilities and plan CAO implementation
• Reports due from March to September 2017
• DEQ will review, analyze and, compile using best practices and
scientific methods
CleanerflirOregon
-------
Cleaner Air Oregon Engagement and Outreach
• Visit www.cleanerair.oregon.gov
• Follow us on social media
-Cleanerairoregon
-@cleanerairOR Q
• Email info@cleanerairoreqon.org
^ ¦* ^ W
- 2 webinars: air quality 101, air toxics permitting
-4 technical workgroup meetings
-4 regional forums: Pendleton, Bend, Medford, Portland
- 6 policy advisory committee meetings: 3 complete
-------
Cleaner Air Oregon Policy Advisory Committee
Policy Advisory committee process underway
- Using input from technical workgroup, regional forums and agency
analysis, the policy advisory is discussing and considering:
Program scope
Cumulative risks
Pollutant scope and setting risk
based concentrations
Screening and risk
assessment
Setting and achieving acceptable risk
levels
Implementation
CleanerAirOregon
8
-------
Next steps for Cleaner
Public
Input
Advisory
Committee
Input
Draft regulations
Oregon
Rulemaking schedule
Summer - Fall 2017, proposed regulations
scheduled for public notice and comment
Fall - Winter, 2017, DEQ and OHA will
summarize, consider and respond to public
comment, and prepare the necessary
documents for the Environmental Quality
Commission
Early 2018, Environmental Quality
Commission to consider rule adoption
9
-------
Cleaner Air Oregon
CREATING HUMAN HEALTH-BASED
INDUSTRIAL AIR TOXICS REGULATIONS
Timeline for public engagement that fosters active participation
DEQ
September 2016-October 2016
POLICY FORUMS
April 2016
EQC MEETING ON TEMPORARY
RULE
Fall - Winter 2017 DEQ and
OHA REVIEW, RESPOND
AND PUBLISH COMMENTS
June 201 p
HUMAN HEALTH RISK
BASED RULES WEBINAR
Surnmei-Fall 2017 PUBLIC
NOTICE & COMMENT PERIOD
Ings, online lnpur^>llaboratlon with community-based organizations and other TBD |
p018
ONGOING ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENGAGEMENT community
May 2016
AIRTOXICS
REGULATION WEBINAR
June, July. 2016
TECHNICAL WORKGROU
October 2016-June 2017
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
line 2017
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FISCAL REVIEW
We are here
:•...I / :« COMMISSION CONSIDERS PROPOSED rule]
-------
«-ER^
USEPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101-1128
------- |