MEETING SUMMARY
of the

AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
of the

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

December 5, 2001
Seattle, Washington

Meeting Summary Accepted By:

{JJU/A&fyb 4^-——/ i



Alice Walker	Eileen Guana

Co-Designated Federal Official	Vice Chair

Wil Wilson

Co-Designated Federal Official

-------
CHAPTER THREE
MEETING OF THE
AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Air and Water Subcommittee of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
conducted a one-day meeting on Wednesday,
December 5, 2001, during a four-day meeting of the
NEJAC in Seattle, Washington. Ms. Annabelle
Jaramillo, Benton County Board of Commissioners,
continues to serve as chair of the subcommittee.
Ms. Alice Walker, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Office of Water (OW), and Dr. Wil
Wilson, EPA Office of Air and Radiation (OAR),
continue to serve jointly as the Designated Federal
Officials (DFO) for the subcommittee. Exhibit 3-1
presents a list of the members who attended the
meeting and identifies the member who was unable
to attend.

This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Air and Water Subcommittee, is
organized in five sections, including this Introduction.
Section 2.0, Activities of the Subcommittee,
summarizes the discussions about the NEJAC
strategic plan and the activities of the work groups of
the Air and Water Subcommittee. Section 3.0,
Presentations and Reports, presents an overview of
each presentation and report delivered during the
subcommittee meeting, as well as a summary of
relevant questions and comments of members of the
subcommittee. This section also includes a
summary of the discussions about the draft fish
consumption report prepared by the Fish
Consumption Work Group. Section 4.0, Significant
Action Items, summarizes the significant action
items adopted by the subcommittee.

2.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE

This section discusses the activities of the
subcommittee, including discussions about the
NEJAC strategic plan and the activities of the work
groups of the Air and Water Subcommittee.
Members of the subcommittee also discussed
concerns associated with the adequacy of the staffing
of the work groups of the subcommittee.

2.1 NEJAC Strategic Plan

Ms. Jaramillo commended the lead authors of the
NEJAC strategic plan - Ms. Wilma Subra, Louisiana
Environmental Action Network; Mr. Kenneth Warren,
Wolf Block Schorr and Solis-Cohan LLP; and Ms.
Veronica Eady, Commonwealth of Massachusetts -
for their efforts. She suggested that the members of
the subcommittee review Section VII, Organization

Exhibit 3-1

	

AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE

Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 5, 2001

Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo, Chair
Ms. Eileen Gauna, Vice-Chair
Ms. Alice Walker, Co-DFO
Dr. Wil Wilson, Co-DFO

Dr. Elaine Barron
Ms. Daisy Carter
Mr. Daniel Greenbaum
Mr. Kenneth Manaster
Mr. Leonard Robinson

Ms. Wilma Subra
Mr. Damon Whitehead
Ms. Marianne Yamaguchi

Member
Who Was Unable To Attend

Dr. Michel Gelobter

and Procedure Goal, of the report which sets forth the
framework for the responsibilities of the NEJAC
subcommittees. She noted that recent meetings of
the Executive Council of the NEJAC had evolved from
a meeting at which a broad range of subjects was
discussed to a meeting at which the members
focused on a specific theme. The use of a
"roundtable" discussion format that was designed to
promote dialogue among the members of the
Executive Council about the issues being discussed,
reflected continued improvements to the process, she
continued.

Ms. Jaramillo commented that the new approach to
conducting meetings had enhanced the productivity
of the Executive Council. She added that the
strategic plan also had established an expectation
that each of the subcommittees would develop a work
plan for its activities. Since its inception, the Air and
Water Subcommittee had been attempting to cover
"the whole waterfront" of issues, from permitting to
urban air toxics to fish consumption, she observed.
In light of the requirement for work plans, Ms.
Jaramillo asked that the work groups conduct similar
planning during their meetings. She encouraged the
work groups to focus on several key issues and
propose schedules for their work.

Dr. Elaine Barron, Paso del Norte Air Quality Task
Force, stated that it is important that the NEJAC
continue to evaluate its effectiveness in increasing the

Seattle, Washington, December 5, 2001

-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Air and Water Subcommittee

influence of the public on EPA's policies and
procedures. She asked that the members of the
NEJAC identify successes and failures so that
lessons are learned.

Mr. Damon Whitehead, Earth Conservation Corps,
recalled that, several years ago, the Executive
Council had considered the issue of self-evaluation.
He asked whether the details of the process had
been completed and, if not, whether the process
could be "jump-started" again. He added that after
the Public Participation and Accountability
Subcommittee had disbanded several years earlier,
it was not clear how considerations related to public
participation were to be incorporated into the
discussions of each of the remaining subcommittees.

Mr. Charles Lee, EPA Office of Environmental Justice
(OEJ) and DFO of the NEJAC, responded that, in
1998, the NEJAC had established an Assessment
Work Group to address the issue of evaluating the
effectiveness of the NEJAC. He stated that the work
group had been established to ensure that all
stakeholder groups were involved, including such
representatives of EPA as Mr. Rob Brenner, EPA
OAR, and Ms. Laura Yoshii, EPA Region 9. Mr. Lee
said that the work group had prepared a report that
served as the basis of the discussions conducted
during the facilitated dialogue meeting of the
Executive Council of the NEJAC that took place in
August 2001.

Mr. Lee reported that one of the findings of the work
group was that the NEJAC appears to represent
"many things to many people." For example, he said,
the NEJAC is regarded as a platform through which
the public could gain access to the government.
Continuing, Mr. Lee reported that every comment
made at meetings of the NEJAC, had received a
response, such as referral of the issue to the
appropriate EPA office. He acknowledged, however,
that there was a question about whether a number of
such actions had brought about real, meaningful
progress. Mr. Lee commented that many people
think of a meeting of the NEJAC as a conference at
which the audience makes presentations rather than
a meeting at which the members discuss issues. He
emphasized the importance of recognizing that the
purpose of NEJAC meetings is to provide
recommendations to EPA, with planned follow-up on
the implementation and evaluation of those
recommendations.

Mr. Lee said that the key issue to be considered in
2002 is how the subcommittees of the NEJAC can be
most effective. He stated that, until that issue has
been clarified, it would be difficult to begin evaluating

33	

the work of the subcommittees. He observed that the
assignment to each meeting of a specific theme
would improve opportunities for discussion and
collaboration among the members of the NEJAC. Mr.
Lee emphasized the importance of establishing a
collaborative framework among:

OEJ and the program offices

NEJAC and EPA (including OEJ and the program

offices)

Members of the NEJAC

NEJAC and environmental justice communities

Mr. Lee also stated that members participating in the
August 2001 facilitated dialogue meeting of the
NEJAC had identified five elements of a successful
subcommittee:

-	A strong, committed, and knowledgeable
DFO appointed by the sponsoring program
office

-	High-quality leadership that encourages
participation

-	High-quality membership that eagerly
participates and is knowledgeable about the
subject matter

-	Support from the sponsoring program office

-	A strategic plan to guide the activities of the
subcommittee

Mr. Lee said that the NEJAC Assessment Work
Group planned to establish a set of guidelines for the
strategic plans of the subcommittee. Pointing to the
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy
and Technology (NACEPT), of which Ms. Subra is a
member, he noted that the NACEPT has been
designed as a standing committee with ad hoc work
groups that are established to address a single issue.
Continuing, Mr. Lee stated that, by December 31,
2002, he expected that the NEJAC will have adopted
a modified version of that structure. He added that he
and Mr. Barry E. Hill, director of EPA OEJ, had been
meeting with the assistant administrators of EPA,
emphasizing that each program office must provide
leadership and direction to the subcommittees its
sponsors. Mr. Lee said that he and Mr. Hill had
stressed that the NEJAC exists to serve the EPA
program offices and that those offices should provide
guidance to help the subcommittees retain focus and
be productive.

Mr. Lee stated that, during the coming year, one goal
of the NEJAC would be to strive to make the work
groups more efficient. He acknowledged that the
members of the subcommittees and work groups

Seattle, Washington, December 5, 2001

-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Air and Water Subcommittee

were conducting their work for the NEJAC on their
own time. He added that his goal was to allay fears
that serving on the NEJAC was an "all-consuming
commitment."

Ms. Daisy Carter, Project AWAKE, emphasized that
members of community groups appear before the
NEJAC to voice their concerns directly to
representatives of EPA. She added that such
individuals expect EPA to help solve their problems.
She asked whether that was indeed the case. Mr.
Lee responded that the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) requires that a public comment period be
held during each meeting of the NEJAC. He
confirmed that any person can attend a meeting to
voice his or her concerns during the public comment
period. However, he observed, because so many
issues are raised during any given public comment
period, it has become evident that another forum is
needed in which people can voice their concerns and
receive direct responses from agency representatives.
Mr. Lee pointed to the proposed idea of conducting
regional clinics or listening sessions at which
members of communities can speak out fully about
their concerns. Mr. Kenneth Manaster, Santa Clara
University School of Law, asked that EPA inform
members of the NEJAC about the dates and
locations of the regional listening sessions, so that
those members can attend the sessions.

Pointing to the many committees formed by federal
agencies under the FACA legislation, Dr. Barron
suggested that they also should be examined for
effectiveness, so that the NEJAC can identify the
lessons learned and, in turn, advise communities
about how to be more effective in interacting with
local governments. She explained that members of
communities must be empowered locally because
their concerns should be sent "to the top" (for
example, to EPA) as well as "to the bottom" (for
example, to local municipalities). She added that
public officials tend to listen to their constituents
rather than to those above them.

Ms. Gauna recalled the comments made on the
previous day by Mr. Richard Moore, Southwest
Network for Environmental and Economic Justice and
former chair of NEJAC. He had observed, she said,
there is a pervading perception that the NEJAC is not
fulfilling its mission. Ms. Gauna stressed that the
NEJAC always offers advice to EPA, as it has been
charged to do. If EPA does not accept the
recommendations of the NEJAC, that circumstance
is a failure of EPA rather than the NEJAC, she
continued, adding that EPA must provide assurance
that it is taking the recommendations of the NEJAC
seriously.

Mr. Lee acknowledged that there is a perception that
the NEJAC is ineffective, as well as concerns that the
process of developing the strategic plan had been
closed. He explained that the views of the public
were solicited to the broadest extent possible, but
that many community members who were invited to
comment were not available or did not wish to do so.
Mr. Lee added that public participation will be
encouraged during the implementation of the plan
over the coming years.

2.2 Activities of the Work Groups

This section discusses the activities of the work
groups of the Air and Water Subcommittee. The
Permitting and Public Utilities Work Groups held a
joint breakout session, during which the two bodies
were merged permanently into a single work group.

2.2.1 Fish Consumption Work Group

Mr. Leonard Robinson, TAMCO, provided an update
on the activities of the Fish Consumption Work
Group. He stated that the Fish Consumption Work
Group plans to (1) review the document and provide
comment on it and (2) identify and recommend
individuals to serve on various EPA stakeholder work
groups and as technical consultants for the issuance
of fish advisories. Those goals, he added, are to be
accomplished by December 2002.

Mr. Robinson also reported that Mr. Jeff Bigler, EPA
Office of Science and Technology (OST), had made
a presentation to the work group about the plans of
EPA OW to revise Volume IV of EPA's Guidance
Document for Assessing Chemical Contamination
Data for Use in Fish Advisories. That volume, which
focuses on risk communication, will be revised to
incorporate awareness of issues of environmental
justice, he said. Mr. Bigler explained that EPA is
developing a second edition of the document because
comments the received by the agency have
suggested that the existing guidance could be
improved by incorporating an awareness of
environmental justice. Comments also suggested the
report should acknowledge that contaminated fish
exist in many areas of the United States.

During his presentation, Mr. Bigler also had described
three technical groups that will be coordinated by
EPA OW:

The Stakeholder Work Group would be tasked to
provide technical input, project leadership, and
decisions regarding recommendations of the
guidance document. Members will include tribal

TJ

Seattle, Washington, December 5, 2001

-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Air and Water Subcommittee

leaders and representatives of cultural and ethnic
groups and state government agencies.

The National Stakeholder Work Group would be
tasked to address issues related to EPA's
national Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program
(NFWCP). Membership would consist of
representatives of federal, state, and tribal
agencies who would serve in an advisory
capacity to the NFWCP. Exhibit 3-2 describes
the activities of the NFWCP.

drafts, and (3) EPA reviews and publishes the revised
document.

During its deliberations, the Fish and Consumption
Work Group had developed a preliminary list of
recommendations:

Both EPA proposed work groups should review
the Fish Consumption Report before asking the
NEJAC for comments related to fish consumption
and water quality\

Guidance on fish consumption advisories should:

-	Convey to communities the relevant criteria
used to develop fish consumption advisories

-	Consider making guidance on fish
consumption advisories mandatory

-	Involve the target audience in the design and
goal-setting stages

-	Target the message to ethnic health groups
and healthcare providers

-	Help affected communities become
empowered to affect the situation

-	Condense the recommendations in the
guidance to avoid repetition and overlap,
striving for "simplicity"

-	Explore and discuss comparative dietary
risks

-	Offer alternatives or options for affected
communities

-	Explore best practices through research on
international entities

-	Maintain sensitivity to sovereignty and the
cultural way of life of tribal populations

-	Include the temporal component of advisories
and their effects on communities

Membership of the proposed EPA stakeholder

work groups should:

Exhibit 3-2

	

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE
CONTAMINATION PROGRAM

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) National Fish and Wildlife Contamination
Program (NFWCP) provides technical assistance to
states, tribes, and federal agencies for matters
related to the assessment of health risks associated
with exposure to chemical contaminants in fish and
other wildlife. Specifically, the NFWCP conducts
the following ongoing activities:

•	Issues national guidance documents,
including the Guidance Document for
Assessing Chemical Contamination Data for
Use in Fish Advisories

•	Conducts national forums, workshops, and
conferences, such as the 2001 National Risk
Communication Conference in Chicago

•	Conducts national outreach to medical
communities in conjunction with the U.S.
Department of Flealth and Fluman Services

•	Conducts special studies, such as the studies
of Cook Inlet in Alaska and the Mississippi
delta

•	Provides assistance in preparing federal
advisories

•	Issues the online News Service on
Contaminants in Fish

Products prepared by NFWCP are available
electronically at: .

A group of technical consultants who will provide
technical advice, project management, and logistical
support to EPA and develop and revise new materials
under the direction of the Stakeholder Work Group.

Mr. Bigler presented the following process by which
the revised guidance will be developed: (1)
consultants and stakeholder groups develop outlines,
(2) consultants and stakeholder groups develop

-	Include on the Stakeholder Work Group
representatives of the environmental justice
team of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Latino community, the Seattle Public
Utilities, and the Air and Water
Subcommittee of the NEJAC

-	Include on the National Stakeholder Work
Group a member of the NEJAC

Mr. Robinson noted that the terms of three members
of the Air and Water Subcommittee who also serve
on the Fish Consumption Work Group would expire
December 31, 2001. Dr. Barron asked how the
institutional knowledge of the current members of the
work group would be passed along to new work group
members. She asked whether the departing

Seattle, Washington, December 5, 2001

-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Air and Water Subcommittee

members could be called upon in the future to provide
advice. Ms. Jaramillo responded that the NEJAC
could decide whether to appoint them to serve as
members of a work group. Ms. Marianne
Yamaguchi, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project,
explained that, even after the Fish Consumption Work
Group has ceased functioning, the former members
can be asked to serve in a different capacity. Ms.
Jaramillo commented that, once a person becomes
a resource, he or she always will remain a resource.

Ms. Yamaguchi asked that the work group consider
water permitting issues in the future given that the
Permitting Work Group primarily was addressing
permitting issues from a perspective of air quality.
She suggested that another work group be created to
address permitting issues from the perspective of
water quality. Ms. Jaramillo agreed, adding that total
maximum daily loads (TMDL) and confined animal
feeding operations (CAFO) are issues the new work
group should consider. She said that, when the Fish
Consumption Work Group completes its work on the
report, it could turn its attention to general issues
related to water quality. Ms. Gauna asked that the
subcommittee consider changing the name of the
work group if it is to take on such additional issues.

Dr. Barron expressed concern that EPA has no
program office that addresses the issue of water
supply. She stressed that water supply is an
important issue in arid tribal areas.

2.2.2 Permitting and Utilities Work Group

Mr. Daniel Greenbaum, Health Effects Institute,
reported that the Permitting Work Group, which had
merged with the Public Utilities Work Group, would
continue focusing on three issues: (1) reviewing
EPA's White Paper No. 3 on flexible permitting, (2)
reviewing EPA OAR's new source review study report
that is expected to be issued in January or February
2002 and that will present recommendations for
changing the protocol for conducting new source
reviews, and (3) developing a document on "best
practices" for permitting that are sensitive to issues
of environmental justice.

Mr. Greenbaum explained that EPA's new source
review study report consisted of a 90-day study
described in President George W. Bush's energy
plan. He observed that the report originally had been
due on August 15, 2001, but that its issuance had
been delayed to coincide with the promulgation of
stringent emissions reductions requirements for
electrical utilities.

Ms. Gauna stated that the "best practices" guide
would include a discussion of alternative site analysis
and alternative production processes. She added
that the report also would examine EPA's statutory
authority to require measures and incentives in the
permitting process that encourage facilities to "go
above and beyond" the regulatory requirements. The
document also would provide information about public
participation strategies and empowering communities
to monitor the activities of facilities in their vicinity.
She stated that she anticipated the potential for
collaborative efforts with other work groups of the
NEJAC, the Clean Air Act FACA committee, or other
groups addressing permitting issues.

Mr. Greenbaum added that Mr. Manaster had agreed
to serve as vice-chair of the new Permitting and
Public Utilities Work Group. He added that another
issue on the work group's agenda is upcoming
legislation related to mercury. Expected in January
2002, the legislation would include a proposal for
reducing the amounts of mercury used in power
plants, he said.

Ms. Gauna then repeated her concern that the work
group was not staffed adequately to deal with all the
issues it has under consideration.

2.2.3 Urban Air Toxics Work Group

Mr. Whitehead informed the subcommittee that Mr.
Peter Murchie, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS), had presented to the Urban
Air Toxics Work Group an overview of EPA's air
toxics program. Mr. Whitehead said that Mr. Murchie
had described EPA OAR's Work Plan for the
National Air Toxics and Integrated Air Toxics
Strategy, a major document that was to provide the
framework for the activities of the program. Mr.
Whitehead reported that the work plan had been
completed at the end of October 2001 and that EPA
plans to implement the work plan by 2003.

Mr. Whitehead stated that Dr. Barron; Dr. Michel
Gelobter, Redefining Progress and former chair of the
Air and Water Subcommittee; and Mr. Bunyan Bryan,
University of Michigan, serve on the Clean Air Act
FACA committee. Continuing, Mr. Whitehead said
that the work plan would have a significant effect on
the way in which EPA deals with the issue of "hot
spots" under its urban air toxics strategy. He
reported that, during the public comment period of the
previous day, it had been revealed that EPA had been
examining local-scale assessments of "hot spots."
Mr. Whitehead explained that EPA had said it would
use local data and provide incentives and support for
conducting such assessments. Mr. Whitehead

Seattle, Washington, December 5, 2001

-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Air and Water Subcommittee

added that he would like the Urban Air Toxics Work
Group to prepare comprehensive comments to the
work plan, before the next meeting of the NEJAC.

2.3 Staffing of Work Groups

Ms. Gauna expressed concern that subcommittees
and work groups may not be staffed adequately to
accomplish their goals. Specifically, she commented
that the Permitting Work Group was understaffed
severely. Dr. Wilson explained that the EPA program
offices that sponsor the subcommittees decide how
to staff a subcommittee. He added that, while there
is no limit on the number of members who serve on a
subcommittee, the amount of resources available
from the program office could be a limiting factor.

Mr. Whitehead called the attention of the members to
page 9 of the NEJAC strategic plan, which states that
work groups can seek resources outside the agency.
Ms. Gauna acknowledged that fact, but added that
those individuals who are working with, but not
assigned to, a subcommittee must pay for their own
travel expenses. She commented further that
resources are insufficient to allow the NEJAC to deal
with the regulatory initiatives which she described as
"daunting." She acknowledged that it is difficult to
identify people who are familiar with air and water
issues, as well as environmental justice. She
stressed the importance of assigning to work groups
individuals who can spend time reviewing regulations
and guidance documents.

Mr. Lee acknowledged that, nationally, only three to
six people are knowledgeable of issues related to
environmental justice, as well as the technical issues
of air permitting. He said that Ms. Gauna's concern
point to a more extensive structural problem than
merely that facing the NEJAC. It is, he noted, difficult
to identify people who have the necessary expertise.
Mr. Lee then said that the same individuals always
are suggested. Mr. Bob Kellam, EPA OAQPS,
agreed with Mr. Lee that only a handful of people in
the country understand the complexities of several of
EPA's programs and understand issues of
environmental justice, as well. He encouraged the
work groups to explore academic institutions as
resources that can provide expertise.

Dr. Barron added that the subcommittee could
"gather all the experts in the world" on any topic.
However, she continued, if the subcommittee fails to
include diverse opinions the NEJAC would fail in its
charge. She pointed out that "it is not always the
brains who have the expertise, but those people who
can think outside the box."

33T

3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS

This section summarizes the presentations and
reports made to the Air and Water Subcommittee on
the draft Fish Consumption Report and the role of the
subcommittee in planning for the meeting of the
NEJAC to be held in December 2002.

3.1 Draft Fish Consumption Report

Ms. Jaramillo congratulated the members of the Fish
Consumption Work Group for its extensive efforts in
preparing the draft report. She reported that the
document is the product of 18 months of planning and
development. She explained that a 30-day comment
period had been held after the Fish Consumption
Work Group had completed consideration of the
focused recommendations that supported the
recommendations that already had been presented to
the Executive Council of the NEJAC. Ms. Jaramillo
added that, after comments on the report have been
addressed, the Executive Council of the NEJAC
would vote to determine whether the document was
ready for submission to the EPA Administrator. Ms.
Jaramillo expressed her hope that the final
recommendations would be sent to the Administrator
by March 2002.

Mr. Robinson commented that the process of
developing the report had been "very interesting and
synergistic." He commended Ms. Walker and Ms.
Yamaguchi for their contributions and efforts to
coordinate activities with members of the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee in developing the report.

Ms. Yamaguchi emphasized the importance of using
the work of the Fish Consumption Work Group as a
segue into planning for the December 2002 meeting
of the NEJAC to be held in Baltimore, Maryland, so
that the work that already has been completed will
not be lost, she said. She expressed the hope that
the "take-home" question raised by the report would
be "Where is the regulatory or clean-up side of the
fish consumption equation?"

Ms. Jaramillo then stated her belief that the current
theme of fish consumption could bring about a
smooth transition to the pollution prevention theme of
the December 2002 meeting. Ms. Jaramillo then
commented that the current meeting was focusing on
the advisory aspect of the fish consumption issue and
stated her expectation that the focus of the
December 2002 meeting would examine the
regulatory aspect of the issue.

Mr. Jim Hanlon, EPAOST, also commended the Fish
Consumption Work Group for its efforts. He observed

Seattle, Washington, December 5, 2001

-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Air and Water Subcommittee

that much thought had gone into the
recommendations developed by the work group.
However, he asked that members of the work group
realize that some of their recommendations were
"easier said than done." He commented that several
recommendations, such as those for the elimination
of sources and the selection of priority compounds,
are relatively far-reaching. Mr. Hanlon asked that the
work group assign priorities to each recommendation
- for example, short-term or long-term or Tier 1 or Tier
2. He stated that it otherwise would be difficult for
EPA to know where to begin. He also stated that
most of what EPA could accomplish in implementing
the recommendations would depend on available
resources. He stated that he looked forward to
working with the Air and Water Subcommittee to
refine and implement the recommendations.

Ms. Subra, commented that other initiatives in
progress could be useful as resources for EPA as it
implements the recommendations of the NEJAC. For
example, she said, in terms of phasing out chemicals
and eliminating exposure to certain sources, EPA
could look to the work of a tri-lateral trade council on
which representatives of Mexico, the United States,
and Canada had developed regional action plans for
a select list of chemicals. Mr. Hanlon added that
EPA also is involved in a bilateral agreement with
Canada that deals with environmental issues in the
Great Lakes region.

Ms. Gauna expressed her concern that EPA would
focus on broad principles that could not be
implemented under the current statutory
circumstances, rather than turning its attention to
specific recommendations that could be
implemented. Mr. Greenbaum encouraged EPA and
the work group to avoid "getting lost in the details."
He suggested that EPA examine less detail in the
recommendations, but instead focus on the more
general comments.

Dr. Barron stated that she recognized that EPA
would have great difficulty following up on every single
recommendation. She asked, however, that the
agency be aware that many affected populations
would not change their practices, even though the
health risks posed by the contaminants are known.
She urged that EPA "see the bigger picture," that
there is a need for clean ecosystems everywhere.
Dr. Barron stressed that it had been shown
repeatedly that the killing or contamination of animals
and plants ultimately will harm humans. She
stressed that EPA must work with other agencies
that may have money to work with communities at
high risk.

3.2 December 2002 Meeting of the NEJAC

The subcommittee discussed the meeting of the
NEJAC scheduled for December 2002 that will focus
on pollution prevention and environmental justice. Mr.
Lee presented the policy issue and question that
would be the theme of the December 2002 meeting:

How can EPA promote innovative
approaches to pollution prevention to ensure
a clean and healthy environment and improve
the quality of life for all people, including low-
income communities, minority communities,
and tribes?

Mr. Lee stated that one goal of the meeting would be
to present environmental justice and pollution
prevention as a "win-win" strategy for all stakeholders.
He provided one example topic, how EPA can
promote innovative approaches to pollution prevention
to address the concerns of environmental justice
communities. Continuing, Mr. Lee said that the
participants in the meeting would discuss the need to
integrate pollution prevention into EPA's various
programs, such as air, water, and solid waste
management. He then stated that the participants
also would explore obstacles to the integration of
pollution prevention and environmental justice.

Mr. Lee referred to a background paper developed by
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) for the December 2002 meeting. The
background paper opened with a quote of U.S.
Representative John Conyers (D-Ohio):
"Communities of color and low-income Americans
seek not to redistribute pollution, from dirtier and
overexposed areas to cleaner and underexposed
areas. They instead seek to prevent pollution at the
source so that all Americans can breathe clean air,
drink clean water, and eat clean food" (April 1993).

Mr. Lee noted that examples of pollution prevention
include diesel reduction in the amounts of diesel fuel
used, product replacement, tribal solid waste cleanup
plans, and energy efficiency. He referred to a group
known as Janitors for Justice that deals with
environmental products that such workers must use.
He also referred to the success of EPA's Pollution
Prevention for Environmental Justice program, which
has allocated $14 million in grants. Mr. Lee added
that innovative approaches also include partnerships,
citing the Houston Ship Channel Source Reduction
Model and the Dow-Midland Model as examples.

Mr. Lee then announced that the NEJAC would like
the Air and Water Subcommittee to play a role in
organizing the December 2002 meeting. He said that

3T

Seattle, Washington, December 5, 2001

-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Air and Water Subcommittee

the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee, the
Health and Research Subcommittee, and the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee also would be
represented in the planning process. He added that
OEJ and the other program offices would provide staff
support.

Ms. Subra reported that she and Mr. Warren, co-chair
of the work group would work together to develop a
strategy for planning the meeting. She said they
would focus on exploring available opportunities for
pollution prevention and share such information with
environmental justice communities. Ms. Subra added
that, with the help of the DFO of the Pollution
Prevention Work Group, she and Mr. Warren would
prepare a report on their findings. Members of the
subcommittee requested that, in preparation for the
next meeting, the newly formed Pollution Prevention
Work Group examine issues related to
(1) environmental restoration, (2) clean production, (3)
low-impact development, and (3) the costs and
benefits of pollution prevention.

Mr. Whitehead acknowledged that integrating the
topics of "pollution prevention" and "environmental
justice" would be a timely exercise. He asked for
clarification of whether the term "pollution prevention"
included the concept of clean production. He added
that the subcommittee should consider an analysis
of the economic benefit of pollution prevention and
low-impact or retro-development. He encouraged the
work group not to think of pollution prevention in a
"limited box," which usually is thought of in the
context of air and waste issues, he explained. Mr.
Whitehead also asked that the work group consider
issues related to water, as well. Ms. Jaramillo added
that pollution prevention also includes environmental
restoration.

Ms. Carter asked that EPA comment on the overlap
and duplication of programs at EPA. She observed
that several offices appear to deal with the same
issues. She asked that EPA consider eliminating
some of the overlap and allocating more resources to
the offices that address a problem directly.

Mr. Greenbaum expressed concern about the efforts
of the other work groups during the next meeting.
Ms. Yamaguchi agreed that the issue should be
discussed and expressed concern that participation
in the meeting by subcommittee members who are
not involved in planning the meeting may be limited.
She stated that the goal should be to link existing
work groups to the pollution prevention theme, as
well.

4.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS

This section summarizes the significant action items

adopted by the subcommittee.

/ Recommend that EPA OEJ coordinate with the
various EPA program offices that sponsor NEJAC
subcommittees efforts to adequately staff the
work groups of the subcommittees, specifically
the Permitting and Public Utilities Work Group.

/ Recommend that EPA consider ways to
eliminate redundancy in programs that address
the same issues, so that fewer resources will be
spent on duplicate efforts and more resources
can be allocated to the primary office or agency
that addresses each issue.

/ Review and provide comment on the following
documents:

EPA's Work Plan for the National Air Toxics
and Integrated Air Toxics Strategy
- Volume IV: "Risk Communication" of EPA's
Guidance Document for Assessing Chemical
Contamination Data for Use in Fish
Advisories

/ Identify individuals to recommend for service on
various EPA stakeholder work groups and for
service as technical consultants to provide advice
about the issuance of fish advisories.

/ Develop a document on "best practices" for
permitting that are sensitive to issues of
environmental justice and review and provide
comment on EPA OAR's new source review
study report that is to be issued in January or
February 2002.

/ Encourage state and local governments to
incorporate into their strategic plans a philosophy
of awareness of environmental justice similar to
that expressed in EPA Administrator Christine
Todd Whitman's August 2001 letter that states
EPA's commitment to environmental justice.

/ Recommend that, after completion of the fish
consumption report, the Fish Consumption Work
Group expand its scope to explore other issues
related to water quality (such as TMDLs, CAFOs,
and permitting related to water).

/ Recommended that EPA establish an
organizational division to address issues related
to water supply.

Seattle, Washington, December 5, 2001

-------