MEETING SUMMARY
of the
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 11,12, and 14, 2000
Arlington, Virginia
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Charles Lee
Office of Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Designated Federal Official
Peggy Shepard
Acting Chair
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This executive summary provides highlights of the
sixteenth meeting of the National Environmental
Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), held December 11
through 14, 2000 at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City in
Arlington, Virginia. Each of the six subcommittees met
for a full day on December 13, 2000. On December
11, the NEJAC hosted a public comment period that
focused on the progress the Federal government has
made in integrating environmental justice into its
policies, programs, and activities. On December 12,
the NEJAC hosted a second public comment period
to receive comments about general environmental
justice issues. Approximately 425 persons attended
the meetings and the public comment periods.
The NEJAC is a Federal advisory committee that was
established by charter on September 30, 1993 to
provide independent advice, consultation, and
recommendations to the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on matters
related to environmental justice. Mr. Haywood
Turrentine, Birmingham Urban Impact Board, serves
as the chair of the Executive Council of the NEJAC.
Ms. Peggy Shepard, Executive Director, West Harlem
Environmental Action Inc., serves as the vice-chair of
the Executive Council. Mr. Charles Lee, Associate
Director for Policy and Interagency Liaison, EPA
Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), serves as the
Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the Executive
Council. Exhibit ES-1 lists the chair, the vice-chair,
and the DFO of the Executive Council, as well as the
persons who serve as chair and vice-chair of the six
subcommittees of the NEJAC and the EPA staff
appointed to serve as the DFOs for those
subcommittees.
OEJ maintains transcripts and summary reports ofthe
proceedings of the NEJAC meetings. Those
documents are available to the public upon request.
The public also has access to the executive
summaries of reports of previous meetings, as well as
other publications ofthe NEJAC, through the World
Wide Web at (click on the publications
icon). The summaries are available in both English-
and Spanish-language versions.
REMARKS
Mr. Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Enforcementand Compliance Assurance (OECA),
noted that the meeting marked the last meeting of the NEJAC during the Clinton administration, under which
the NEJAC had been conceived. Continuing, he stated that, for all the persons who had created the NEJAC
and worked with it over the preceding seven years, that effort had brought great joy and satisfaction — in the
Exhibit ES-1
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
CHAIRS AND DESIGNATED FEDERAL
OFFICIALS (DFO)
Executive Council:
Mr. Haywood Turrentine, Chair
Ms. Peggy Shepard, Vice-Chair
Mr. Charles Lee, DFO
Air and Water Subcommittee:
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo, Chair
Ms. Alice Walker, co-DFO
Dr. Wil Wilson, co-DFO
Enforcement Subcommittee:
Mr. Luke Cole, Chair
Ms. Savonala Home, Vice-Chair
Ms. Shirley Pate, DFO
Health and Research Subcommittee:
Dr. Marinelle Payton, Chair
Ms. Rose Marie Augustine, Vice-Chair
Ms. Brenda Washington, co-DFO
Ms. Aretha Brockett, co-DFO
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee:
Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Chair
Ms. Jennifer Hill-Kelly, Vice-Chair
Mr. Daniel Go gal, DFO
International Subcommittee:
Mr. Arnoldo Garcia, Chair
Mr. Alberto Saldamando, Vice-Chair
Ms. Wendy Graham, DFO
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee:
Ms. Vernice Miller-Travis, Chair
Mr. Kent Benjamin, DFO
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 through 14, 2000
3-1
-------
Executive Summary
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
nature of the work and the people that that effort had brought together, in the very difficult issues that the
NEJAC had taken on, and in the victories and the frustrations all involved had experienced together.
Mr. Michael McCabe, Deputy Administrator, EPA, began his presentation by expressing his appreciation to
Mr. Turrentine and the members of the NEJAC for their time and commitment. He then remarked that the
pending change in administrations is an opportunity to celebrate successes, solidify gains, and reaffirm
commitments. While the Clinton administration may not have moved as rapidly or acted as comprehensively
as some may have wished, he observed, its commitment to the cause never wavered. Staff of EPA take their
responsibility very seriously, he continued.
Mr. McCabe stated that EPA was to continue to review and revise its administrative procedures related to
public involvement in policymaking. Commenting on the progress made during the preceding six years, Mr.
McCabe stated that interagency integration of environmental justice is becoming a reality and that the
Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG) had made substantial progress. He then
stressed that, to maintain the momentum of the preceding six years, Federal agencies must continue to work
in partnership. Through partnerships, he pointed out, EPA is: (1) making great strides in protecting the health
of children and communities, (2) working with community-based public health partners across the country to
help diagnose and treat asthma, (3) revitalizing communities and creating jobs through its Brownfields
Revitalization Initiative, and (4) addressing public health and the environment in urban areas.
Mr. McCabe acknowledged that maintaining momentum under the new administration would be a challenge.
He stated, however, that both he and Ms. Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, would communicate to the new
president that it is essential that the agency maintain its commitment to environmental justice and to the
communities that EPA serves.
Mr. Brad Campbell, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3, expressed his gratitude to members of the NEJAC,
past and present, for their contribution not only to the work of EPA, but also to his work in prior positions at
the White House and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). He said that, while there is a sense of "winding
down" as the current administration prepares for transition, EPA is committed to "keeping the bar high" until
the very last day of that administration.
Mr. Campbell then highlighted a few areas in which EPA Region 3 is moving forward, adding that he believed
that the initiatives reflect the larger agenda that lies ahead. First, he said, Region 3 is continuing its efforts
to better integrate EPA's mission with that of other agencies, recognizing that it is not sufficient to take the
position that a particular problem confronting a community is not within the jurisdiction of EPA. Second, Mr.
Campbell continued, Region 3 is continuing its efforts to improve the health data that are available to
communities. Finally, Mr. Campbell stated, EPA region 3 is continuing its efforts to highlightthe links between
the environmental problems suffered by low-income and minority communities and the economic opportunities
that the process of addressing those problems might create.
Mr. Barry E. Hill, Director, OEJ, began his presentation by welcoming all participants to the current meeting
of the NEJAC. He read the statement of the issue which was to be the focus of the meeting: "What progress
has the Federal government made toward integrating environmental justice into its policies, programs, and
activities, consistent with existing laws and of Executive Order 12898." The meeting, he emphasized, was
designed to be not only retrospective, because it provides all participants with the opportunity to look back
over the preceding six to eight years, but also prospective, because it provides an opportunity to look forward
and to develop strategic plans to be implemented in the future.
Mr. Hill pointed out that the policy question speaks to the basic purpose of government and the important role
that government plays in the lives of all citizens and residents of the nation. Mr. Hill declared that residents
of every community throughout the country, as citizens of this democracy, are entitled to clean air, clean land,
and clean water and that it is the responsibility of the government to secure, preserve, and protect that
fundamental right.
He then explained thatthe underlying question the panelists and the members of the NEJAC should consider
is whether the Federal government, as a public servant, is serving the public effectively and efficiently by
ensuring clean air, land, and water for everyone in the nation. Concluding his remarks, Mr. Hill noted that the
IWG represents a clear effort to bring about fundamental change in how the government operates and
3-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 through 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
provides effective services and resources to the public to ensure clean air, clean land, and clean water.
However, he acknowledged, the government is not perfect in the performance of its duties. Therefore, EPA
and the other members of the Federal family have asked the members of the NEJAC to provide their advice
and recommendations about how the government can serve the public better.
PANELS ON FEDERAL AGENCY INTEGRATION
The NEJAC, in its continuing efforts to provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator about areas
related to environmental justice, focused its 16th meeting on federal efforts to integrate environmental justice
into its policies, programs, and activities in a manner consistent with the provisions of existing laws and of
Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice. On Monday and Tuesday, December 11 and 12, 2000, the
members of the NEJAC listened to a series of panels made up of various federal stakeholders. The panel
discussions were designed to provide insight into issues and concerns related to integration of environmental
justice concerns by Federal agencies (Section 3 of Chapter 1 of this meeting summary presents a detailed
description of the presentations made by each panel). The panel presentations included:
• Panel 1: Executive Order 12898- Mr. Gerald Torres, University of Texas Law School, discussed the
historical context in which Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice originated. He provided
an independent analysis of areas of significant progress as well as those of significant deficiency,
related to the implementation of the Executive order. Mr. Torres also offered recommendations for
strategies for future integration of the principles of environmental justice into the policies, programs,
and activities of Federal agencies.
• Panel 2: Discussion of the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice and the Integrated
Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action Agenda - The members of the panel provided a
discussion of the formation of the IWG and an analysis of progress in integrating the principles of
environmentaljustice throughoutthe Federal government. The members of the panel also stated that
the Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action Agenda (action agenda) brings a
"new sense of direction, innovation, and vigor" to environmentaljustice throughout the Federal family.
The panelists noted that the action agenda provides a "living" framework through which Federal
agencies can develop and expand upon collaborative, multiparty environmentaljustice initiatives. The
approach to environmental justice taken by the Action Agenda, they said, is to view distressed
communities "in a holistic way" and to develop strategies that address the environmental, public
health, economic, and social concerns of such communities in an integrated manner.
• Panel 3: Individual Federal Agency Panels - Representatives of 11 Federal agencies made
presentations about the implementation of Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice by their
respective agencies. Presentations were made by DOJ, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the National Institute of
Environmental Health Services (NIEHS),theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (AT SDR), the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The presentations
were intended to be both retrospective and prospective. The presentation emphasized lessons that
could be learned to shape recommendations forbetter and more effective integration ofthe principles
of environmental justice in the policies, programs, and activities of the various Federal agencies
represented. Each panelist also provided recommendations on strategies that could be pursued to
incorporate environmental justice more fully into the mission, as well as for better integration in all
Federal agencies.
• Panel 4: Integrated Interagency Demonstration Projects - The panel consisted of a variety of non-
Federal partners involved in several of the 15 integrated interagency environmental demonstration
projects currently underway. The panelists reported that the demonstration projects focus on various
areas, such as environmental protection, economic development and community revitalization,
improvement of public health, and community education and capacity-building.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 through 14, 2000
3-3
-------
Executive Summary
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• Panel 5: Stakeholder Perspectives on Integrated Interagency Strategies - The panel included
representatives of communities; academia; industry; civic and philanthropic organizations; and state,
tribal, and local governments. The panelists presented their views about the viability of the action
agenda, particularly as it applies to their various constituencies. The members of the panel also
offered recommendations for future development of integrated interagency strategies.
PRESENTATIONS
The members of the Executive Council received the following presentations:
• Mr. Damu Smith, GreenPeace International, provided an update on activities related to the
investigation of dioxin exposures in Mossville, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana that had been carried out
since the May 2000 meeting of the NEJAC. Mr. Smith stated that, since that meeting, a number of
meetings had been held in the community among representatives of the communities; staff of OEJ,
including Mr. Hill; representatives of EPA Region 6; and representatives of ATSDR. Representatives
of EPA, ATSDR, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), and the Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH) also had visited Mossville to meet with the community
and its experts. Mr. Smith stated, "We are a long way from where we need to be, but we are certainly
a long way from where we were in May."
• Mr. Hill made a presentation on EPA's draft national environmental justice policy guidance document
titled "A Guide to Assessing and Addressing Allegations of Environmental Injustice." He explained
that the purpose of the guidance document is to provide a conceptual framework for explaining
environmental justice as both a civil rights and an environmental issue and, consequently, to develop
sound policy in that area.
• Mr. Jack McGraw, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8, provided an overview of the
activities of the Environmental Justice Training Collaborative (EJTC). The EJTC is a national network
of EPA staff who work in partnership with stakeholders to develop environmental justice education
tools, meet crucial information needs, and facilitate dialogue to advance environ mental justice through
training workshops.
• Mr. Anthony Guadagno, Office of General Counsel (OGC), EPA, presented a legal memorandum
titled "EPA Statutory and Regulatory Authorities Under Which Environmental Justice Issues May Be
Addressed in Permitting" that OGC had distributed to the NEJAC on December 1, 2000. Mr.
Guadagno explained thatthe memorandum identifies opportunities to promote environmental justice
under EPA permitting programs, specifically under programs conducted under the authority of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (commonly referred to as the Ocean Dumping Act).
• Mr. Brandon Carter, EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), provided an
update on the activities of the N EJAC Federal Facilities Working Group. He stated that the members
of the working group had been identified and thata memorandum of understanding (MOU) had been
signed to formalize the Federal partnership with the working group. Mr. Carter explained that
communities and the public would have significant opportunity to participate in the activities of the
working group. He informed all present that the working group was accepting requests for proposals
for potential case studies to be reviewed by the working group.
• Ms. Barbara Arnwine, Executive Director, Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (lawyer's
committee), provided a retrospective view of missed opportunitiesforadvancing environmentaljustice
through environmental litigation. Reflecting on the current state of environ mental justice, Ms. Arnwine
discussed the challenges the committee had addressed through litigation and the successes and
failures all parties involved in the environmental justice movement had experienced in their efforts to
advance the issue.
• Mr. Marty Halper, Senior Science Advisor, EPA OEJ, presented a report on the Community-Based
3-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 through 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
Health Research Model. He explained that, in response to issues discussed atthe May 2000 meeting
of the NEJAC, a 20-member work group had been formed to develop a draft proposal that was
distributed to the Executive Council of the NEJAC in October 2000.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS
The NEJAC hosted public comment periods on December 11 and 12, 2000. Approximately 40 people
participated in the two public comment periods. Significant concerns expressed during the public comment
periods included:
• Several commenters continued to express concern about failure to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 as it pertains to the siting of facilities.
• Several commenters recommended increased involvement of citizen groups with the Federal
Facilities Working Group.
• Several commenters expressed concern about the lack of action on the part of EPA to address issues
related to multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), an acquired disorder characterized by recurrent
symptoms that occur in response to exposure to various chemically unrelated compounds at doses
far below those determined to cause harmful effects in the general population. Commenters
recommended that government agencies create a disease registry for those who suffer from MCS.
• Many commenters continued to express concern about environmental justice issues associated with
Federal facilities. Commenters explained that many people of color and low-income communities
suffered adverse effects from actions carried out at Federal facilities throughout the United States.
• Several commenters requested that EPA (1) fund research on the environmental damage to the
island of Vieques, Puerto Rico; (2)denytheU.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) its National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit because of harmful noise pollution, the spreading of existing
toxins by inert bombs, and past violations; and (3) closely monitorthe cleanup ofVieques to ensure
that no hazardous material is left behind. Every effort should be made to restore the land completely
so that the community ofVieques may have future access to and use of the part of the island affected
by Navy operations, the commenters emphasized.
OTHER CONCERNS AND COMMITMENTS OF THE NEJAC
During the meeting, members of the NEJAC:
• Requested clarification of the role of the NEJAC as an advisory committee to the EPA Administrator.
Mr. Lee assured the members that the Agency considers the NEJAC an advisory committee, but
stated that the definition of a federal advisory committee needs to be clarified and that this discussion
should be continued.
(Note: Subsequent to the December 2000 meeting of the NEJAC, a special meeting has been
scheduled for August 2001 of the Executive Council to meet with EPA to discuss the NEJAC role and
responsibilities as a federal advisory committee.)
• Recommended that additional representatives of communities and community-based organizations
be appointed as members of the NEJAC work group on Federal facilities.
• Questioned the effectiveness and strength of EPA's legal memorandum on enforcing environmental
justice principles under existing laws and statutes. The members also expressed concern that EPA
has not been more proactive in using existing laws to protect low-income communities and people
of color from disproportionate effects of environmental contamination.
• Questioned why Federal agencies continue to fail to provide to communities opportunities for public
participation related to assessing and addressing potential health effects caused by environmental
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 through 14, 2000
3-5
-------
Executive Summary
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
contamination. The members of the NEJAC reiterated that communities are in the best position to
inform government agencies about issues related to public health that affect their communities.
SUMMARIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS
Summarized below are the deliberations of the members of the six subcommittees of the NEJAC during the
subcommittee meetings held on December 13, 2000.
Air and Water Subcommittee
The members of the Air and Water Subcommittee heard presentations and reports from:
• Mr. David Rowson, Director of the Center for Healthy Buildings of the Office of Radiation and Indoor
Air, EPA Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), who provided information about the agency's asthma
initiative. He described (1) current research by EPA on the asthma epidemic and its effect on
environmental justice communities, (2) challenges encountered in the effort to address asthma in
those communities, and (3) EPA programs thatconduct outreach and prevention activities related to
asthma.
• Ms. Jeneva Craig, Office of Policy Analysis and Review, OAR, who provided an update on the
agency's guidance on reducing toxic loadings. Ms. Craig noted that EPA had received comments on
the guidance from members of the NEJAC and various stakeholders. Continuing, she reported that
three primary concerns had been identified: (1) incentives are necessary to encourage communities
to voluntarily develop toxics reduction plans; (2) EPA must provide additional direction fordeveloping
toxics emissions inventory and set a baseline for use in tracking progress; and (3) the provisions of
the guidance must be tested in pilot studies.
• The members of the subcommittee met with their respective subcommittee work groups and then
presented a status report on the deliberations of each work group.
• The members of the Work Group on Cumulative Permitting discussed four primary issues: (a) EPA
OAR's draft guidance on reducing toxic loadings; (b) EPA Office of Civil Rights' (OCR) Draft Title VI
Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting Programs and the
Draft Revised Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits-, (c)
EPA's White Paper Number 3, a draft guidance on designing flexible air permits; and (d) public
participation requirements under EPA's Tier 2 gasoline rule.
• In 2001, the members of the Work Group on Fish Consumption are to address two primary tasks: (a)
review of EPA's fish consumption report and (b) provision significant involvement in the planning of
the next meeting of the NEJAC, to be held on December 3 through 6, 2001 in Seattle, Washington.
The meeting willfocuson riskcommunication and management in environmentaljustice communities
in the areas of subsistence consumption and water quality standards.
• The members of the Work Group on Public Utilities discussed three action items of the work group:
(a) develop a guide for environmental justice communities that will provide emissions data and
information about the enforcement status of new and existing facilities; (b) review four items of
proposed legislation intended to further reduce proposed air emissions; and (c) review programs of
the Federalgovernmentthatexamine powerdemand forpower, energy efficiency, and management
of energy resources. The work group also stressed that issues related to Puerto Rico must remain
on the agenda.
• The members of the Work Group on Urban Air Toxics discussed four primary issues: (a) the results
of EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment that will be issued in early 2001; (b) information needed
about the Agency's urban air toxics monitoring strategy; c) the structure of state, local, and tribal
programs that deal with urban air toxics; and (d) the proposed diesel fuel rule.
• The members of the subcommittee also established priorities among action items thatwere identified
3-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 through 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
during the meeting of the Air and Water Subcommittee that focused on power plants in Puerto Rico.
At the meeting, held in New York, New York on October 18, 2000, participants examined air quality
and human health issues that affect the San Juan, Puerto Rico metropolitan area and that may be
attributable to various industrial and commercial activities.
• The members of the subcommittee discussed and made final its mission statement:
"The mission of the Air and Water Subcommittee is to identify, review, and
recommend creative, sustainable, and environmentally just solutions so that
informed policy decisions can be made. In all of its efforts, the Air and
Water Subcommittee will encourage active stakeholder input."
Enforcement Subcommittee
The members of the Enforcement Subcommittee heard presentations and reports from:
• Ms. Betsy Ryan, Senior Equal Opportunity Specialist, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity,
HUD, who provided information about HUD's implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Title VI). Ms. Ryan noted that 200 HUD inspectors have been trained to address issues related to
Title VI.
• Mr. Marc Bren man, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Civil Rights, DOT, who provided information about
DOT's implementation of Title VI. Mr. Brenman noted thatthe principles ofenvironmental justice and
Title VI are integrated into transportation planning. In addition, he reported, DOT has created a web
site on environmental justice.
• Mr. Andy Strojny, Deputy Chief (Legal), Coordination and Review Section, Civil Rights Division, DOJ,
who provided information about the activities of that division.
• Ms. Yasmin Yorker, OCR, who provided an update on EPA's Title VI Work Group. Ms. Yorkernoted
thatthe revised draft guidance documents will be made final in 2001. She acknowledged that a heavy
backlog of administrative complaints filed under Title at EPA remains to be addressed; however, she
announced, OCR had hired four temporary employees to work to decrease that backlog.
• Ms. Deeohn Ferris, President, Global Environmental Resources, Inc., who provided a historical
overview of Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice. Ms. Ferris then discussed her role in
helping to influence public policy by working with state, regional, and community organizations on
issues related to environmental justice.
• Mr. Herman, who discussed the ways in which the agency has improved its efforts in planning and
targeting enforcement activities. He reviewed several examples of enforcement cases related to
environmental justice.
During their meeting, the members of the subcommittee discussed the topics described:
• Ms. Zulene Mayfield, Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living, and Mr. Torres, both members
of the Enforcement Subcommittee, discussed environmental justice issues related to supplemental
environmental projects (SEP). Ms. Mayfield cited several examples of SEPs that had been
implemented in hercommunity, Chester, Pennsylvania, and then discussed the problems related to
the SEPs that her community had encountered. The members of the subcommittee then undertook
a discussion that concluded with a recommendation that EPA provide assistance with or a program
for community-based SEPs.
• The members of the subcommittee discussed at length with Mr. Herman enforcement issues related
to environmental justice.
• The members of the subcommittee expressed concern about the lack of community representatives
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 through 14, 2000
3-7
-------
Executive Summary National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
among the new members of the subcommittee, as well as the process by which EPA is selecting a
new chair of the subcommittee. The members also expressed concern that communities will lose
their voice and continuity with the addition of five new subcommittee members who represent
academia and industry. The members also requested that Mr. Herman provide assistance to ensure
a smooth transition for the new members of the subcommittee. In addition, the members asked for
Mr. Herman's assistance in identifying effective and collaborative mechanisms to address with OEJ
and the Executive Council of the NEJAC issues related to the composition of the subcommittee.
Health and Research Subcommittee
Members of the Health and Research Subcommittee heard presentations and reports from several individuals
representing Federal agencies who were asked to speak about the involvement of their agencies in (1)
building healthy communities and (2) working in collaborative partnerships with other agencies to integrate
the principles of environmental justice. The following individuals provided such presentations.
• Dr. William Sanders, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), EPA, and Dr. Harold
Zenick, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, EPA Office of Research and Development
(ORD), provided opening remarks related to environmental justice activities at EPA.
• Mr. Brenman and Mr. David Kuehn, DOT, stated that DOT not only regards health as a safety issue,
but also recognizes the importance of transportation to low-income and minority communities, in
which residents rely on public transportation to travel from their homes to their jobs and other places.
Continuing, Mr. Brenman and Mr. Kuehn provided a brief update on DOT's ongoing efforts focused
on low-income, minority, and tribal communities, including a disadvantaged business enterprise
program for minorities and entrepreneurs; participation in a children's health interagency task force;
and participation on a steering committee to eliminate health disparities among racial and ethnic
groups. They also discussed three principal areas in which DOT is working to apply the principles
of environmental justice: research, training and outreach, and program oversight.
• Mr. Robert McAlpine and Ms. Antoinette Sebastian, HUD, provided an update on HUD's efforts to
improve the health of low-income and minority populations. Both pointed out that, although HUD's
mission does not include the principles of environmental justice explicitly, HUD is involved actively
in addressing issues related to lead-based paint, building healthy communities, and taking action
under other initiatives designed to improve conditions in low-income and minority communities.
• Mr. Thomas Mela, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, noted that his agency
originally was not identified in Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice; he explained that he
did not know why the agency had not been listed. Mr. Mela then provided an overview of the
department's activities related to civil rights and disabilities, which, he explained, are related to
environmental justice.
• Ms. Heather Stockwell, DOE, provided a handout that summarized DOE's activities and urged
members of the subcommittee to review DOE's web site to obtain detailed information about DOE's
activities. Ms. Stockwell acknowledged that, while DOE has an Office of Environmental Justice and
has made some progress toward achieving environmental justice, more remains to be done.
• Mr. Quentin Pair, DOJ, noted that the IWG had compiled an environmental justice directory. The
directory, he said, is the beginning of an attempt to provide points of contact within Federal agency
so that members of communities can determine whom to call to obtain answers to theirquestions or
to discuss issues. Mr. Pair referred members of the subcommittee to the agency's web site to obtain
details about DOJ's environmental justice activities. He then reviewed a lead-based paint initiative
jointly implemented by DOJ, HUD, and EPA; DOJ's Weed and Seed program designed to improve
conditions in low-income and minority areas; and a demonstration project in South Carolina in which
HUD is working with the Office of the U.S. Attorney to augment services provided under the project.
• Ms. Patricia Reyes, DoD, explained that DoD does nothave an office ofenvironmentaljustice buthas
identified one person who is authorized to spend about 25 percent of his time on issues related to
3-8
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 through 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
environmental justice issues. In addition, she noted, individual DoD staff around the country are
"doing the right thing." Ms. Reyes also described DoD's efforts to assist in improving the health of
communities, including indirect efforts, such as contributing resources for use in health clinics.
• Dr. Maria Morandi, University of Texas School of Public Health and a member of the Integrated
Human Exposure Committee of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), provided information about
the SAB's review of methodologies for identifying disproportionate effects on communities.
Three community members also made presentations: Ms. Charlotte Keys, Jesus People Against Pollution,
informed members of the subcommittee about an upcoming environmental justice summit planned for April
2000 and invited the members to attend; Ms. Patty Lovera, Center for Health, Environment and Justice,
discussed the problem of the location of schools on contaminated property that poses health risks to low-
income children and children of color; and Ms. Yvonne McSwain Powell, People Effective Against Chemical
Eugenics (PEACE), expressed concern about contaminated drinking water in Richton, Mississippi.
During their meeting, the members ofthe subcommittee discussed the issues described below.
• The members of the subcommittee heard from various representatives of Federal agencies and
discussed the necessity of identifying (1) whether environmental justice is incorporated in principle
into the missions of each agency and, if not, why that is not the case; (2) to what extent Federal
agencies have entered into partnerships with one another to address issues related to environmental
justice; and (3) in cases in which agencies have successfully worked togetheron projects, the specific
factors that were present that contributed to success. In addition, members of the subcommittee
expressed a desire to know, in cases in which no progress has occurred, how Federal agencies plan
to incorporate the principles of environmental justice into their missions and day-to-day activities.
• The members of the subcommittee discussed the problem of a lack of focus on and attention to
issues of environmental justice at all levels within Federal agencies. The subcommittee agreed,
therefore, to requestthatthe Executive Council ofthe NEJAC recommend the initiation ofa program
to train "middle management" staff of Federal agencies in incorporating the principles of
environmental justice into their day-to-day work. It was suggested that the program include a
component thatwould allow the "educating" of staff in the Senior Executive Service, to raise their level
of awareness of issues related to environmental justice. It was agreed that that educational
component is needed because, although senior staff may not be responsible for carrying out day-to-
day activities, they must understand what environmental justice is. The members stated that, to
effectively facilitate change throughouteach agency, seniormanagers must considerenvironmental
justice a priority.
• A principal topic of discussion throughout the meeting was the way in which Federal agencies can
collaborate specifically in the area of providing health services to low-income and minority
communities. The discussion ofthe topic emphasized that agencies mustlookbeyond the limitations
and restrictions of their mandates and consider ways to share resources so that the health problems
of communities can be addressed. For example, members stated, an agency that does not have in
its mandate a clause that specifically allows the direct provision of health care may be able to share
funds or other resources with an agency whose mission is to provide health care.
• The members of the subcommittee also agreed that many topics they had discussed were related to
topics discussed during the May 2000 meeting of the subcommittee and are included in the
subcommittee's subsequent report on health issues. The members of the subcommittee therefore
agreed to review that report in light of the current discussion and determine where and how the report
should be amended to incorporate specific issues raised and suggestions made during the current
meeting.
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
The members ofthe Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee heard presentations and reports from:
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 through 14, 2000
3-9
-------
Executive Summary
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• Mr. Dean Suagee, Vermont Law School and member of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee, who
reported on the recommendations developed at the Interagency Tribal Environmental Justice
Roundtable held in Albuquerque, New Mexico in September 2000.
• Dr. Jeff Romm, College of Natural Resources, University of California at Berkeley, who discussed
efforts related to the provision of meaningful consultation with the U.S. Forest Service, USDA, on
better approaches to representing Native American populations in California who do not live on
reservations.
• Mr. Scott Jones, Public Relations Director, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, discussed issues faced by the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe in working with Federal agencies to protect natural and cultural resources
on tribal lands.
• Mr. Robert Gough, Secretary, Intertribal Council On Utility Policy (COUP), and Co-chair, Native
Peoples/Native Homelands Climate Change Workshop, discussed a proposal to produce electrical
power at windmill farms on tribal lands in South Dakota.
In addition, the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee heard presentations and reports from representatives of
various Federal agencies. Those individuals discussed (1) how Federal agencies are integrating the principles
of environmental justice into their policies and programs and (2) how the activities of Federal agencies affect
tribes and Alaska Native villages. The following representatives of Federal agencies made presentations to
the subcommittee:
• Mr. Francisco Tomei-Torres, ATSDR
• Mr. Len Richeson, Office of Environmental Quality, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Environmental Security, DOD
• Ms. V. Heather Sibbison, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Indian Resource Section, DO J
• Ms. Valerie Hauser, Coordinator, Native American Program, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP)
• Ms. Elizabeth Bell, Counsel to the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), DOI
• Mr. James Floyd, HUD
• Ms. Dorothy FireCloud, Tribal Coordinator, U.S. Forest Service, USDA,
• Mr. Robert Ragos, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Forest Service, USDA
• Mr. Derrick Watchman, Director of Indian Affairs, DOE
• Ms. Deldi Reyes, EPA Region 8
• Ms. Karen Suagee, Office of Education Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education
During their meeting, the members of the subcommittee discussed the presentations made by the
representatives of Federal agencies. The members of the subcommittee then considered common themes
in the agency presentations and the presentations made by Mr. Jones and Mr. Gough. The members of
subcommittee then developed a list of draft recommendations related to the integration of the principles of
environmental justice, indigenous peoples, and the activities of Federal agencies. This list was to be
forwarded to the Executive Council of the NEJAC.
International Subcommittee
The members of the International Subcommittee heard presentations and reports from:
3-10
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 through 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
• Mr. TsemingYang, Vermont Law School and member of the International Subcommittee, who led a
discussion with representatives of the U.S. Department of State and the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) aboutissues related to trade and the environment. Ms. Carmen Suro-Bredie,
USTR; Mr. Dominic Bianchi, USTR; and Mr. Michael Shelton, U.S. Department of State, described
the process by which each agency makes decisions about trade agreements.
• Mr. Alberto Saldamondo, International Indian Treaty Council and member of the International
Subcommittee, who led a discussion of the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance with representatives of the White House Interagency Task
Force on the United Nations World Conference Against Racism. Ms. Sharon Kotok, White House
Interagency Task Force on the United Nations World Conference Against Racism, and Ms. Mary
O'Lone, OGC, provided the members of the International Subcommittee an update on the activities
of the World Conference Against Racism.
• Mr. Alan Hecht, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of International Affairs (OIA),
who presented an overview of the Border XXI Program, as a program that not only is undergoing
changes, but also is influenced by the new presidential administrations in both Mexico and the U.S.
• Mr. Gregg Cooke, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6 and Ms. Olivia Balandran, Environmental
Justice Coordinator, EPA Region 6, who provided the members of the International Subcommittee
a brief presentation on recent accomplishments and activities related to pesticide prevention training
in Region 6.
• Mr. Jose Bravo, Just Transition Alliance, who read a facsimile transmission from Mr. Cesar Luna,
Environmental Health Coalition, who had been unable to attend the meeting. That document provided
an overview of recent activities related to the Metales y Derivados site, a contaminated lead smelting
site in Tijuana, Mexico.
• Ms. Delta Valente, EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) and Ms.
Carol Parker, OPPTS, who provided an update on increased efforts by EPA to train workers and
community members on issues related to pesticide prevention.
• Mr. Alan Sielen, Deputy Assistant Administrator, OIA, who provided an update on EPA's increased
efforts to conduct outreach to tribal communities. He highlighted a new initiative under which his
office conducts monthly conference calls with representatives of tribes that will provide to participants
scientific information about an environmental topic, while also providing a forum through which EPA
can gather information about that topic from tribal communities.
• Mr. Mark Kasman, OIA, and Mr. Lionel Brown, OIA, who provided an overview of both new and
existing Internet projects related to the global environment.
During their meeting, members of the subcommittee discussed the issues described below.
• In response to the presentations made by representatives of USTR and the U.S. Department of State,
members of the International Subcommittee questioned the process by which public participation
opportunities are provided during the trade policy decision-making process, both forthe United States
and for the respective trade partner. The members of the International Subcommittee and the
representatives of USTR and the U.S. Department of State agreed to continue to engage in such
discussions in the future.
• The members of the subcommittee provided a preliminary response to the request of representatives
of the White House task force for comments on the following draft documents, Excerpted Material
Developed by the U.S. Interagency Task Force on the United National World Conference Against
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and UN World Conference
Against Racism (WCAR) - The Environment Position Paper. Members indicated that a definition of
environmental justice that uses such language as "minority" or "disproportionate" is not appropriate
in an international context. In such cases, the race of the polluter compared with the race of the
victims might be a more accurate indicator ofenvironmental injustice the members agree. In addition,
members of the International Subcommittee expressed concern about countries that do not
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 through 14, 2000
3-11
-------
Executive Summary
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
acknowledge certain races living in those countries.
• In response to the presentations made by representatives of EPA on farm worker training initiatives,
Tribal outreach programs, and global Internet technology pilot projects, the members of the
International Subcommittee expressed their support and encouragement, as well as their interest in
receiving further updates on such projects.
• In response to the public comment presentation of Ms. Betsy Boatner Amazon Alliance on the
escalation of the herbicide spraying program of the government of Colombia, the subcommittee
decided to request a general policy statement on the part of the NEJAC that sets forth the reasons
for which the United States should not provide financing for aerial fumigation of drug crops with
chemical herbicides that pose a serious threat to the health of indigenous peoples.
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
The members of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee heard presentations and reports from:
• Ms. Linda Garczynski, Director of Outreach and Special Projects Staff, OSWER, who presented
information about the report Environmental Justice, Urban Revitalization, and Brownfields: The
Search for Authentic Signs of Hope. Ms. Garczynski also discussed activities related to EPA's
Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative.
• Mr. Louis Kistner, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc., who provided information about "Responsible
Care." The presentation focused his organization's participation in community outreach programs.
• Ms. Melissa Raack, OSWER, who provided information about SEPs. Ms. Raack also reviewed the
seven categories of SEPs.
• Dr. Antonio Rivera-Castano, Committee For the Rescue and Development of Vieques, who provided
an update on the Navy's bombing activities on the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico. Dr. Rivera-Castano
expressed his belief that the people and the environment of the island are suffering adverse effects
from the bombing.
• Reverend Curtis Dias, Calvary Pentecostal Church, who discussed issues related to environmental
injustice that have arisen in East Freetown, Massachusetts. Reverend Dias explained that a small
minority community has been suffered adverse effects brought about by the town's industrial zoning
laws.
• Mr. Brian Holtzclaw, Environmental Justice Coordinator, Waste Management Division, EPA Region
4, who presented a brief historical summary of contamination at the Anniston Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCB) Superfund Site in Anniston, Alabama. Mr. Holtzclaw also provided an update on the
status of EPA's activities related to that site.
• Mr. David Ouderkirk, OSWER, and Ms. Brenda Richardson, Women Like Us and member of the
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee, who presented information about the Bridges to Friendship
project in Washington, D.C. The program, he reported, is an Interagency Environmental Justice
Demonstration Project. In addition, the projectis a partnership of community stakeholders who have
agreed to work together to achieve community revitalization, he said.
• Ms. Suzanne Wells, Director of Community Involvement and Outreach Center, EPA Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) and Ms. Pat Carey, OSWER, who updated the
members of the subcommittee on EPA's Superfund relocation policy. They distributed copies of
Release of Appraisals forReal Property Acquisition at Superfund Sites Memorandum to the members
of the subcommittee.
• Mr. Bill Luthans, Deputy Director, Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, who provided
information about the goals of EPA Region 6 related to permit oversight.
3-12
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 through 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
• Mr. Samuel Coleman, Director, Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division, EPA Region 6,
presented information about EPA's national oversite program.
• Ms. Jewell Harper, Deputy Director, Waste Management Division, EPA Region 4, and Mr. Harold
Mitchell, Regenesis, Inc. and member of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee, discussed
environmental justice activities underway in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
• Ms. Noemi Emeric, Team Manager, EPA Region 5, presented information about the collaborative
partnership model program in East St. Louis, Illinois.
During their meeting, subcommittee members discussed the following issues:
Local land use and zoning issues related to facility siting
An update on the status of EPA's brownfields program
A report on the "Responsible Care" initiative provided a representative of the industry
A report on SEPs
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the NEJAC is scheduled for December 3 through 6, 2001 in Seattle, Washington. The
meeting will focus on fish consumption and water quality standards. Planned activities will include two
opportunities for the public to offer comments. More information about the pending meeting, is available on
the NEJAC's home page on the Internet at : or
telephone on EPA's toll-free environmental justice hotline at 1 (800) 962-6215.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 through 14, 2000
3-13
-------
CHAPTER ONE
MEETING OF THE
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The sixteenth meeting of the Executive Council of
the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC) took place on December 11
through 14, 2000 at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City
Hotel in Arlington, Virginia. Mr. Haywood
Turrentine, Birmingham Urban Impact Board,
continues to serve as the chair of the NEJAC. Ms.
Peggy M. Shepard, Executive Director, West
Harlem Environmental Action, Inc. and member of
the Health and Research Subcommittee, continues
to serve as the vice-chair of the NEJAC. Mr.
Charles Lee, Associate Director for Policy and
Interagency Liaison, Office of Environmental
Justice (OEJ), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), continues to serve as the
Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the
Executive Council. Exhibit 1-1 presents a list of
members of the Executive Council who were
present and identifies those members who were
unable to attend. More than 465 people attended
the meeting.
On December 13, 2000, each member of the
Executive Council participated in the deliberations
of one of the six subcommittees of the NEJAC.
Chapters three through eight of this meeting
summary describe those deliberations.
In addition, the Executive Council hosted two
public comment periods, a Focused Public
Comment Period on the evening of December 11,
2000 on the integration of environmental justice
issues into the programs and policies on Federal
agencies, a General Environmental Justice Issues
Public Comment Period on the evening of
December 12, 2000. Approximately 36 people
offered comments during those sessions. Chapter
Two presents a summary of the comments offered
during the two public comment periods.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Executive Council, is organized
in six sections, including this Introduction. Section
2.0, Remarks, presents summaries of the remarks
offered by various speakers. Section 3.0, Panel
Sessions on Integrated Environmental Justice
Implementation in the Federal Government,
provides summaries of the panel sessions
presented by representatives of various Federal
agencies and other stakeholder groups. The
Exhibit 1-1
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Members
Who Attended the Meeting
December 11 through 14, 2000
Mr. Haywood Turrentine, Chair
Ms. Peggy M. Shepard, Vice-Chair
Mr. Charles Lee, DFO
Mr. Don J. Aragon
Ms. Rose Augustine
Mr. Luke Cole
Dr. Michel Gelobter
Mr. TomGoldtooth
Ms. Jennifer Hill-Kelley
Ms. Patrica K. Wood
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo
Ms. Vernice Miller-Travis
Mr. Harold Mitchell
Dr. Marinelle Payton
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos
Mr. Alberto Saldamando *
Ms. Jane Stahl
Mr. Gerald Torres
Ms. Jana Walker
Mr. Damon Whitehead
Mr. Tseming Yang
Members
Who Were Unable to Attend
Mr. Fernando Cuevas
Mr. Arnoldo Garcia
Mr. Carlos Padin
Mr. Robert W. Varney
* Mr. Saldamando served as a proxy for Mr. Garcia
panelists made presentations that were designed
to provide insight into issues identified and
concerns voiced with respect to implementation of
environmental justice throughout the Federal
government. Section 4.0, Reports and
Presentations, provides summaries of reports and
presentations made to the Executive Council on
various topics. Section 5.0, Reports of the
Subcommittees, summarizes reports submitted to
the Executive Council about the deliberations of
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-1
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
each of the six subcommittees during their
meetings on December 13, 2000. Section 6.0,
Miscellaneous Business, presents summaries of
discussions by the Council of other items before
the Council, including a recognition of those
members whose terms were due to expire.
Appendix A presents the full text of each resolution
that was approved by the Executive Council.
Appendix B presents a list of the members of the
NEJAC. Appendix C provides a list of the
participants in the meeting. Appendix D provides a
copy of the written statements submitted to the
NEJAC during the two public comment periods.
2.0 REMARKS
This section summarizes the remarks of the
Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA),
the Deputy Administrator of EPA, the Regional
Administrator of EPA Region 3, and the Director of
OEJ.
2.1 Remarks of the Assistant Administrator,
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
On behalf of OECA, Mr. Steven Herman, Assistant
Administrator, OECA, welcomed the members of
the Executive Council and all the participants in the
sixteenth meeting of the NEJAC. Noting that the
meeting marked the last NEJAC meeting of the
Clinton administration under which the NEJAC had
been conceived, Mr. Herman commented that, for
all the persons who had created and worked with
the NEJAC over the preceding seven years, this
effort had been one of the areas that had brought
great joy and great satisfaction - in the nature of
the work and the people that the effort had brought
together, in the very difficult issues that the NEJAC
had taken on, and in the victories and the
frustrations all involved had experienced together.
Mr. Herman observed that the NEJAC had
provided crucial and important advice to the EPA
Administrator over those seven years and as a
result had direct influence on many of the Agency's
initiatives.
Introducing Mr. Michael McCabe, Deputy
Administrator of EPA, Mr. Herman stated that one
of the areas, both inside and outside the Agency,
about which Mr. McCabe had been "absolutely
passionate," is environmental justice and that Mr.
McCabe's commitment to environmental justice is
"second to none." Continuing, Mr. Herman stated
that Mr. McCabe's commitment had helped to
"move the ball" on environmental justice within
EPA and within the entire Federal government.
2.2 Remarks of the Deputy Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. McCabe expressed to the members of the
NEJAC his appreciation for the time and effort they
had devoted to important issues related to
environmental justice. He then recognized the
leadership of Mr. Turrentine during his tenure as
chair of the Council, stating that, under Mr.
Turrentine's leadership, the NEJAC had
established priorities among the issues on its
agenda. Currently, he continued, the NEJAC
focuses on a wide range of specific policy issues -
policy issues that are important to the communities
that the members of the NEJAC represent.
Referring to the
pending change
in administration,
Mr. McCabe
remarked that
both EPA and
the NEJAC
would undergo a
"changing of the
guard." The
change, he said,
represents an
opportunity to
celebrate
successes,
solidify gains,
and reaffirm
commitments. It
also presents an
opportunity to
chart a new
blueprint for the
future, he said.
The Clinton-
Gore administration, said Mr. McCabe, had been
committed to implementing programs, policies,
and activities that ensure that "the health of a
community does not depend on the wealth of the
community" or on the race of the families of that
community. While the administration may not
always have moved as rapidly or acted as
comprehensively as some may have wished, its
commitment to the cause never wavered, he said.
Staff of EPA take that responsibility very seriously,
he continued. In keeping with that commitment to
fairness and equal opportunity, he stated, one
guiding principle has been that all citizens,
regardless of race, color, or national origin, are
entitled to a safe and healthy environment.
Further, said Mr. McCabe, EPA recognizes that
meaningful participation in the Agency's
decisionmaking process is essential to the
accomplishment of that mission.
1-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Mr. McCabe stated that EPA would continue to
review and revise its administrative procedures
related to public involvement in policymaking. He
announced that EPA soon was to release for
comment its draft policy on public involvement.
The policy, he said, would strengthen EPA's
commitment to early and meaningful public
involvement. The policy also would ensure an
understanding of the interests and concerns of
peoples and entities affected and would include
them in the environmental decisionmaking, he
added. Mr. McCabe then stated that he intended
to request that the NEJAC review the document
and provide comment on it.
Commenting on the progress made during the
preceding six years, Mr. McCabe stated that
interagency integration of environmental justice is
becoming a reality and that the Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG)
had made substantial progress. Thanks to the
tireless work of all members of the NEJAC and the
unified voices of communities across the nation,
he said, environmental justice is becoming a right,
rather than a privilege.
Mr. McCabe then stressed that, to maintain the
momentum of the preceding six years, Federal
agencies must continue to work in partnership.
Through such partnerships, he continued, EPA is
making great strides in protecting the health of
children and communities. EPA is working with
community-based public health partners across
the country, especially in urban cities and rural
areas, to help diagnose and treat asthma, as well
as warn parents about environmental factors, such
as high levels of particulate matter in the air, that
are likely to trigger an asthma attack, he said.
EPA's goal, he declared, is to eliminate the
disproportionate burden of asthma among
minorities and the disadvantaged.
Through partnerships, he continued, EPA is
revitalizing communities and creating jobs through
its Brownfields Revitalization initiative.
Revitalization of brownfields properties in primarily
low-income or minority neighborhoods had created
more than 8,300 construction jobs, he pointed out.
After the work was carried out, he added, another
22,000 jobs were created or retained. The
program is bringing both environmental justice and
economic opportunity to the neighborhoods in
which the sites are located, said Mr. McCabe.
Again, through partnerships, Mr. McCabe
continued, EPA is addressing public health and the
environment in urban areas. Over the years,
concerns about lead poisoning had been a topic of
debate at environmental justice forums and
conferences across the country, he said. During
the time frame of those debates, he explained,
exposure to lead among young children had been
reduced dramatically through a concerted effort by
Federal, state, and local government agencies,
along with voluntary actions in the private sector.
In high-risk urban areas, he noted, EPA sponsors
programs like the Lead-Safe Babies Project, which
employs outreach workers to visit new parents to
teach the parents how to take preventive
measures to protect their newborns. But much
remains to be done, Mr. McCabe stated.
Mr. McCabe acknowledged that maintaining
momentum under a new administration would be
challenging. He stated, however, that both he and
Ms. Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, would
communicate to the new president that it is
essential that the Agency maintain its commitment
to environmental justice and to the communities
that EPA serves. Although challenges remain, he
continued, he takes pride in "the things that we
have accomplished together." Through such
collective efforts, he said, all involved are helping
to secure a healthy and sustainable future for the
next generation.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. McCabe quoted Sir
Isaac Newton, who wrote, "If I have been able to
see further, it is because I stood on the shoulders
of giants." On behalf of Ms. Browner, and for
himself, he thanked the members of the NEJAC
for being EPA's "giants."
2.3 Remarks of the Regional Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
On behalf of the staff of EPA Region 3, Mr. Brad
Campbell, Regional Administrator of that region,
expressed pleasure in hosting the meeting of the
NEJAC. Mr. Campbell also expressed his
gratitude to members of the NEJAC, past and
present, for their contribution not only to the work
of EPA, but also to his work in prior positions at the
White House and the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ). He thanked them for their contribution to
his personal understanding of the depth,
complexity, and importance of environmental
justice issues at all levels of government.
Mr. Campbell said that, while there is a sense of
"winding down" as the current administration
prepares for transition, EPA is committed to
"keeping the bar high" until the very last day of the
administration. The Agency is committed to
keeping as much movement on the environmental
justice front as possible, he said.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-3
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
He then highlighted a few areas in which EPA
Region 3 is moving forward, adding that he
believed that the initiatives reflect the larger
agenda that lies ahead.
First, he said, Region 3 is continuing its efforts to
better integrate EPA's mission with that of other
agencies, recognizing that it is not sufficient to take
the position that a particular problem confronting a
community is not within the jurisdiction of EPA or is
not within the Agency's statutory mandate. The
region, he explained, will continue to work to build
links with other agencies and to deliver the
resources of the entire Federal government to
resolve whatever environmental justice problem
confronts it.
Second, Mr. Campbell continued, Region 3 will
continue its effort to improve the health data that
are available for communities. He stated that data
increasingly indicate that causes of cancers and
other illnesses are primarily environmental, rather
than genetic. He acknowledged that local health
data on most communities concerned about risks
are very limited, often too limited to support
scientifically strong conclusions about the potential
links between those very real health problems and
environmental conditions in the community. While
efforts to establish a national system of monitoring
have been undertaken, he continued, EPA Region
3 is endeavoring to model community-specific
efforts to gather better health data. For example,
he explained, the region recently had initiated a
site-specific epidemiological study of residents
living near the Lower Darby Creek Superfund Site
in Darby Township, Pennsylvania.
Continuing, Mr. Campbell stated that EPA Region
3 is continuing to work on efforts to highlight the
links between the environmental problems suffered
by low-income and minority communities and the
economic opportunities that could arise from the
process of addressing those problems. The
region, he said, is working to address brownfields
properties in distressed minority and low-income
communities and revitalize those sites for future
development. He added that Region 3 also is
pursuing other means of creating links between
clean air and economic opportunity. For example,
he added, he recently had met with the president
of the African-American Chamber of Commerce of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to discuss ways to link
the need for alternative-fuel vehicles to potential
economic opportunities in low-income and minority
communities, so that the very communities that
have suffered disproportionately from air quality
problems may be the first to benefit when
economic opportunity is created by addressing
those problems. He explained that air quality
problems have contributed to asthma rates in low-
income and minority communities that are double
and triple the rates in other communities. Mr.
Campbell then stated that the region is evaluating
ways to develop a broader use of alternative-fuel
vehicles to address the problem, while establishing
an opportunity for minority entrepreneurs to benefit
from the economic opportunities that will be
created.
Mr. Aragon commented that he had been pleased
to hear of the initiative to improve local health data
because the quality and quantity of health data for
communities on Indian reservations are very poor,
as well. He pointed out that many Indian people
rely on subsistence foods; they can become
exposed to environmental contaminants in many of
their food sources, which are contaminated with
substances originating from industrial sources, he
said.
2.4 Remarks of the Director, Office of
Environmental Justice, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Mr. Hill began his presentation by welcoming all
participants. The meeting, he emphasized, was
designed to be not only retrospective, because it
provides all participants with the opportunity to look
back over the preceding six to eight years, but also
prospective, in that it would provide an opportunity
to look forward and to develop strategic plans to be
implemented in the future.
Mr. Hill then read the statement of the issue that
was to be the focus of the meeting:
"What progress has the Federal government
made toward integrating environmental justice into
policies, programs, and activities, consistent with
existing laws and Executive Order 12898?"
Mr. Hill pointed out that the policy question speaks
to the basic purpose of government and the
important role that government plays in the lives of
all citizens and residents of the nation. Continuing,
Mr. Hill noted that government is one of humanity's
oldest and most important institutions; some form
of government has been a vital part of every
society, he said. Questions about the role of
government often are directed at the relationship
between government and the public it serves and
protects, he continued. One of the most basic
questions about that relationship, he added, is
"What right is so fundamental to the public that it is
a responsibility of the government to secure,
preserve and protect that right?" He then
1-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
commented that Reverend Jesse Jackson had
offered a response to that question on Earth Day
1990, when he stated "Over the years, I've led
many demonstrations, for the right to public
accommodations, the right of open housing, the
right to be free of a third world war, the right to
register and vote. Yet, none of those rights are
more basic than the right to breathe free, for
unless I have the right to breathe free, the right to
drink good drinking water, no other right can be
realized." In other words, declared Mr. Hill,
residents of every community throughout this
country, as citizens of this democracy, are entitled
to clean air, clean land, and clean water, and it is
the responsibility of the government to secure,
preserve, and protect that fundamental right.
Then, quoting Ms. Deeohn Ferris, former chair of
the Enforcement Subcommittee of the NEJAC, Mr.
Hill stated that "environmental justice is not about
equal pollution; environmental justice is about
equal protection." He then explained that the
underlying question the panelists and the members
of the NEJAC should consider is whether the
Federal government, as a public servant, is
effectively and efficiently serving the public by
ensuring clean air, land, and water for everyone in
the nation.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Hill noted that the
IWG represents a clear effort to bring about
fundamental change in how the government
operates and provides effective services and
resources to the public to ensure clean air, clean
land, and clean water. However, he
acknowledged, the government is not perfect in
the performance of its duties and responsibilities.
Therefore, EPA and the other members of the
Federal family have asked the members of the
NEJAC to provide their advice and
recommendations about how the government can
serve the public better. On behalf of the Agency,
he said, he was looking forward to a vibrant
meeting, a robust discussion, and the constructive
advice that would follow.
2.5 Remarks of NEJAC Members
Dr. Michel Gelobter, Rutgers University and
member of the Air and Water Subcommittee,
expressed his opinion that, under the Clinton-Gore
administration, EPA had mobilized at a
unprecedented level to make environmental justice
as much a reality as possible and that EPA had set
a very high standard for the next administration.
He then expressed his appreciation to Mr.
McCabe, Mr. Herman, Mr. Fields, Mr. Lee, Mr. Hill,
and others for their hard work and dedication.
Mr. Don Aragon, Wind River Environmental Quality
Commission and member of the Health and
Research Subcommittee, expressed his
appreciation that EPA had developed an Indian
policy and continues to work with Indian tribes
throughout the United States; however, he said, he
had not observed similar efforts on the part of
other Federal agencies. Mr. Aragon then stated
his hope that the entire Federal family would follow
the leadership of EPA.
Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental
Network and chair of the Indigenous Peoples
subcommittee, agreed that the future of
environmental justice is uncertain. The NEJAC
had served as a forum through which local
communities could voice their concerns, he said.
On the basis of those concerns, the NEJAC had
made recommendations to EPA on issues related
to environmental justice, and EPA administrators
under the Clinton-Gore administration had
supported most of those recommendations, he
continued. It will be essential that the next
administration continue to hear from local
communities through a forum such as the NEJAC,
said Mr. Goldtooth. He then asked Mr. McCabe
and the members of the NEJAC to communicate
to the next administration the importance of
listening to local communities.
Noting that it is difficult to change the culture of a
bureaucracy, Ms. Shepard expressed her
appreciation to EPA administrators for their
leadership in advancing environmental justice
concerns within EPA. She added that the NEJAC
would encounter many new challenges under the
new administration; she stressed that the
members of the NEJAC must work together,
remain focused, and take strategic action if the
NEJAC is to remain strong and effective in the
years to come.
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos, Community of Catano
Against Pollution and member of the Air and Water
Subcommittee, also expressed her appreciation to
the EPA senior managers for constructing a solid
basis for environmental justice. Ms. Ramos
explained that the administrators had expounded
the concepts of environmental justice, so that they
cannot be ignored by any administration. She then
pointed out that the environmental justice
movement was not created by a party, but was
created by the people, and the people, she
declared, will not allow any party to ignore
environmental justice. Therefore, she said, she is
optimistic about the future of environmental justice.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-5
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr. McCabe stated that the remarks that had been
made were indicative of the passion for
environmental justice shared by the members of
the NEJAC. He stated that he wished the
members good luck over the coming four days as
they charted the course for the next administration
and in all their future endeavors.
3.0 PANEL SESSIONS ON INTEGRATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INTO PROGRAMS
AND POLICIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES
In its continuing effort to provide independent
advice to the EPA Administrator in areas related to
environmental justice, the NEJAC focused its
sixteenth meeting on a specific policy issue - the
integration of environmental justice into the
programs and policies of Federal agencies. On
Monday and Tuesday, December 11 and 12, 2000,
the members of the NEJAC heard a series of
presentations from panels made up of various
stakeholder groups. The presentations were
designed to provide insight into the progress the
Federal government has made toward integrating
environmental justice into its policies, programs,
and activities, as required under existing laws and
Executive Order 12898. Exhibit 1-2 identifies the
panel members who participated in the
discussions.
Mr. Lee stated that the NEJAC would consider the
following questions:
• How have the efforts undertaken benefitted
low-income, minority, or indigenous
communities?
• What lessons have been learned from efforts
undertaken to increase interagency
cooperation, including the implementation of
interagency model projects on environmental
justice?
• What opportunities exist for greater utilization
of existing statutes?
• What areas could be developed further and
through what mechanisms?
• What barriers exist to integrating
environmental justice, and what strategies
would be helpful in overcoming those barriers?
Mr. Lee emphasized the following points to be
considered during discussion of the integration of
environmental justice by Federal agencies:
• The NEJAC's examination of the
implementation of environmental justice
throughout the Federal government should be
"forward-looking." The members of the
NEJAC should identify lessons learned from
prior efforts to implement the Executive Order
and make recommendations about how to
further integrate environmental justice into the
programs, policies, and activities of the
Federal family.
• The members of the NEJAC should examine
implementation of environmental justice in two
basic areas: (1) progress in and lessons
learned through implementation by individual
agencies and (2) development of collaborative
interagency strategies.
• NEJAC's recommendations should provide a
very clear and definitive statement of the
directions and strategies that should be
pursued during the next administration to
ensure that environmental justice is made a
part of the ongoing work of the Federal
government.
Mr. Lee informed the members of the NEJAC that
the formal record of the meeting would be open for
comments until January 31, 2001, so the
comments and testimony would be included in the
current year's record.
Mr. Lee then recognized the EPA senior staff
present at the meeting. He thanked the senior
staff members for their attendance, commenting
that their presence at the meeting displayed their
commitment to environmental justice. He stressed
that such commitment is crucial to the
development of effective collaborative interagency
strategies.
The following sections provide summaries of each
of the various panel presentations on integration of
environmental justice into the programs, policies,
and activities of Federal agencies.
3.1 Panel 1: Overview of Executive Order
12898
Mr. Gerald Torres, University of Texas Law
School, provided an overview of the historical
context of Executive Order 12898. Exhibit 1-3
describes the focus of Panel 1.
1-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Exhibit 1-2
MEMBERS OF THE PANEL SESSIONS ON INTEGRATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INTO PROGRAMS AND POLICIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES
Panel 1: Overview of Executive Order 12898
• Gerald Torres, Vice Provost, University of Texas Law School
• Gail Small, Director, Native Action (Due to weather constraints Ms. Small could not attend the meeting.)
Panel 2: Discussion of the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice and the Federal Interagency
Environmental Justice Action Agenda
• Timothy Fields, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
• Charles Lee, Associate Director for Policy and Interagency Liaison, Office of Environmental Justice, EPA
Panel 3: Individual Federal Agency Panels
• Lois Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
• Sherri Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security, U.S. Department of Defense
• Carolyn Huntoon, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy
• Ron Stroman, Director, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Transportation
• Willie Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
• Lisa Guide, Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, DOI
• Jerry Clifford, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6, EPA
• Roland Droitsch, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of
Labor
• Charles Wells, Director, Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
• Herbert Avent, Director for Urban Health, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services
Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• Reuben Warren, Associate Administrator for Urban Affairs, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
• Terry Harwood, Director of Hazardous Materials Management Group, U.S. Department of Agriculture
• Marvin Wentz Turner, Special Actions Office, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Panel 4: Integrated Interagency Demonstration Projects
• Admiral Chris Weaver, Department of the Navy, DoD
• Mary Nelson, Bethel New Life, Inc.
• James Talley, Mayor, City of Spartanburg, South Carolina
• Jose R. Rodnguez-Santana, Asthma Coalition of Puerto Rico, Pediatric Pulmonary Program, Cystic Fibrosis
Center
• Emil Jason, Great Rivers Alliance of Natural Resource Districts
• Richard Mark, East St. Louis Lead Project, St. Mary's Hospital
Panel 5: Stakeholder Perspective on Integrated Interagency Strategies
• Charlotte Keys, Executive Director, Jesus People Against Pollution
• Sue Briggum, Director, Government and Environmental Affairs, Waste Management, Inc. (statement presented
by Patricia Wood, Georgia-Pacific Corporation)
• Jesus Nava, Deputy City Manager, City of San Jose, California
• Terry Williams, Commissioner for Natural Resources and Fisheries, The Tulalip Tribes
• Richard Gragg, Center for Environmental Equity and Justice, Florida A &M University
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-7
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 1-3
FOCUS OF PANEL 1
This panel provided the historical context of
Executive Order 12898. The panelist also provided
an analysis of the legal, programmatic, and
organizational foundations of the Executive order.
This understanding of goals and motivating factors
was designed to provide an overall framework on
which a balanced assessment of implementation of
environmental justice within the Federal government
can be built. The panelist provided an independent
analysis of areas of significant progress, as well as
those of significant deficiency. In addition, the
panelist provided an analysis of the most significant
challenges for future implementation of the goals of
the Executive order. Last, the panelist offered
recommendations for strategies for future integration
of environmental justice.
Mr. Torres began his presentation by stating that,
before the Executive order was issued, the
environmental justice movement moved in "fits and
starts" in the effort to change the way in which the
Federal government responds to issues related to
environmental justice. A fundamental change had
been needed in the institutional culture within
Federal agencies that respond to the issues being
raised by the environmental justice movement, he
explained.
Mr. Torres then stated that, the authors of the
Executive order faced one difficulty, in that an
Executive order does not inherently create
enforceable rights for the people it protects. On
the other hand, he continued, the principal
audience of the Executive order is the Federal
agencies that are directed to change the way they
make decisions. The most challenging task for
Federal agencies is to incorporate into their
decisionmaking processes consideration of issues
that fall outside of their mandates, he explained.
Continuing, Mr. Torres stated that the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) had been used
as one model for implementing Executive order
12898. He explained that, when NEPA first was
passed, it had been perceived as weak and
lacking enforceability. However, he continued, one
of the goals of NEPA had been to increase the
weight given to environmental factors in the
Federal decisionmaking process. Mr. Torres
stated that NEPA had been somewhat successful
in motivating Federal agencies to change their
decisionmaking structures so that environmental
issues would be considered in those processes.
Therefore, Mr. Torres stated, one of the hopes for
Executive order 12898 was that those agencies
would be further motivated to include
considerations of environmental justice in their
decisionmaking processes.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Torres observed that
some Federal agencies had responded more
readily and strongly to Executive Order 12898 than
others. He commented that a thorough analysis of
the extent to which the principles of environmental
justice have permeated the Federal
decisionmaking structure would be useful, as
would an evaluation of the extent to which
interagency coordination affects that structure.
3.2 Panel 2: Discussion of the Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice
and the Integrated Federal Interagency
Environmental Justice Action Agenda
Mr. Fields initiated the panel discussion by
providing assurance, that despite the pending
change of administration, the issue of
environmental justice is "very much alive" and the
effort to address the issue will continue "very
emphatically and strongly" into the next
administration. Exhibit 1 -4 describes the focus of
Panel 2.
Exhibit 1-4
FOCUS OF PANEL 2
This panel provided a discussion of the formation of
the Federal Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice (IWG) and an analysis of
implementation of environmental justice throughout
the Federal government. This panel also emphasized
that the Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental
Justice Action Agenda (Action Agenda) brings a new
sense of direction, innovation, and vigor to
environmental justice to the entire Federal family.
The panel touched on the philosophical and
programmatic background of the interagency
strategy.
Mr. Fields focused his presentation on the
significance and future of the IWG's Integrated
Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action
Agenda (Action Agenda). He explained that the
Action Agenda provides a framework that Federal
agencies can use to develop and expand on future
collaborative Federal environmental justice
initiatives. Exhibit 1-5 describes the IWG and
provides background information about the Action
Agenda.
1-8
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Exhibit 1-5
DESCRIPTION OF THE INTEGRATED FEDERAL INTERAGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ACTION AGENDA
The Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action Agenda (Action Agenda) seeks to build dynamic
and proactive partnerships among Federal agencies to benefit environmentally and economically distressed
communities. Increased coordination and cooperation among Federal agencies will enhance efforts to identify,
mobilize, and use Federal resources, as well as enhance the capability of distressed communities to improve
environmental decision making and more efficiently access and leverage initiatives sponsored by the Federal
government. The Action Agenda will improve quality of life for minority or low-income populations that suffer
disproportionate environmental effects. Those populations also may include indigenous and tribal communities.
The Action Agenda will include examples of interagency environmental justice projects and agency-specific
initiatives that were undertaken or implemented by various Federal agencies in 2000. The Action Agenda seeks to
build the constructive problem-solving capacity of communities in partnership with state, tribal, and local
governments. The Action Agenda is not intended to replace or supersede existing Federal, state, tribal, or local
government decisionmaking processes.
Goals outlined in the Action Agenda include:
• The promotion of greater coordination and cooperation among Federal agencies.
• The facilitation of a more accessible and responsive government.
• The formulation of strategies to ensure the integration of environmental justice into the policies, programs, and
activities of Federal agencies.
• The initiation of environmental justice demonstration projects on which to base the development of integrated,
"place-based" models for addressing livability issues affecting communities.
Mr. Fields expressed his pleasure in working on
the development and implementation of the Action
Agenda. It had been his pleasure, he said, to be
involved in environmental justice from the
perspective of his own program areas, which
include Superfund, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hazardous and Solid
Waste Program, the Federal Facilities Program,
the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program,
and the brownfields cleanup and redevelopment
effort, he added. He also expressed his pleasure
in beginning to work with other Federal agency
partners on ways in which the Federal government
can collaborate through interagency partnerships
to address environmental justice issues.
Mr. Fields remarked that the Executive order had
been necessary so that the Federal government
would do what is within its power to eliminate
disparate situations that had direct and indirect
effects on real communities. He stressed that no
one person, and no one agency, could hope to
remedy decades and centuries of injustice
singlehandedly. Working together, however, he
declared, agencies can achieve those goals.
In the spirit of the Executive order, Mr. Fields
explained, the IWG had provided leadership
throughout the Federal government on ways to
collaborate and work together in communities
across America that have serious concerns related
to environmental justice. The Executive order
provided the framework for the progress that
Federal agencies had made to date, he said.
Further, the Executive order, he continued,
established the framework for addressing and
solving the challenges that lay ahead.
Mr. Fields then stated that the progress made in
developing the Action Agenda could be attributed
to the foresight and fortitude of the authors of the
Executive order, he said. Although it had taken
years to educate the bureaucracy about
environmental justice, he added, the hard work
and effort had begun to produce some results. He
stated that he had met regularly with senior
leadership in various Federal agencies, and, at
each meeting, he had been greeted
enthusiastically. Representatives of those
agencies, he added, had exhibited a sincere desire
to conduct business in a manner that will have a
positive effect on environmental justice in
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-9
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
communities across the country. Senior managers
at the Federal agencies had committed their time
and staff to the effort to develop and implement
meaningful and effective resolutions of
environmental justice issues, he continued.
Environmental justice demonstration projects are
an excellent example of how Federal agencies and
other stakeholders, including communities,
businesses, and state and local governments, can
work together to develop and implement
meaningful, effective, and desirable solutions, said
Mr. Fields. He explained that 15 demonstration
projects are now underway, under which two or
more Federal agencies are working with state
governments, local governments, tribal
governments, private partners, and community
representatives to address environmental injustice
in meaningful ways. The Action Agenda and
demonstration projects represent the new baseline
by which environmental justice and community
involvement and participation will be measured, he
added. They provide a new starting point for
tomorrow's successes, he stressed. See Section
3.4 of this chapter for a summary of the
presentations about several demonstration
projects, as well as a list of the projects initiated
under the Action Agenda.
Continuing his remarks, Mr. Fields described his
vision of the future of environmental justice:
• More partnerships among all stakeholders,
from the community to the local government
and the private sector, all working together
with Federal, state, and local governments and
Tribal governments to address concerns
related to environmental justice.
• More emphasis on preventing disparity before
it becomes a serious issue of environmental
injustice in a particular community.
• Fostering of relationships between Federal
agencies and groups like the NEJAC and the
IWG.
• Coming together of communities and
businesses from which mutual benefits can be
identified.
• Full integration of the goals and principles of
environmental justice and the Environmental
Justice Action Agenda into not only the fabric
of the Federal government, but also into the
threads of state and local government and into
the decisionmaking processes of tribal
governments and communities across
America.
Mr. Fields stated that he anticipated that the
demonstration projects underway would evolve
into a full-fledged program in the coming years and
provide a guide to the way in which the Federal
government should deal with other stakeholders in
addressing the significant environmental justice
concerns of communities. Such a program, he
continued, will be one in which people and
organizations will clamor to participate because "it
is the right thing to do." When we live up to the
principles of environmental justice, he stated, we
are holding America to its greatest promise. We
cannot and will not shirk from that great
opportunity and the even greater opportunity the
future holds, he declared.
Continuing the discussion, Mr. Lee focused his
presentation on the background, philosophy, goals,
and future direction of IWG's Action Agenda. He
explained that the premises of the Action Agenda
are to (1) promote Federal support of solutions that
"begin in the community and remain in the
community;" (2) link federal, state, and local
governments with a community-based,
comprehensive planning process; (3) seek
collaboration and integration so that resources can
be targeted and leveraged more effectively; (4)
develop a template for holistic, community-based
solutions to environmental justice issues; and (5)
serve as a platform for advocating a new way of
doing business. The Action Agenda presents a
collaborative partnership model for achieving
economic vitality, social equity, and environmental
quality, he said.
Reflecting on the definition of environmental
justice, Mr. Lee explained the concept as (1) fair
treatment and meaningful involvement of people in
environmental decisionmaking; (2) management of
environmental, public health, economic, and social
concerns in an integrated manner; and (3)
collaborative and constructive problem-solving that
includes holistic solutions that are early, truly
proactive, and truly comprehensive. Further,
environmental justice requires the comprehensive
and holistic integrated efforts of all stakeholders -
local, state, tribal and Federal governments;
community-based organizations; civic and religious
groups; academic institutions; business and
industry; philanthropic groups; and labor and
professional organizations, he continued. The
Action Agenda and the demonstration projects
have begun to form the vision of that collaborative,
partnership approach, he stated.
Mr. Lee explained that two environmental justice
listening sessions (the first held on July 11, 1998,
in Los Angeles, California and the second held on
1-10
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
March 6, 1999 in New York City, New York), both
jointly sponsored by the White House Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and EPA, were held
to allow senior Federal officials new opportunities
to respond directly to affected communities, as
well as opportunities for meaningful dialogue
among all stakeholders. Development of the goals
of the Action Agenda, Mr. Lee continued, was
based on ideas and lessons learned that had been
discussed during the listening sessions.
In closing, Mr. Lee reiterated that the Action
Agenda advocates a new way of doing business.
A new way of business will be formed through
integrative technology, collaborative partnerships,
community-based capacity-building, and the
targeting and leveraging of resources, he
explained, and will lead to a truly proactive and
comprehensive community-based approach to
problem-solving.
Ms. Shepard asked how communities could begin
to gain access to the process outlined in the Action
Agenda. Mr. Fields responded that many Federal
agencies already had identified communities that
they would like to include in the next round of
interagency demonstration projects. In addition,
EPA soon will post a notice on its Internet Web site
to request that communities that wish to be
considered for a demonstration project submit
applications by the end of March 2001, he said.
Selection criteria would be developed, he
continued, suggesting that such criteria might
include the willingness of two or more Federal
agencies to participate and provide resources to
assist the community in dealing with environmental
justice issues and the existence of a demonstrated
need or a documented environmental justice
concern that adversely affects the community.
The IWG will review the applications and make
selections for the next round of projects, said Mr.
Fields.
Mr. Alberto Saldamando, International Indian
Treaty Council and proxy for Mr. Arnoldo Garcia,
chair of the International Subcommittee,
commented that Executive Order 12898 mandates
that Federal agencies identify communities that
are affected by the activities of those agencies. He
stressed that the Federal agencies should make a
commitment to identifying those communities
themselves, rather than waiting for a community to
organize an initiative and secure the participation
of Federal agencies. Agreeing, Mr. Lee responded
that Federal agencies should be proactive, but, he
added, communication from the communities
themselves is essential, as well. Federal agency
action can not be done in the absence of extensive
communication, input, and leadership from
communities themselves, Mr. Lee emphasized.
Mr. Fields then explained that all the candidate
projects, as well as those selected as IWG
demonstration projects, will be announced to the
public. He stated that several candidate projects,
particularly those at which significant concerns
about energy or military issues have been
identified, had been called to the attention of the
IWG by various Federal agencies because they
say they can better address concerns if other
Federal partners assist them. Other projects had
been suggested by communities, he continued.
Mr. Fields added that the IWG had been pleased
to hear from private- sector entities that wished to
become involved in the IWG demonstration
projects and expressed willingness to work with
communities and local, state and Federal
governments to address environmental justice
concerns.
3.3 Panel 3: Individual Federal Agency Panel
Presentations
Mr. Lee introduced the third panel session,
explaining that the panel discussion was intended
to provide a thoughtful review of the progress that
had been made in integrating environmental
justice into the policies, programs, and activities of
all Federal agencies. Rather than a "report card,"
he explained, the session was meant to provide a
review of the accomplishments, challenges, and
barriers experienced by the individual agencies
and to identify opportunities for addressing
environment justice in the future. Exhibit 1 -6
describes the focus of the panel.
3.3.1 U.S. Department of Justice
Ms. Lois Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General,
DOJ, focused her presentation on three areas:
DOJ's work in environmental litigation;
coordination of civil rights efforts; and DOJ's
community-based programs. The role of DOJ
under the Executive order, she explained, is to
implement the principles of the Executive order in
all litigation. Ms. Schiffer added that, as Assistant
Attorney General for DOJ's Environment and
Natural Resources Division, her job is to enforce
the nation's environmental laws; defend the
actions of Federal agencies in environmental
lawsuits; and work on cases related to public lands
that involve natural resources, wildlife cases, land
condemnation cases, and some issues related to
Indian tribes.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-11
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 1-6
FOCUS OF PANEL 3
The intent of the panel presentations was to be both retrospective and prospective. Emphasis was placed on what
lessons could be learned to shape recommendations for better and more effective integration of environmental justice
into the policies, programs, and activities of Federal agencies. Each agency was requested to focus on examples of
particularly notable lessons, both positive and negative. Each agency also was asked to recommend strategies that
may be pursued to more fully incorporate environmental justice into its mission, as well as to achieve better
integration in all Federal agencies. Special emphasis was placed on how existing laws and regulations have been
used to integrate environmental justice into the work of the agencies.
One of the key principles of environmental justice,
continued Ms. Schiffer, is meaningful community
participation in agency decisionmaking. She
added that community participation is one of the
most important legacies of the environmental
justice movement and is the concept DOJ has
worked most assiduously to incorporate into
environmental litigation. As an example, Ms.
Schiffer stated that DOJ had sought the views of
affected communities in the settlement of
affirmative civil enforcement cases. Comment
from affected communities was particularly helpful
when DOJ was considering injunctive relief to
cleanup problems and when the department was
exploring the component of settlements known as
supplemental environmental projects (SEP). Ms.
Schiffer explained that SEPs are environmentally
beneficial projects the defendants in such
enforcement cases agree to undertake to settle
the enforcement actions. SEPs are efforts that the
company is not legally required to take action on,
but which the company undertakes in addition to
the payment of a civil penalty and injunctive relief,
she said. Continuing, Ms. Schiffer stated that a
SEP project must have a connection, or "nexus,"
with the underlying violation and that SEPs usually
directly benefit affected communities.
DOJ puts much effort into consultation with
environmental justice communities when selecting
SEPs, she said. For example, Ms. Schiffer stated,
DOJ resolved some complaints under the Clean
Air Act (CAA) against the city of Chicago, Illinois
that arose from the operation of a now-closed
municipal incinerator. The incinerator, she
explained, is located on the near west side of
Chicago, a community that has a significant low-
income and minority population. Soon after DOJ
notified the city of the pending enforcement action,
the facility began the process of community
outreach with a grassroots umbrella organization,
the West Side Alliance for a Safe, Toxic Free
Environment (WASTE), which was made up of
more than 20 community-based groups, she
1-12
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
continued. As the litigation went forward, DOJ met
with the leaders of the group on several occasions
and held community meetings. Under the terms of
the settlement, the city agreed to pay a civil penalty
of $200,000 and perform SEPs that were valued at
$700,000. The SEPs, the selection of which the
community had significant involvement, included
two brownfields projects and two lead abatement
projects, added Ms. Schiffer.
Continuing, Ms. Schiffer said that another effective
means of achieving environmental protection and
environmental justice is the development of
initiatives that focus on particular problems. Over
the past two years, she explained, DOJ, the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), EPA, and state and local governments
around the country had embarked on a nationwide
initiative to enforce the Residential Lead-Based
Paint Hazard Reduction Act. The legislation, she
said, requires that landlords and sellers of older
housing warn prospective tenants and buyers of
the dangers of lead paint and disclose information
about lead paint in buildings. Ms. Schiffer then
stated that, in the past year, DOJ had secured a
number of settlements with major landlords in the
District of Columbia. One result, she reported, had
been the provision of more than $2 million for
measures to prevent lead poisoning, such as
inspections, abatement projects, and community-
based projects, and the provision of portable blood
measuring devices that can be used to test blood
lead levels in children.
Ms. Schiffer stated that other coordinated
enforcement efforts that benefit low-income and
minority communities include DOJ's continuing
role in Superfund enforcement to clean up
hazardous waste sites and help to redevelop
brownfields properties in consultation with affected
communities. Ms. Schiffer explained that DOJ had
been involved in promoting brownfields
redevelopment through (1) completing its
Superfund cases; (2) playing a role in approving
prospective purchaser agreements; and (3) taking
steps to protect a prospective buyer from liability
under Superfund for existing contamination caused
by previous property owners if the purchaser had
no role in causing that pollution. In return,
prospective purchasers typically agree to pay for or
perform some of the response actions at the site
by providing reassurance to buyers of
contaminated lands on the issue of their liability,
she said. Prospective purchase agreements, she
pointed out, do not provide protection for
prospective purchasers who create new
contamination or to those that were involved in
causing the contamination already present at the
site.
In all the cases she had described as examples of
litigation support, Ms. Schiffer emphasized, DOJ is
one player in coordinated interagency efforts to
"bring the pieces of the puzzle together."
Turning her attention to DOJ's role in the
enforcement and implementation of civil rights
laws, Ms. Schiffer stated that the Attorney General
is charged by Executive Order 12250 with
coordination of action taken under Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), and
implementation and enforcement of Title VI.
Over the past few years, said Ms. Schiffer, DOJ's
Environment and Natural Resources Division and
Civil Rights Division have worked to coordinate
Title VI issues as they are relate to environmental
justice. The Coordination and Review Section had
committed a significant percentage of its resources
to consulting on and coordinating Title VI
complaints that raise environmental justice issues,
she said. Many of the complaints involve a
number of agencies, and the Civil Rights Division
is in a unique position to bring the various parties
together, she added.
For example, she said, DOJ's Coordination and
Review Section currently was coordinating the
response to Title VI complaints filed with the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD), EPA, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
and HUD related to the cleanup and reuse of Kelly
Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. In a sense,
she noted, DOJ's Civil Rights Division is acting as
"the glue for the separate pieces of the puzzle."
DOJ also works with other agencies to promote
environmental justice through community-based
programs, said Ms. Schiffer. As an example, she
described, Operation Weed and Seed, a
community-based strategy that focuses on
"weeding out" crime, drug abuse, and gang activity
and "seeding" human services and neighborhood
revitalization. Local Weed and Seed programs,
she explained, are guided by steering committees
operated through the offices of the United States
Attorneys, and the mayors, chiefs of police, district
attorneys, and residents of communities. All the
partners work together to improve quality of life in
targeted communities, she said. Recently, she
continued, the Weed and Seed Program Office
had conducted a nationwide survey of the
approximately 250 sites in the program to identify
environmental concerns. On the basis of the
results of that survey, she said, DOJ had selected
four sites for follow-up assistance: St. Louis,
Missouri; Dade County, Florida; Portland, Oregon;
and Phoenix, Arizona. DOJ soon will convene
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-13
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
meetings at each of the four sites to better identify
and understand the environmental issues each
community faces and to develop a strategy for
addressing such problems.
Continuing, Ms. Schiffer stated that another
example of a DOJ community-based program that
promotes environmental justice is the Community-
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. The
COPS program provides funds and trains law
enforcement officials in community-oriented
policing, a community-driven approach to law
enforcement and problem-solving, she explained.
Recently, DOJ had been working with COPS, EPA,
and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to
explore ways in which environmental protection
can be incorporated into the community policing
model, she said. Under one such project,
environmental training for police officers is being
incorporated into the basic COPS training
program, she stated. She added that DOJ had
worked with Indian tribes in the COPS program, as
well. She added that funding under the COPS
program is available to fund environmental
officers.
Concluding her remarks, Ms. Schiffer emphasized
that DOJ and other Federal agencies had been
working hard to put together the "pieces of the
puzzle" and solve the complex, multi-jurisdictional
and multi-dimensional problems that face low-
income, minority, and Native American
communities. Much remains to be done, she
stressed. Further, she stated, the collective
wisdom and efforts of the affected communities,
Federal agencies, tribes, states, industry, and
other stakeholders are needed. It is up to the
people present to maintain pressure on the next
administration to ensure that it continues to work
on the puzzle, she stated, citing the Chinese
proverb: "The person who says it cannot be done
should not interrupt the person who is doing it."
Ms. Ramos then expressed her appreciation to
DOJ for proceeding against what she termed as
"the criminal acts" of the government-owned power
plants in Puerto Rico. However, she stated, the
plants have not complied with the terms of the
probation, but DOJ had taken no action in
response to that failure. Ms. Ramos then asked
that DOJ revise its policy to oppose in court the
reimbursement of legal fees to affected
communities, especially when the expenses would
be paid by violators. She stated that the policy is
incompatible with the principles of environmental
justice.
3.3.2 U.S. Department of Defense
Ms. Sherri Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Environmental Security, DoD,
presented an overview of progress DoD has made
in implementing Executive Order 12898. Most
recently, she began, DoD had hosted a
stakeholder forum in St. Louis, Missouri to provide
community members and citizens a final
opportunity during the current administration to talk
to defense leaders about cleanup activities in their
communities and to express their views about
ways to improve the Department's efforts in the
future. Several individuals representing
environmental justice communities in the vicinity of
such sites as the Defense Depot, Memphis,
Tennessee (DDMT); Kelly Air Force Base; and the
Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard had attended the
forum, she said. They had expressed great
concerns that DoD is not doing enough to address
the minority communities and low-income
populations living and working in those
communities, she continued.
Ms. Goodman stated that, after listening closely to
the testimony about DoD's activities at DDMT and
the health concerns of local citizens, she had
become very concerned that DoD could be doing
more. Ms. Goodman said that she had asked her
staff to meet with the lead health investigator at the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) to discuss how DoD could help
that particular community. Together, she
continued, her staff and ATSDR had developed
some ideas, and they are working directly with the
community to determine whether those ideas
would be beneficial. One promising idea is the
possibility of providing surplus government
property, such as computers or trailers, to the
community for use in establishing more accessible
health care facilities, she said, much in the same
manner as when the U.S. Air Force recently had
transferred surplus trailers to an Indian community
to be used to provide much-needed housing.
Continuing, Ms. Goodman discussed other
concrete actions DoD had taken to implement the
Executive order. After President Clinton signed
the Executive order, she explained, DoD took
steps to design an implementation strategy that
focuses on institutional changes, rather than one-
time events, to implement the Executive order, she
said. She explained that DoD first had identified
five principles of strategy: (1) promotion of
partnerships with all stakeholders; (2) identification
of impacts of DoD activities on communities; (3)
streamlining of government; (4) improvement of
day-to-day operations at installations that are
1-14
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
related to environmental justice concerns; and (5)
fostering of non-discrimination in all DoD programs
and activities.
Continuing, Ms. Goodman stated that DoD had
issued to its military departments and agencies
regulations based on that strategy, requiring that
an analysis of the impacts of proposed actions on
minority and low-income populations be performed
as part of DoD's implementation of NEPA. Each of
the military departments had issued correspondent
requirements for its environmental justice
analyses, she explained. She cited the following
examples:
• U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) had
issued policy guidance with the goal of having
all Navy commands include environmental
justice considerations in evaluating applicable
mission-related activities, she said. In
addition, the Navy had incorporated an
environmental justice guidance into its
installation planning, design, and management
guide and into the Marine Corps
Environmental Compliance and Protection
Manual.
• Department of the Air Force had issued similar
guidance based on its experiences with
several environmental impact statements and
other planning activities, usually in urban areas
or built-up areas of small towns. The guidance
focuses on the determination of potentially
disproportionate adverse effects on low-
income and minority populations.
DoD's work with Native American tribes also falls
under the Executive order, said Ms. Goodman. In
1998, she explained, then Secretary of Defense
William Cohen had signed the first formal DoD
policy governing how DoD would work with
Federally recognized tribes. Noting that the policy
is truly a milestone for DoD, Ms. Goodman stated
that she believed the policy is the most
comprehensive policy among those of all Federal
agencies, adding that it exceeds the requirements
of the Presidential memorandum on government-
to-government relations with Federally recognized
tribes and the Clinton administration's Executive
order on consultations with Indian tribal
governments. The policy brings uniformity to
DoD's interactions with tribes and helps DoD meet
its responsibilities under the Federal Trust
Doctrine, treaties, and other obligations, she
continued. The policy also establishes the
groundwork that allows tribes to function as equal
partners in DoD actions that affect them, she said.
For example, she continued, DoD actively uses
cooperative agreements to assist tribes in working
directly with DoD to address the environmental
effects of its actions on tribal land.
Such cooperative agreements create a partnership
between DoD and the tribal government, she
explained, enabling the tribe to play a significant
role in mitigation efforts in projects carried out on
their lands, while also providing them opportunities
for capacity-building. Cooperative agreements
provide a mechanism through which DoD and the
tribes can work cooperatively to mitigate adverse
environmental effects and enable a tribe to receive
technical assistance and training so that it can
function as an equal partner, she said. During the
past three years, she continued, DoD had entered
into cooperative agreements with more than 16
Federally recognized tribal governments or tribal
consortia. DoD had received funding to support
those cooperative agreements, assist in training,
and enable tribal organizations to undertake some
of the cleanup and environmental mitigation work,
she added.
Continuing, Ms. Goodman stated that in addition to
developing policies and guidance documents, DoD
had reached out to environmental justice
communities through restoration advisory boards
(RAB). She explained that RABs provide
communities affected by DoD's cleanup activities
the opportunity to participate in the environmental
restoration process and provide comment on
DoD's decisions about cleanup. To assist RABs in
understanding the restoration process and how it
affects them, DoD makes technical assistance for
public (TAP) grants available to support
independent technical consultation and scientific
advice, she said. RABs empower members of
communities to take an active role in the protection
of their health and safety and that of the
environment, she continued. The understanding
that grows out of such partnerships increases trust
among members of the community, as well as the
community's confidence in the environmental
restoration activities when that process is working
well, she said. Ms. Goodman acknowledged that
some efforts are not successful in some
communities, adding that she had heard from
representatives of such communities in a meeting
she had attended that day. However, she pointed
out, of the more than 250 RABs operating
nationwide, only a handful have not been
successful.
Highlighting another example of community
outreach, Ms. Goodman discussed an effort of the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) that focuses on
youth. In California, she explained, a partnership
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-15
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
between DLA and youth of the local community
rescued the endangered Palos Verdes blue
butterfly from extinction. The Palos Verdes blue
butterfly had been thought to be extinct, she
continued, but had been found several years
earlier to live only on a fuel depot located south of
Los Angeles. The rescue not only saved a rare
species, but also provided skills and opportunities
for a number of disadvantaged youth in the
community, she continued. One former member
of a gang who had served time in prison, currently
is employed at the DLA depot where he supervises
the effort to breed more than 1,000 butterflies to
maintain the endangered species. Ms. Goodman
acknowledged that not every project is as
successful as that particular effort, but expressed
the hope that DoD would be able to implement
more such efforts in the future.
Ms. Goodman then stated that DoD also provides
technical assistance outreach directly to minority
academic institutions, including historically black
colleges and universities (HBCU), institutions that
serve Hispanic populations, and tribal colleges and
universities. Such technical assistance, she said,
includes information about the organizations,
missions and responsibilities of various
components of DoD, and the programming and
budgeting processes, as well as information about
the acquisition process and preparation of bids
and proposals. Ms. Goodman explained that the
overall purpose of the program is to present
opportunities for minority academic institutions to
participate in DoD's contracts, grants, and
programs.
Continuing, Ms. Goodman stated that DoD is
implementing its policies and ensuring that
personnel understand the Executive order through
training efforts. DoD has produced an
environmental justice videotape that explains to
military and civilian personnel the requirements of
the Executive order on environmental justice and
the effect of the Executive order on the policies
and programs of DoD. The goal of the effort is to
increase awareness of environmental justice
among military and civilian personnel and to infuse
the spirit and intent of the Executive order into
DoD's decisionmaking process, she explained.
For example, DoD has recently embarked on an
aggressive program to provide sensitivity training
in American Indian and Alaskan Native cultures to
military and civilian personnel who work with tribes,
she said. The training provides DoD personnel at
all levels an understanding of DoD policy
applicable to American Indian tribes and Alaskan
Natives villages and of the need to interact with
tribes on a government-to-government basis, she
explained.
Ms. Goodman informed the participants that DoD
maintains an environmental justice web site; many
documents, brochures, and pamphlets on
environmental justice are available on the web site,
she noted. To communicate with the
environmental justice community, DoD also uses
other media such as conferences, meetings,
workshops, and postings in community
newspapers. Bilingual versions of printed
materials also are available, she said. She added
that the Army's Chemical Demilitarization Program
also makes a number of documents available for
distribution, both through the Internet and by other
means. She explained that the Chemical
Demilitarization Program is responsible for
identifying and disposing of chemicals at more
than 200 known and suspected sites around the
country, including eight stockpile sites and
numerous non-stockpile sites. Some of the sites
are located in minority or low-income communities,
she said. The program is taking an aggressive
approach to ensuring that minority and low-income
communities are aware of all actions that may be
taken to dispose of the materials, continued Ms.
Goodman. For example, program officials plan to
compile census tract data for each potential site to
determine accurately whether minority or low-
income populations reside in the vicinity of the site,
perform site-specific research for outreach
consultation purposes, and conduct risk
communication and cultural sensitivity training for
personnel responsible for cleanup operations, she
explained.
Turning her attention to the IWG's environmental
justice demonstration projects, Ms. Goodman
stated that DoD was taking the lead in two of the
15 pilot projects supported by the Action Agenda.
A pilot project led by DoD addresses
environmental concerns on the Annette Islands
Indian Reserve located in southeast Alaska, she
continued. Through a partnership with Federal,
tribal, and local government agencies and
organizations, she explained, an approach for
cleaning up contamination on the reserve is being
developed. The master plan addresses land use
and future development on the reserve, she
added. To date, five Federal agencies had been
involved actively in investigating and cleaning up
contamination on the reserve, she continued.
Benefits the pilot project brings to the community
include the establishment of a collaborative
relationship between the tribe and Federal officials,
protection of the customary and traditional use of
food resources, enhancement of tribal capacity to
manage and conduct environmental programs,
and provision of Federal technical assistance.
1-16
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Concluding her remarks, Ms. Goodman
acknowledged that DoD can and should do more
for communities in the vicinity of its installations.
DoD must be a good neighbor to the communities
in which those installations are located, she said.
Ms. Goodman stated that she believed that DoD
had made enormous progress in earning the trust
of communities located near their facilities, but
acknowledged that DoD work remains to be done.
Continuing, she stated that she hoped that the
effort DoD had begun under the current
administration will maintain its momentum and
that, with the help of the NEJAC and the Federal
Facilities Working Group, DoD will be able to help
"write the next chapter on environmental justice
interaction" in a way that helps establish levels of
trust that lets DoD accomplish its mission, while
addressing the real health concerns of citizens. In
that way, she said, DoD will continue to be a good
neighbor in the community.
Ms. Miller-Travis asked Ms. Goodman how the
participation of environmental justice organizations
in San Antonio, Texas, was being incorporated into
the RAB process at Kelly Air Force Base. Ms.
Goodman responded that Kelly Air Force Base
conducts an extensive public outreach program in
addition to the activities of the RAB. She
acknowledged, however, that the community
continues to be concerned about health problems.
Ms. Goodman stated that the Air Force was
continuing to work on addressing those concerns.
She explained that the situation at Kelly Air Force
Base is difficult because many complicating factors
are present, not only on the base, but also in the
community. Ms. Goodman then stressed that the
Air Force is committed to addressing the problems
at Kelly Air Force Base.
Directing several comments to the representatives
of DoD, Mr. Goldtooth informed Ms. Goodman that
military fly-bys commonly disrupt a religious
ceremony on the Lakota Reservation at Standing
Rock, South Dakota, despite numerous requests
by the Lakota that DoD discontinue the fly-bys
during the ceremony. Mr. Goldtooth then
commented on the issues surrounding the cleanup
of formerly used defense sites (FUDS) in Alaska.
That serious issue, said Mr. Goldtooth, had
received little management attention or funding; he
then asked representatives of DoD to address the
issue. Finally, Mr. Goldtooth commented that DoD
seems to have immunity from environmental laws.
Ms. Goodman referred Mr. Goldtooth to Mr. Len
Richeson, DoD's Environmental Justice
Coordinator, who she said would assist in
obtaining action on the issue of the military fly-bys
over the Lakota Reservation during religious
ceremonies. In response to Mr. Goldtooth's
comment about the FUDS program, Ms. Goodwin
stated that she was working to double the funding
of the FUDS program for the next fiscal year.
Continuing her response to Mr. Goldtooth's
comments, Ms. Goodman stressed that DoD is not
exempt from environmental laws and stated that
DoD, like all other Federal agencies, must comply
with environmental laws.
Addressing the issue of DoD's commitment to
international environmental justice issues, Ms.
Goodman stated that DoD had been involved
heavily in negotiations related to climate change.
She pointed out that DoD had decreased by two-
thirds the greenhouse gas emissions from military
operations and other DoD activities. Ms.
Goodman stressed DoD's commitment to making
a significant contribution to the effort to reduce
persistent organic pollutants (POP) in the global
environment.
Mr. Saldamando commented that the Executive
order requires Federal agencies not only to
examine the effects of their previous activities but
also to evaluate their current programs and
policies that have a significant effect on
environmental justice. He stressed that, if
environmental justice is addressed at the policy
level, environmental injustices can be avoided.
For example, he continued, the IWG Action
Agenda identified Fort Belknap as a community
that suffers disproportionate environmental
degradation; however, DoD is considering
installing a bombing range in the same community.
If environmental justice were to be incorporated
into DoD's policy, he pointed out, such a situation
could be prevented.
3.3.3 U.S. Department of Energy
Dr. Carolyn Huntoon, Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management, U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), focused her presentation on DOE's
environmental justice activities and
accomplishments. Dr. Huntoon first stated that
environmental justice had become a part of the
fabric of DOE's programs and policies. She
emphasized that the programs and policies
implemented by DOE had benefitted low-income,
minority, and indigenous communities and that
DOE had taken action to institutionalize
environmental justice within the culture of the
Department.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-17
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Dr. Huntoon stated that DOE had achieved a
number of successes. For example, she said, the
Environmental Justice Resource Center, which is
sponsored by DOE, had become the nation's
premiere institution of its kind. Located at Clark
Atlanta University, the center serves as a research,
policy, and information clearinghouse for issues
related to environmental justice, race, the
environment, civil rights, land use planning, and
other equity issues, she said. DOE also has
entered into a cooperative agreement with the
National Conference of Black Mayors, she added.
Under the cooperative agreement, she explained,
DOE is assisting in the effort to rebuild the city of
Princeville, North Carolina, which was almost
destroyed by Hurricane Floyd in 1999. In addition,
DOE's Samuel B. P. Massey Chairs of Excellence
Program, which supports environmental experts of
national and international renown from nine
HBCUs and one Hispanic-serving institution, is
assisting the National Conference of Black Mayors
and disadvantaged communities in improving
sewage systems and solid waste incineration
facilities and in addressing other municipal
environmental issues, she continued. The Massey
Chairs also assist educationally disadvantaged
students in grades kindergarten through 12 who
reside in small towns and rural areas by providing
them with opportunities to participate in
environmental research and earn college
scholarships, she said.
Continuing, Dr. Huntoon stated that DOE's Office
of Efficiency and Renewable Energy provides
throughout the United States a home
modernization program for more than 80,000 low-
income residents. Further, she added, recognizing
the increasing need for communications in an
increasingly digital world, DOE has provided
disadvantaged communities with the technology
and the training needed to participate in that world.
For example, she said, DOE, in partnership with
EPA, provided to the Hyde Park/Aragon
community in South Carolina located near DOE's
Savannah River site, used computers and training
to research enforcement issues affecting the
community. Ultimately, members of the
community used their new-found expertise to apply
for and win an EPA brownfields grant to clean up
areas affecting their community.
Turning her attention to the institutionalization of
environmental justice within DOE, Dr. Huntoon
stated that DOE maintains an environmental
justice coordinator in its Office of Economic Impact
and Diversity and has designated points of contact
for environmental justice issues in each of its
major programs and field centers, she said.
Environmental justice considerations have been
incorporated into DOE's NEPA review process,
she added.
Dr. Huntoon stated that an increasing number of
DOE offices offer training in environmental justice
to educate and sensitize managers and staff.
DOE's Office of Environment, Safety, and Health
conducts health studies in communities near DOE
sites, she added. In addition, DOE's Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is using
environmental justice considerations in its review
process for awarding funding, she said. She then
stated that another ongoing DOE activity is an
aggressive public information outreach effort
designed to reach all affected peoples and
communities. That effort, she reported, includes
the following activities:
• DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy's Center for Sustainable
Development operates a bilingual web site that
provides information about "green building,"
transportation, rural issues, efficiency in the
use of resources, and economic issues.
• DOE's Center for Environmental Management
Information provides information about the
Department's environmental management
program, including distribution of the Executive
order and DOE's environmental justice
strategy and maintaining the center's
Environmental Justice web page.
• DOE's Office of Environment Management is
working in partnership with EPA's Office of
Federal Facilities Restoration, Savannah State
University, and Citizens for Environmental
Justice, to support workshops and public
involvement programs for communities near
the Savannah River site that have suffered
adverse effects as a result of conditions at that
site. Activities include community workshops
that provide hands-on training, literature and
exhibits on environmental radiation, weekly
radio programs, and interaction with site
managers and members of the Savannah
River Citizen Advisory Board.
Concluding her remarks, Dr. Huntoon reiterated
that DOE is an active participant in the IWG and
had taken the lead on several interagency
demonstration projects. She stressed that DOE
had made a commitment to environmental justice,
but acknowledged that much more remains to be
done. She stated that it is in the common interest
of the entire nation to be able to live in a clean,
safe, and healthy environment.
1-18
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
3.3.4 U.S. Department of Transportation
Mr. Ronald Stroman, Director of the Office of Civil
Rights, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),
explained that DOT's essential approach to
environmental justice has been to attempt to
influence "the front end" of the planning process
for transportation projects around the country. He
stated that DOT was optimistic that the department
would be able to issue a final rule on the joint
planning process of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) before the end of the current
administration. Mr. Stroman stated that DOT
expected that concerns, analysis, and approaches
related to environmental justice would be included
in that final rule.
Mr. Stroman explained that DOT's planning
process requires that local metropolitan planning
organizations (MPO) devise a recommended plan
for transportation projects. He added that DOT's
proposed rule builds on a memorandum that was
issued in October 1999 by the FHWA and the FTA
that clarified the procedure for including
consideration of environmental justice issues as
part of that planning process. Before the
memorandum was issued, he said, environmental
justice issues were paid "lip service" in the review
of the planning process by local MPOs. That,
however, is no longer the case, he said. For the
first time in the history of DOT, continued Mr.
Stroman, two local MPOs had been given
conditional certification under which they are
required to reexamine their plans and incorporate
environmental justice concerns into the analysis of
transportation projects in their regions.
Discussing another DOT approach for
incorporating environmental justice, Mr. Stroman
explained that, several years earlier, DOT had
received a notice of intent to bring law suits against
DOT from a number of environmental justice
organizations in the Atlanta, Georgia area. After
meeting with the environmental justice groups in
Atlanta, the groups had agreed to the conduct of a
two-part environmental justice review of the Atlanta
area, in lieu of litigation, he said. After conducting
an investigation, DOT developed a public
participation approach that included local
environmental justice organizations, as well as the
Georgia Department of Transportation, the Atlanta
Regional Transportation Commission, and the
Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit Agency, the
local transit agency, he stated. The approach
consisted of some 25 recommendations for
implementing change in the public participation
process in the metropolitan Atlanta area, he said.
The second phase of the review includes an
analytical analysis of the benefits and burdens of
transportation projects in the Atlanta area,
continued Mr. Stroman. DOT had hired an
independent organization to conduct a study over
the next several years and to develop a method of
measuring the effects of transportation projects on
low-income and minority communities in the
Atlanta area, he explained.
Continuing, Mr. Stroman reported that DOT had
settled an environmental justice lawsuit involving
the Jersey Heights neighborhood near Salisbury,
Maryland, a predominantly African-American
community that had been uprooted when U.S.
Route 50 was built. After the community was
resettled, the state of Maryland had undertaken an
effort to build another highway project that would
have had an adverse effect on the community. Mr.
Stroman explained that the outcome of the
settlement had been a "win-win" result for the
community and the state of Maryland. That
settlement had set the stage for the way in which
DOT had begun to address environmental justice
complaints in the future, he said. DOT has
established an Environmental Justice Review
Committee made up of senior officials of DOT who
discuss, share information on, and coordinate
considerations of environmental justice on
transportation projects on minority communities
and low-income communities throughout the
country, he explained. Through the efforts of the
committee, he continued, DOT has expanded the
application of the principles of environmental
justice beyond the FHWA and the FTA.
Mr. Stroman then listed other examples of the
integration of environmental justice into the
activities of DOT, including:
• Implementation of major environmental justice
analysis of the effect of a pipeline in minority
and low-income communities in Texas, a task
that falls under DOT's responsibility to regulate
the safety of interstate pipeline.
• Application of environmental justice principles
in the actions of the U.S. Maritime
Administration in the area of scrapping of
ships and to the Federal Aviation
Administration in the area of airport expansion.
• Development of a better coordinated, team
effort to address complaints related to
environmental justice and Title VI.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-19
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• Provision of training and workshops on the
principles of environmental justice for staff of
DOT, local departments of transportation, and
MPOs.
Ms. Miller-Travis expressed her opinion that MPOs
are "woefully" lacking in diversity and most often
are not representative of the metropolitan areas
that they serve. She added that, if MPOs remain
the principal instrument for local transportation
planning, DOT would remain exclusive of the
needs and concerns of environmental justice
communities. Ms. Miller-Travis then asked Mr.
Stroman how DOT's implementation of Title VI
differs from EPA's implementation plan. Mr.
Stroman responded first that he agreed with her
statement about MPOs. He explained that MPOs
operate on a one vote per jurisdiction basis. New
York City, for example, may have exactly the same
representation as a suburban area in the region
and, therefore may be outvoted consistently when
transportation projects are considered, he said,
despite a larger population. DOT is exploring
options for instituting a proportional voting
representation system, he continued. With regard
to implementation of Title VI, he then stated, DOT
currently was revising its Title VI procedures to
make them more consistent with EPA's plan.
3.3.5 U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Willie Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental
Policy Compliance, DOI, provided an overview of
DOI's Environmental Justice Strategic Plan. He
began his presentation by explaining that DOI's
overall mission is to protect and to provide access
to the nation's cultural and natural resources and
to honor its trust responsibilities to tribes. He also
explained that DOI is made up of eight major
bureaus: the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Minerals Management Service,
the National Park Service (NPS), the Office of
Surface Mining, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Together, the bureaus are responsible for more
than one-half billion acres of land, he continued.
Mr. Taylor stated that DOI's Environmental Justice
Strategic Plan provides a method for coordinating
each individual bureau's environmental justice
efforts. The plan, which Mr. Taylor noted is
available on DOI's web site, includes a natural
resources component.
To implement the plan, explained Mr. Taylor, the
bureaus have on staff environmental justice
coordinators who focus their efforts on (1)
cooperating with other Federal agencies, state and
local governments, and communities; (2) ensuring
the protection of cultural and natural resources;
and (3) fulfilling the trust responsibilities to
American Indians and Alaskan Natives.
Citing examples of efforts to implement DOI's
Environmental Justice Strategic Plan, Mr. Taylor
stated that DOI's Office of Surface Mining had
provided $25 million to the Appalachian Clean
Streams Program, an initiative undertaken to clean
68 streams and address acid mine drainage that
affects those streams. In addition, DOI had played
an integral role in 4 of the 15 environmental justice
demonstration projects, including Bridges to
Friendship, the Metlkatla Indian Community Unified
Interagency Environmental Management Task
Force, the New York City Alternative Fuel Summit,
and the Environmental Justice in Indian Country
Roundtable, he continued. See Section 3.4 of this
chapter for a discussion of the interagency
demonstration projects.
Continuing, Mr. Taylor explained that DOI had
participated in and provided funding for the
remediation of contamination caused by sheep-
dipping operations located on the Navajo
Reservation. The pesticides used in several of
those operations can cause serious health
problems, he explained. DOI is working to
remediate two of those sites, he said. He then
stated that DOI had worked with ATSDR to identify
areas in which residents are experiencing health
problems and to remediate contamination causing
such problems.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Taylor stressed that
DOI is committed to working with the Federal
community as a whole.
Ms. Lisa Guide, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Policy, Management, and Budget, DOI, provided
information about DOI's responsibility for
protection of the subsistence diet of Native
Americans in Alaska, particularly efforts to address
POPs in the American and Canadian Arctic
regions. POPs, she explained, are industrial
chemicals and pesticides that are by-products of
industrial activities. Although most POPs are not
produced in the American Arctic region, she
explained, the region acts as a sink for POPs that
are pulled there by air and water currents, or
brought there by migrating species. In the winter,
she added, the arctic front even extends into the
continental United States and encompasses the
northern part of the Great Lakes.
1-20
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
POPs and heavy metals have been detected in the
traditional food sources of Native Americans in
Alaska, such as marine mammals and fish, she
continued, where they accumulate in the fatty
tissues of mammals. As nutrients move up the
food chain, the concentration of POPs is
magnified, she said. Studies of the human health
effects of POPs on Alaskan Natives are limited,
she continued; however, toxicological data indicate
that POPs can cause reduction of reproductive
ability, decreased function of the immune system,
impairment of neurological function, and
developmental problems, she added. She added
that nursing babies and developing fetuses are
most vulnerable to the effects of POPs.
Research conducted in the Canadian Arctic
indicates that the blood levels of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) among the native Inuit population
average seven times higher than the average
blood levels among non-lnuit Canadians, and is
higher than that among Native Americans who do
not reside inside the Arctic Circle, in the Aleutian
Islands, or in the chain of Alaskan islands that lie
near Russia - one of the areas thought to
contribute POPs to the environment, she stated.
She added that there are high levels of
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) in sea otters
and killer whales in the North Pacific.
Continuing, Ms. Guide stated that the United
States has a strong Clean Air Act (CAA) and an
equally strong Clean Water Act (CWA).
Enforcement of environmental laws in the United
States, she said, has reduced the amount of POPs
released to the environment from the continental
United States. However, she continued, the
production of POPs by other countries has offset
the reduction the United States has achieved
through domestic regulation. In the continental
United States, 36 states still have fish advisories
and other advisories in place, most issued in the
Great Lakes region, because of the presence of
POPs, she said. Native Americans and non-native
Americans living in the Great Lakes region who
rely on subsistence diets exhibit tissue levels of
contaminant that are two to three times higher than
the average level found in Americans who do not
consume subsistence diets, she added.
To address POPs in the American Arctic region,
Ms. Guide stated, DOI had initiated several efforts.
In conjunction with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the state
of Alaska, DOI developed a report, Contaminants
in Alaska, that focuses on the effects of POPs and
the correlation between the presence of POPs in
the Arctic region and their generation in the
continental United States, she explained. DOI will
provide funding for more cooperative research on
the subject and for monitoring, she said. DOI also
had been working to strengthen partnerships with
agencies and universities, continued Ms. Guide.
Finally working with the U.S. Department of State
and other Federal, state, tribal communities, DOI
prepared an international treaty for reduction in the
use of and the eventual banning of 12 hazardous
POPs, she said. She explained that the proposed
treaty soon would be sent to the United States
Senate and to 120 other nations for ratification. In
closing, she stated her hope that the international
treaty would be signed in May, 2001.
Ms. Miller-Travis then asked Ms. Guide and Mr.
Taylor about DOI's plan of action for responding to
the high blood levels of POPs in the Inuit
population. Mr. Taylor responded that DOI
anticipates that adoption and implementation of
the proposed International treaty discussed by Ms.
Guide will help to reduce or alleviate exposure of
the Inuit population. He acknowledged that DOI
had not yet formed a plan for addressing past
exposure. Mr. Taylor added that addressing the
issue would require an interagency effort.
Regarding the proposed international treaty for the
reduction of POPs, Mr. Goldtooth stated that he
had been appalled at the lack of policy or
commitment on the part of Federal agencies that
the language of the treaty makes evident. Stating
that Federal agencies have established policies
and developed guidance for addressing
environmental justice domestically, Mr. Goldtooth
asked about the commitment of such agencies to
environmental justice in international matters, such
as the proposed treaty on POPs, climate change,
and the United Nation Commission for Sustainable
Development.
3.3.6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Continuing the presentations of Federal agencies,
Mr. Jerry Clifford, Deputy Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 6, focused his comments on what he
termed "food for thought" for the members of the
NEJAC as they continue to fulfill their role in
addressing environmental justice issues in the
nation and around the world. Commenting that
much of the day's discussion had focused on what
had been accomplished under the current
administration, he pointed out that much that
agency officials had learned falls into three
important areas: interrelationships, integration,
and initiative.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-21
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Since the NEJAC was formed, Mr. Clifford stated,
Federal agencies had received an extensive
education in environmental justice and had taken
effective steps in determining how to address such
issues, primarily within their respective agencies
and departments. As government agencies look to
the future, he said, it is their responsibility to
determine how they can coordinate their efforts so
that they can approach a community together,
covering a multiplicity of issues in unity. Agencies
at all levels of government must learn to form
interrelationships and work collaboratively to
address the issues that are most pertinent to
communities, he added.
As they look to the future, Mr. Clifford stressed,
government agencies also must find ways to
integrate the principles of environmental justice
within their respective agencies and departments,
so that a separate Office of Environmental Justice
or equivalent will not be necessary. Government
agencies must strive to implement programmatic
environmental responsibilities under the
environmental statutes and regulations in a
manner that institutionalizes environmental justice
issues in their everyday work, he said.
Mr. Clifford suggested that the NEJAC could help
government agencies achieve that end by advising
them about which agencies or programs have
been or are becoming most successful in doing so
and by identifying lessons learned.
Last, Mr. Clifford spoke about initiative and
leadership. He stated that there is no question that
the departments and agencies speaking today had
accomplished more during the past eight years to
address issues of environmental justice than at
any earlier time. He noted that EPA could not
have accomplished as much in the preceding eight
years without the leadership of the administration
of EPA. That leadership must continue at the
national level, he said, but there is a need as well
for similar initiative and leadership at the regional,
state, and local levels. Mr. Clifford suggested that
the NEJAC could be replicated at the regional level
- that is, establish regional environmental justice
advisory committees that could work through the
IWG to help support interagency coordination.
Mr. Clifford commented that significant change in
all agencies in the area of environmental justice
cannot be accomplished simply through 15 pilot
demonstration projects. He explained that agency
partners could not devote the necessary resources
for the demonstration projects and still have
adequate resources to replicate the projects in
hundreds and hundreds of similar communities
across the country. Therefore, governmental
agencies must learn how to use the pilot projects
to create institutional change, he said. Doing so
will require leadership at the state, local, and
regional levels, he stressed.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Clifford agreed with
the remarks offered by Mr. Goldtooth about
international environmental justice issues. He then
requested that, during future meetings, the NEJAC
discuss how Federal agencies can begin the
process of ensuring that the actions they take to
address international environmental justice issues
meet the same standards that they must meet in
the United States.
3.3.7 U.S. Department of Labor
Mr. Roland Droitsch, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL), stated that several
DOL programs and initiatives fit well into the
environmental justice movement, he said.
However, he explained, the principal area in which
DOL had contributed and can contribute to
environmental justice is through employment and
training programs.
For example, continued Mr. Droitsch, DOL has
been working with Partnership for Environmental
Technology Education (PETE) to develop a
number of courses that communities in need of job
training and development programs can access.
He explained that there are many career
opportunities in the environmental technology field,
such as careers in lead abatement and the
cleanup of hazardous waste. He stated that
environmental justice communities affected by
economic as well as environmental problems,
could access the programs.
Continuing, Mr. Droitsch stated that DOL also was
involved with the National Training Collaborative
for Environment Justice in educational efforts. He
added that DOL also is a participant in a number of
the IWG demonstration projects, including the
Bridges to Friendship project in Washington, D.C.
Reflecting on the challenges encountered in the
Bridges to Friendship project and other
demonstration projects, Mr. Droitsch explained that
the Federal and state agencies and local
community-based organizations combined efforts
to initiate the project, but encountered significant
legal difficulties and problems related to laws
governing appropriations. He stressed that
identifying ways to resolve such problems is a key
contribution of the demonstration projects.
1-22
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Solutions developed through the efforts of the
demonstration projects can benefit other
communities in the future, he said. He then
observed that the Bridges to Friendship project
could transform the entire Anacostia River area in
a way that supports community-based
organizations and brings the entire area together.
Mr. Luke Cole, Center on Race, Poverty, and the
Environment and chair of the Enforcement
Subcommittee, expressed his disappointment that
DOL's environmental justice program is quite
limited, stating that occupational illness and injury
affect people of color much more severely than
non-minority individuals. Mr. Cole stated that DOL
could and should do more to respond to Executive
Order 12898.
Mr. Droitsch responded that, although DOL may
not have been addressing such issues under the
mantle of environmental justice, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had
been addressing issues of occupational illness and
injury through a targeted approach, focusing its
efforts first on the most dangerous sites and on
segments of the workforce in which the incidence
of illness and injury is high. He added that DOL's
resources are extremely limited, especially when
one considers the number of hazardous chemicals
and conditions found at the nation's work sites.
Mr. Lee commented to Mr. Droitsch that, if his
specific job description encompasses
environmental justice, he should search far more
broadly for ways to implement the Executive order
in DOL's programs and activities than his
presentation indicated is currently the case.
3.3.8 National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences
Dr. Charles Wells, Director, Environmental Health
Sciences, National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS), focused his
presentation on new NIEHS programs and
changes in NIEHS policies that have been
implemented in response to Executive Order
12898. He described several efforts underway at
NIEHS:
• A community-based research project designed
to implement culturally relevant prevention and
intervention activities in disadvantaged and
underserved populations that are exposed to
adverse environmental contaminants.
Currently, the project includes nine grants. An
objective of the project is to refine scientifically
valid intervention methods to strengthen the
involvement of NIEHS with the communities
that are affected by pollutants.
• NIEHS' environmental justice partnership for
communication, which represents a NIEHS
strategy for involving populations at risk of
exposure to environmental pollution in shaping
the research and allowing those populations to
influence the day-to-day responsibility of
NIEHS for such research. The communication
program includes 15 active grants, although
NIEHS was planning to fund 15 more grants in
the near future.
• Environmental health research centers, each
located at an academic institution. Three of
the eight centers - located at the University of
Iowa, the University of California at Davis, and
Oregon State University-focus on
environmental justice issues. A major NIEHS
research program is the agricultural chemical
minority health program, at which researchers
at the centers are focusing on defining the
risks posed to agricultural workers by
chemicals used in the industry so that better
prevention and intervention strategies can be
developed to protect the health of those
workers.
Researchers at the NIEHS environmental
health centers, in partnership with the National
Cancer Institute (NCI), also are conducting
long-term agricultural health studies of farmers
and pesticide applicators, as well as their
families, to determine the real outcome of the
exposures they undergo. Endpoints of the
research are cancer effects, reproductive
effects, endocrine disruptors, child
development, asthma and other respiratory
diseases, and other types of neurological
effects and disease.
• Asthma studies, including the redesign of prior
studies and the development of new studies.
NIEHS currently is implementing a new study
in five cities to assess the amount of increased
risk for adverse respiratory health effects
experienced by minority or disadvantaged
children caused by ozone, aerosols, and other
air pollutants. NIEHS, in conjunction with the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID), also had implemented an
inner-city asthma study. The objectives of the
study are to design and develop asthma
intervention methods in a health care setting
that are aimed at reducing morbidity caused by
asthma in a cost-effective manner.
Continuing, Dr. Wells discussed the efforts of
NIEHS to address the issue of lead exposure in
minority or disadvantaged communities. He stated
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-23
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
that NIEHS, in conjunction with the National
Institute of Health (NIH) Office of Research for
Minority Health, had instituted a clinical trial
designed to evaluate the neurological and
behavioral effects in individuals exposed as
children to low levels of lead. The clinical trial is
testing the effectiveness of a chelating drug, in
reversing the neurobehavioral effects in children
who have low to moderate blood lead levels. Dr.
Wells pointed out that the project is unique in that
it is aimed not only at developing intervention
measures but also at developing therapy for the
removal of lead from exposed individuals.
Another NIEHS lead study, continued Dr. Wells, is
focused on the relationship between lead stored in
the bones of pregnant women and low birth weight
in babies. He explained that lead stored in the
bones of a pregnant woman can be transferred
across the placenta to a developing fetus.
Turning his attention to the changes in NIEHS
policy initiated by Executive Order 12898, Dr.
Wells explained that NIEHS had expanded its
environmental justice efforts to address disparities
in adverse health effects among various
populations. Currently, NIEHS is the only institute
at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that has
the responsibility for environmental justice, he said,
but NIEHS is working to change that policy and is
developing strategies to involve the other institutes
at NIH in environmental justice issues.
Continuing, Dr. Wells stated that NIEHS conducts
an outreach program that educates scientists on
the importance of developing a knowledge of the
populations with which they are working as
partners. Further, he said, NIEHS maintains a job
training program for minority and inner-city youth,
educating them to identify and address
environmental problems in their own communities.
The job training program is implemented in
conjunction with EPA, he added. Another
program, he said, focuses on increasing the
number of minority individuals involved in research
in the environmental health sciences.
Concluding his remarks, Dr. Wells stated that,
since the Executive Order had been issued,
NIEHS had changed its policy and worked to
implement strategies in all its programs designed
to empower people in communities that are victims
of environmental injustice.
Ms. Ramos urged the panelists representing
health agencies to acknowledge that Puerto
Ricans are a distinct ethnic group and have health
problems that differ from those commonly
experienced by other Hispanic groups, particularly
in the case of illnesses related to asthma.
3.3.9 Health Resources and Services
Administration
Dr. Hubert Avent, Director for Urban Health,
Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources
and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of
HHS, began his presentation by stating that only
through an integrated approach to health service
delivery can HRSA begin to address the issues
that face the many underserved communities in
the country. Therefore, he stated, the mission of
the Bureau of Primary Health Care in the future
would be to increase access to comprehensive
primary and preventive health care and to improve
the health status of underserved and vulnerable
populations through a comprehensive plan that
takes into consideration primary care and
community, economic, environmental, and human
development.
Dr. Avent said that HRSA currently was funding
more than 800 community health centers. He
explained that if a community health center is to
receive funding, the community-based organization
that serves as the grantee must agree that the
health center will provide all five cycles of care -
from prenatal to gerontological - and must provide
hospitalization services, including on-call service.
Therefore, he said, the 800 community-based
organizations funded by HRSA had established
3,700 clinic sites. The clinics employ more than
2,500 medical physicians, as well as more than
2,500 mid-level medical professionals, he said.
Total employment in the Community Health Center
Program is approximately 57,000 nationally, he
added, noting that many of those individuals are
residents of communities affected by
environmental and health problems.
Dr. Avent explained that the operational budget of
the Community Health Center Program is
approximately $2.8 billion, but, he added, less than
$900 million is provided by the Federal
government. The remainder is generated through
payments by patients, he stated, observing that
good health includes the opportunity to participate
in health care.
Reiterating the need for an integrated delivery
system, Dr. Avent stated that all Federal agencies
are partners and it takes a team to take care of
one patient. In 1998, as part of HRSA's ongoing
effort to improve the quality of health care, he said,
HRSA entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with ATSDR to implement
strategies for building the capacity of
environmental medicine in the HRSA Community
Health Center Program. The goal of the project is
1-24
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
not only to provide training in environmental
medicine to providers in community health centers,
he said, but also to provide such training to all the
providers who work with and have been partners
with HRSA in terms of capacity to deliver services
throughout the country.
Continuing, Dr. Avent stated that HRSA recently
had entered into an agreement with CDC to
develop a program called the Community Health
Outreach and Educational Services Program. The
program will use the existing infrastructure of
community health centers to disseminate
information about disparities in adverse health
effects among various populations. Commenting
on the success of this effort to use the existing
infrastructure to implement a new program, Dr.
Avent encouraged officials of other agencies to
perform an asset inventory in their agencies to
identify existing vehicles for their own new
initiatives. As another example, he said, HRSA
was entering into contracts with such community
action agencies as Meals on Wheels and Head
Start through which to disseminate health
information. Dr. Avent stated that such integrated
approaches are to be HRSA's focus in the future.
3.3.10 Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
Dr. Rueben Warren, Associate Administrator for
Urban Affairs, ATSDR, stated that ATSDR views
environmental justice as a subset of public health
because public health is simply "social justice."
However, he continued, the public health
community had been late to join the environmental
justice movement, and, he added, the learning
curve is steep. Nevertheless ATSDR is committed
to working with the environmental justice
community, he stated.
Dr. Warren then discussed the accomplishments
of ATSDR in integrating environmental justice into
its initiatives. First, he said, ATSDR had
established in 1997 the Office of Urban Affairs in to
focus on environmental justice and minority health
issues and the redevelopment of brownfields
properties. He stated that that action represented
a "structural" commitment on the part of ATSDR to
addressing those issues. Continuing, he stated
that ATSDR was working to translate that
structural commitment into a functional
commitment. Dr. Warren added that combining
approaches to those issues provides ATSDR with
an opportunity to reach the same populations in
three different ways. Second, he said, ATSDR had
made progress in learning to listen to
environmental justice communities. Last, he
continued, ATSDR had developed a diverse
workforce, having hired many young, highly
educated individuals who are interested in
environmental health and in working with and in
environmental justice communities.
Continuing, Dr. Warren stated that officials of
ATSDR believe in the infrastructure of science.
Everything they do, he said, is based on good
science. ATSDR is attempting to establish a
"mechanism to move forward," he said, adding that
the agency can move forward most effectively by
continuing partnerships with other agencies at the
Federal, state, and local levels. He pointed out
that ATSDR works closely with both health
departments and the environmental quality
departments. He added that ATSDR also works at
the local level with communities and environmental
justice organizations. He acknowledged that
ATSDR can learn from those communities and
organizations, stating that ATSDR was working to
become a "better listener."
Dr. Warren stated that ATSDR also works with the
academic community. For example, he said,
ATSDR is collaborating with five new programs in
public health at HBCUs. Four of the five programs
include an environmental science component, he
added.
Concluding his remarks, Dr. Warren shared the
following recommendations based on major
lessons that ATSDR had learned through its efforts
to integrate environmental justice issues into its
initiatives:
• Stay with your mission.
• Use the best science available, but
acknowledge cases in which the science is
absent. When in doubt, err to the side of the
public's health.
• Find new partners, and ways to collaborate
with others.
• Strive to be trustworthy.
• Eliminate the artificial barriers that separate
Federal, state, and local governments.
• Acknowledge the history of racism and
exploitation by and within government.
• Realize that resources are limited and work
within those limits.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-25
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Ms. Shepard stated that the environmental justice
movement always and repeatedly had asked the
Federal government to err on the side of the
public's health when scientific data that supports
an environmental health issue is lacking. She
asked Mr. Warren whether he had been
discussing that issue with representatives of other
Federal agencies that still cling to a cause-and-
effect relationship as an indicator of a need for
action. Mr. Warren responded that he was
communicating to the Federal partners that it is
their responsibility to err on the side of public
health. He added that the principle already had
been incorporated into some activities of ATSDR.
Mr. Warren then said that the message he wanted
to convey to the NEJAC was that ATSDR had
heard the NEJAC's recommendations on the issue
and was working to incorporate the
recommendations into its programs and activities.
3.3.11 U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Terry Harwood, Director of Hazardous
Materials Management, U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), focused his presentation on
activities of the USDA and the environmental
justice policies USDA had established after the
Executive order was issued. One policy, he said,
is the incorporation of considerations related to
environmental justice into all the programs of the
department. Another policy is the identification,
prevention, and mitigation of any adverse human
health or environmental effects that are caused by
the programs and activities of USDA, as well as
the provision to minority and low-income
populations of the opportunity to participate in
planning and decisionmaking.
Continuing, Mr. Harwood stated that USDA plans
to continue to develop projects to address
environmental justice issues in processes not just
limited to the NEPA process. For example, USDA
intends to collect, maintain, and analyze
information on populations that rely on fishing,
hunting and trapping for subsistence, he said.
Discussing the accomplishments of the USDA
program, Mr. Harwood described the following
efforts:
• USDA maintains cooperative agreements with
many state agencies, including health
departments, to participate in pest eradication
efforts. Related efforts involve evaluation and
communication of health risks related to
pesticide applications.
• USDA provides funds to the National Coalition
to Restore Urban Waterways in six cities,
including support of a project initiated by a
minority environmental association in
Cleveland, Ohio to test water quality in minority
communities.
• USDA has provided support to minority and
rural housing areas in North Carolina for the
installation of clean water supplies.
• USDA has provided integrated pest
management strategies to support state and
local involvement in setting priorities for
research, education, and regulatory controls.
Continuing, Mr. Harwood stated that USDA
emphasizes the participation of small and
disadvantaged businesses in its cleanup process.
USDA also has responded to the needs of
industrial and field workers for health protection
through cotton dust control, grain dust reduction,
and safe pesticide application technologies, he
said, adding that USDA has contributed to the
promotion of safe handling procedures for
pesticides through the USDA research programs
that describe the degradation of pesticides and
other chemicals.
Mr. Harwood explained that USDA collaborates
with other Federal agencies, state and local
governments, and public and private organizations
to provide grants and technical assistance to
minority and low-income urban communities to
accomplish conservation of urban ecosystems
through local initiatives. Further, he said, USDA
collects, maintains, and analyzes information about
the consumption patterns of populations that rely
primarily on fish and wildlife for subsistence.
Turning his attention to USDA's environmental
cleanup program, Mr. Harwood stated that lack of
funding had been a major barrier to implementing
the program. He stated that, after much struggle
to secure funds, USDA had completed cleanup of
2,000 sites; however, he added, some 2,000 sites
remain to be addressed. Mr. Harwood stressed
that the problem in implementing the program is
one of appropriations, rather than inattention on
the part of USDA.
Continuing, Mr. Harwood explained that USDA is
in an unique situation because it is both an
enforcement agency under Superfund and a
natural resource trustee. Therefore, he continued,
when USDA approaches a cleanup, the
department must approach the effort from the
perspective of an enforcement agency that
1-26
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
oversees the cleanup and one that must work with
states and tribes to restore natural resources, as
well.
Addressing initiatives to assist tribes, Mr. Harwood
stated that USDA recently had negotiated a MOU
with DOI, EPA, the state of Idaho, and various
tribes in southeastern Idaho, that specifies how the
parties will collaborate to clean up selenium
contamination of an extensive area caused by
phosphate mining. Mr. Harwood pointed out that
USDA assists the tribes as a co-trustee with the
tribes. He added that USDA had hired Indian-
owned firms to implement the cleanups of a
number of sites in Montana.
In closing, Mr. Harwood added that USDA also had
worked with rural communities to involve them in
EPA's brownfields redevelopment program. He
pointed out that brownfields properties often are
thought of only as abandoned urban industrial sites
when, in fact, there are brownfields properties in
many rural communities.
3.3.12 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Mr. Marvin Wentz Turner, Special Actions Office,
Office of the Secretary, HUD, in the interest of
time, submitted a written fact sheet that outlined
the steps taken by HUD to promote environmental
justice. After presenting the document, Mr. Turner
was available to respond to questions posed by the
members of the subcommittee.
Referring to HUD's Smart Growth coalitions, Ms.
Shepard asked Mr. Turner how HUD would
respond to creating healthy communities, while at
the same time maintaining affordable housing. Mr.
Turner responded that the two are not mutually
exclusive. Affordability, which is an index, is a key
issue and concern of HUD, as is the ability to
provide safer and sanitary housing, he explained.
HUD's mission focuses on both, he said.
Communities may use smart growth opportunities
to create safe and sanitary housing that is
affordable, concluded Mr. Turner, adding that HUD
may be a central resource for those communities.
3.4 Panel 4: Integrated Interagency
Demonstration Projects
Mr. Lee introduced the fourth panel, which featured
representatives of 6 of the 15 interagency
environmental justice projects initiated under the
IWG's Action Agenda. The representatives shared
their successes and lessons learned. Exhibit 1-7
provides a description of the panel. Exhibit 1 -8
presents a list of the 15 interagency environmental
justice projects initiated under the IWG's Action
Agenda.
Exhibit 1-7
FOCUS OF PANEL 4
This panel consisted of a variety of non-federal
partners involved in several of the 15 interagency
environmental justice demonstration projects. The
projects focus on various areas, such as
environmental protection, economic development and
community revitalization, improvement of public
health, community education and capacity-building,
and others. The objectives of the projects include:
• Learn how Federal agencies can collaborate
better to ensure local problem-solving.
• Achieve concrete, beneficial results for affected
communities.
• Promote stronger partnerships with state, tribal,
and local governments.
• Enhance existing assets within affected
communities.
• Develop a template for integrated community-
based solutions to environmental justice issues.
• Document lessons learned that can provide
positive support to other communities.
• Recommend changes in Federal policy when
appropriate.
3.4.1 Bridges to Friendship: Nurturing
Environmental Justice in Southeast
and Southwest Washington, D.C.
Admiral Chris Weaver, Department of the Navy,
DoD, provided an overview of the success of
Bridges to Friendship: Nurturing Environmental
Justice in Southeast and Southwest Washington,
D.C., an environmental justice demonstration
project underway at the Washington Navy Yard in
southeast Washington, D.C. Admiral Weaver
stressed that the Navy has been committed to
improving the environmental situation at the
Washington Navy Yard by improving the
environment, improving opportunities for the
residents living outside the gates, and improving
the quality of the workplace for the installation's
personnel. For those reasons, he explained, the
Navy had "embraced its status as a Superfund site
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-27
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 1-8
INTEGRATED FEDERAL INTERAGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ACTION AGENDA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Under the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice's (IWG) Integrated Federal Interagency
Environmental Justice Action Agenda, 11 Federal agencies have initiated environmental demonstration projects to
help 15 environmentally and economically distressed communities. Communities selected are comprised of
predominantly minority or low-income populations that face negative environmental, public health, or socioeconomic
effects because of environmental contamination. The 15 projects and the lead Federal agency for each are:
• Greater Boston Urban Resources Partnership: Connecting Community and Environment (Boston,
Massachusetts) - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Camden: City of Children Partnering for a Better Future (Camden, New Jersey) - U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD)
• New York City Alternative-Fuel Vehicle Summit (New York, New York) - U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
• Addressing Asthma in Puerto Rico: A Multi-Faceted Partnership for Results (Puerto, Rico) - Health Resources
and Services Administration and ATSDR, both agencies within the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS)
• Bridges to Friendship: Nurturing Environmental Justice in Southeast and Southwest Washington, D.C.
(Washington, D.C.) - Department of the Navy, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)
• Community Cleanup and Revitalization in Arkwright/Forest Park (Spartanburg, South Carolina) - EPA
• Protecting Children's Health and Reducing Lead Exposure Through Collaborative Partnerships (East St. Louis,
Illinois) - EPA and HUD
• Bethel New Life Power Park Assessment (Chicago, Illinois) - DOE
• New Madrid County Tri-Community Child Health Champion Campaign (New Madrid County, Missouri) - EPA
and U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
• Easing Troubled Waters: Ensuring Safe Drinking Water Sources in Migrant Farmworker Communities in
Colorado (Colorado) - EPA
• Environmental Justice and Public Participation Through Technology: Defeating the Digital Divide and Building
Community Capacity (Savannah, Georgia and Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, Montana) - DOE
• Protecting Community Health and Reducing Toxic Air Exposure Through Collaborative Partnerships in Barrio
Logan (San Diego, California) - EPA
• Oregon Environmental Justice Initiative (Portland and rural communities, Oregon) - U.S. Department of Justice
• Metlkatla Indian Community Unified Interagency Environmental Management Task Force (Ketchikan, Alaska) -
DoD
• Environmental Justice in Indian Country: A Roundtable to Address Conceptual, Political, and Statutory Issues
(Albuquerque, New Mexico) - DOE
and embarked on environmental remediation."
Reflecting on the factors behind the success of
Bridges to Friendship, Admiral Weaver stated that
the project provides a way to combine the efforts
of community groups, the Navy, other Federal
agencies, private individuals, the community itself,
and the District of Columbia into a "decidedly non-
hierarchical and decidedly non-bureaucratic
organization." That type of organization "moved
the engine forward," he said. The partners in the
1-28
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Bridges to Friendship project have been able to
"link job needs with job opportunities with job
takers with job users," which, in turn, builds
community pride and contributes to youth
development. The Bridges to Friendship process,
which begins in the community, provides young
people at risk with life skills and job skills training,
and ultimately job and career opportunities,
continued Admiral Weaver. Bridges to Friendship,
he stressed, provides an opportunity to take
advantage of the rebirth of southeast Washington
and advance social justice, both economic and
environmental.
Ms. Miller-Travis asked Admiral Weaver about
other opportunities within DoD, particularly within
the Navy, to advance understanding of
environmental justice and activities related to it.
Admiral Weaver responded that, in his opinion,
any situation that involves potential environmental
litigation or an environmentally or economically
disadvantaged population located adjacent to a
DoD installation would provide an opportunity to
promote the principles of environmental justice and
understanding of those principles.
3.4.2 Bethel New Life Power Park, Chicago,
Illinois
Ms. Mary Nelson, Bethel New Life, Inc., Chicago,
Illinois, began her presentation by briefly
describing the power park demonstration
organization. She stated that Bethel New Life, Inc.
is a faith-based, community development
organization with the goal of building a healthy,
sustainable community. Ms. Nelson then
discussed the organization's definition of a
sustainable community, which, she said, has four
components: economic security through
employment opportunities, environmental integrity,
environmental quality, and public participation in
decisionmaking.
Describing lessons learned through the
implementation of the demonstration project, Ms.
Nelson stated three ingredients are needed if a
community redevelopment project is to be
successful:
• The first element is vision. Members of the
community had viewed their community as it
was, then envisioned it as they would like it be
in the year 2020. The members of the
community then used that vision in creating
the community development plan.
• The second ingredient needed for success is
the development of partnerships. Bethel New
Life, Inc.'s partnership with DOE's Argonne
National Laboratory had helped Bethel to
evaluate technology transfers that would work
the project and had helped attract the kind of
intergovernmental cooperation a community
redevelopment project must have.
• The third ingredient of a successful community
redevelopment project is the use of an asset-
based approach, Ms. Nelson continued.
Members of the community should identify the
community's assets. For example, a
brownfields property can be viewed as an
asset rather than a liability because it presents
an opportunity for development.
Ms. Nelson stated that Bethel New Life, Inc. used
an asset-based approach to evaluate development
opportunities at 30 brownfields properties in the
community. The organization considered the
marketability of the sites, the types of jobs that
could be brought in, how much effort would be
required to redevelop a site, and how
environmentally friendly the operations that might
be brought to a site would be. Through its various
partnerships, the organization had identified and
promoted the sites and established a development
process.
Continuing, Ms. Nelson provided
recommendations for effective interagency
partnerships. First, she said, the lead Federal
agency should designate a "point person" to
coordinate activities with the community and other
partners. Second, she continued, funding should
be available at the onset of a project so that the
project can move forward efficiently. Last, Ms.
Nelson recommended that interagency
partnerships include regional and local agencies
so that those agencies will be informed of the
process and can take part in carrying out the
community development plan.
3.4.3 Community Cleanup and Revitalization,
Arkwright/Forest Park, South Carolina
Mayor James Talley, City of Spartanburg, South
Carolina, provided an overview of activities related
to the Community Cleanup and Revitalization
Project in the Arkwright/Forest Park community,
located on the south side of Spartanburg, South
Carolina. The community has a population that is
96 percent African American, said the Mayor, with
two Superfund sites located within one-quarter
mile of the community. Other local areas of
concern include an abandoned textile mill, an
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-29
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
operating chemical plant, two dumps, and several
areas in which it is suspected that illegal disposal
takes place, said Mayor Talley.
Mayor Talley explained that the demonstration
project is a "community-driven, community-based
partnership" designed to assist Regenesis, a
community-based organization, in involving a
variety of stakeholders in efforts to foster the
identification, inventory, assessment, cleanup, and
redevelopment of properties in the
Arkwright/Forest Park community. Continuing, he
said that the community-based partnership
includes local and state agencies, financial
institutions, nonprofit organizations, academic
institutions, local private businesses, and a variety
of Federal agencies. Through a collaborative
effort, the project partners had been able to avoid
duplication of efforts and maximize funding
resources, he said. For example, continued Mayor
Talley, approximately 65 people representing the
various project partners have formed committees
according to their areas of expertise. The
committees work to identify and develop
opportunities for action within those areas, he
explained.
In closing, Mayor Talley stated that the most
significant lesson learned during the
implementation of the project was the importance
of community-control and community involvement.
If a project is under the direction of citizens, he
explained, the focus will remain on the benefits to
the community.
3.4.4 Addressing Asthma in Puerto Rico: A
Multifaceted Partnership for Results,
Puerto Rico
Dr. Jose Rodriguez-Santana, Asthma Coalition of
Puerto Rico, began his presentation by explaining
that some 44 percent of the population of Puerto
Rico suffers from asthma at some point in their
lives. Further, the mortality rate for asthma is at
least three times higher in Puerto Rico than the
rate in the United States, he said. Dr. Rodriguez-
Santana also explained that asthma is both an
environmental disease - that is, asthma attacks
can be triggered by environmental risk factors -
and a genetic disease - genetic predisposition to
asthma contributes to the high incidence of asthma
among Puerto Ricans.
Dr. Rodriguez-Santana stated that the
demonstration project represents the first asthma
project funded by Federal agencies with the
objective of reducing the incidence of asthma
among native Puerto Ricans. The purpose of the
project is to maximize asthma prevention and
augment current interagency efforts to develop a
community asthma intervention program for
children in Puerto Rico's low-income, underserved
populations, he continued. The project benefits
from a partnership of Federal agencies, such as
HRSA, HHS, and EPA; local health departments;
community groups; private foundations; and
universities, that seek to gain a better
understanding of the factors that contribute to the
high incidence of asthma in Puerto Rico, he said.
Dr. Rodriguez-Santana then shared information
about one of the initiatives of the demonstration
project, the development and implementation of
"Los Colores de Asthma" or the Color of Asthma, a
community asthma intervention program focused
on reducing the incidence of asthma in children.
Activities conducted under the program include the
education of children who have asthma and their
families, the promotion of self-management of
asthma, the promotion of more advanced drug
therapy for asthma, and access to adequate
treatment for disadvantaged families and children,
he said.
Ms. Ramos urged Dr. Rodriguez-Santana to focus
the efforts of the project on the prevention of
asthma, as well as on treatment strategies. She
also urged the asthma coalition to become
involved in the process of permitting new sources
of air pollution by filing complaints about abuse of
communities, as indicated by health data. Ms.
Ramos also urged Dr. Rodriguez-Santana to invite
people from the most severely affected
communities to take part in his working group,
commenting that those people would enrich the
efforts of the working group and foster support for
its endeavors in the community.
Dr. Rodriguez-Santana responded that the
coalition was applying for additional funding from
EPA's SEP program. SEP funds would be used to
address environmental hazards that contribute to
the high incidence of asthma in Puerto Rico.
3.4.5 New Madrid County Tri-Community
Child Health Champion Campaign, New
Madrid County, Missouri
Dr. Emil Jason, Great Rivers Alliance of Natural
Resource Districts (GRAND), provided an
overview of the New Madrid County Tri-Community
Child Health Champion Campaign (NMCTC) and
described the project's successes in three
communities located in New Madrid County,
Missouri. The communities of Lilbourn, North
Lilbourn, and Howardville are agricultural
1-30
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
communities located in the boot heel region of
Missouri, he reported. The communities lack
business and industry to make them sustainable
and are characterized by gross poverty and
substandard housing conditions, said Dr. Jason.
The purpose of the project is to provide a safer
environment for children in those communities by
promoting community awareness of the prevention
of environmental health hazards and by building
greater capacity to address the needs and
concerns of the communities on a local level.
Dr. Jason explained that the project began by
identifying environmental health hazards that might
pose a health risk to members of the communities,
especially children. Three areas of potential health
hazards were identified: lead exposure,
environmental triggers for asthma and allergies,
and poor water quality.
Dr. Jason stated that NMCTC is a community-led
initiative implemented through a collaborative
partnership with a variety of local, regional, and
Federal partners. Community development and
leadership and capacity-building are integral parts
of the project, he continued.
Dr. Jason then stated that capacity-building under
the project is accomplished through education and
outreach. He explained that four community
facilitators from each of the disadvantaged
communities were selected and given training on
the potential health hazards in their own
communities. The community facilitators then
hosted training workshops and provided
educational materials to share the information with
the citizens of their communities, he said.
Dr. Jason stated that the project had been
successful in meeting its goals and objectives. He
pointed out that the community had continued to
play a leadership role in implementing and
participating in the project - one measure of
success, he declared. Dr. Jason stressed that
those successes were essential to the
sustainability of efforts undertaken under the
project.
Ms. Shepard asked how the success of the public
education campaign was to be evaluated. Dr.
Jason responded that baseline data on school
absences and emergency room visits because of
asthma were being collected. The data, he
continued, will be analyzed to identify trends over
time as an indication of the success of the
education campaign.
3.4.6 Protecting Children's Health and
Reducing Lead Exposure Through
Collaborative Partnerships, East St.
Louis, Illinois
Dr. Richard Mark, East St. Louis Lead Project,
provided an overview of the demonstration project
and discussed the participation of its Federal
agency partners. Dr. Mark reported that 65
percent of the population of East St. Louis, Illinois
is low-income, compared with the average for the
state of 27 percent, and 98.6 percent of the
population is minority, compared with the average
for the state of 25 percent. This region is "littered"
with abandoned industrial sites and junk yards, he
continued, adding that the area also has numerous
abandoned lots that serve as play yards for
children. Blood lead levels in children in the East
St. Louis area are four times higher than levels
detected in children in the nearby communities,
reported Dr. Mark. The purpose of the project, he
continued, is to implement a comprehensive
strategy to improve children's health by reducing
lead poisoning. The project is being conducted
through a collaborative partnership of community
groups; local hospitals; local agencies in East St.
Louis and St. Clair County, Illinois; and various
Federal and state agencies, he added.
Dr. Mark stated that the demonstration project
involved the development of a collaborative
partnership through a bottom-up approach that
engaged the community, identification and
establishment of priorities among the needs of the
community, and development of an appropriate
project plan. He stated that the next phase of the
project would be to conduct blood lead screenings
for 3,000 children between the ages of 6 and 12,
with 1,000 screenings to be conducted each year
for three years. In 1999, continued Dr. Mark, 21
percent of children tested exhibited high blood
levels (more than 10 micrograms per deciliter
[mg/dl]), he said. The average blood level was 15
mg/dl. In 2000, the lead screenings were
conducted at schools located near abandoned
industrial sites at which the soil had been
demonstrated by sampling on analysis to be
contaminated with lead. The results of those lead
screenings indicated that 51 percent of the
children tested had blood lead levels between 1
and 9 mg/dl, and 9.9 percent exhibited blood levels
of more than 10 mg/dl, he said. Dr. Mark pointed
out that blood levels of more than 5 mg/dl can
cause learning disabilities in children.
Other plans for the next phase of the project
include lead-based paint assessments,
rehabilitation of housing, landscaping, and
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-31
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
weatherization of 75 homes in the East St. Louis
area, he said, as well as soil testing and site
assessments of abandoned lots that children in the
community use as play yards, reported Dr. Mark.
Continuing, Dr. Mark explained that the partners in
the project meet every four to six weeks, noting
that participation and attendance at the meetings
had been "very good." Dr. Mark stated that one of
the greatest challenges partners face is to obtain
funding to continue case management for the
children suffering from lead poisoning and their
families and to remediate contaminated sites
located near neighborhood schools. The greatest
success of the project, he added, is the education
and prevention campaign. Dr. Mark explained
that, when the project began in 1998, participation
by parents and school officials was limited.
However, since the partners embarked on the
education campaign and developed a videotape on
the effects of lead poisoning, participation and
support had increased significantly, he said.
Mr. Aragon asked about the process used to
followup when high blood levels are detected in a
child. Dr. Mark responded that nurses from St.
Mary's Hospital volunteer to followup with children
affected by lead poisoning. Followup includes
retesting to verify the screening results and seeing
that the children seek the care of a physician. Dr.
Mark added that St. Mary's Hospital was working
to obtain additional funding for a more extensive
followup program. Further, he added, Neighbors
United for Progress, a community group that is
involved in the partnership, follows up with testing
for lead-based paint in the children's homes. That
program is funded by a grant awarded to St. Clair
County by HUD, said Dr. Mark.
3.5 Panel 5: Stakeholder Perspectives on
Integrated Interagency Strategies
Introducing the fifth panel, Mr. Lee pointed out that
panelists would address the issue of implementing
collaborative, interagency strategies and
partnerships from the perspective of five different
stakeholder groups: community organizations,
business and industry, municipal and local
government, tribes, and state-funded academic
research. Exhibit 1-9 presents a description of the
panel.
3.5.1 Community Perspective
Providing the perspective of a community group,
Ms. Charlotte Keys, Executive Director, Jesus
People Against Pollution (JPAP), Columbia,
Mississippi, first stated that every government
Exhibit 1-9
FOCUS OF PANEL 5
This panel consisted of representatives of
community-based organizations; including grassroots
groups; business organizations; tribal, and local
governments; state-funded research organizations.
The panelists presented their views about the viability
of the Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental
Justice Action Agenda, particularly as it is applicable
to their sectors, and offered recommendations for
further development of integrated interagency
strategies.
agency has a moral obligation to fulfill its mandate
to protect public health and the environment. She
then expressed her hope that the IWG can help
Federal agencies move forward in meeting that
obligation and in providing just solutions to the
problems faced by communities.
Continuing, Ms. Keyes stated that past efforts and
experiences of community and environmental
justice groups make it apparent that the only way
to succeed in accomplishing the goal of
environmental and economic justice is to build
trusting, honest, loyal, and long-lasting
partnerships with other stakeholder groups. To be
effective, she continued, community and
environmental justice organizations must institute
and maintain mechanisms that provide the
diversity of individuals to work toward the just
resolution of problems.
Commenting on the importance of the IWG, Ms.
Keyes stated that the IWG can serve as a bridge
that allows communities to gain access to the
proper Federal agencies to seek assistance in
local struggles for environmental and economic
justice. However, she said, it will take time for
many community and environmental justice groups
to build trust in Federal agencies. She also
stressed that community involvement at the
beginning of the process for environmental and
economic justice is essential.
In closing, Ms. Keyes stated, "Just solutions do not
happen because one or two people decide that this
is what we need. It happens when willing, honest,
and trustworthy partners are willing to come to the
table."
1-32
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
3.5.2 Industry Perspective
Ms. Wood read a written statement submitted by
Ms. Sue Briggum, Director, Governmental Affairs,
Waste Management, Inc., who had been unable to
attend the meeting. See Appendix C for a copy of
Ms. Briggums's written statement.
In her statement, Ms. Briggum provided an
industry perspective on integrated interagency
strategies. She first pointed out that most
environmental justice issues arise from the
accumulated effects of a number of sources of
health problems and environmental and economic
stresses. In the classic case, she continued, a
number of facilities operated by different industries
or business sectors coexist in a single community
that faces such challenges as heavily traveled
roads, runoff from unregulated sources, and
emissions from businesses and individual sources
in the communities - challenges which often are
cited as evidence of environmental injustice. All
those challenges add to the environmental burden
borne by the community, which quite often also
suffers from insufficient access to medical care
and other essential services, she said. Often,
several government authorities have
responsibilities related to conditions in the area. In
many cases, Ms. Briggum continued, no one
government authority is willing to take the first step
to correct a problem or to assume responsibility.
Ms. Briggum then observed that even a business
with the best of intentions may find itself unable to
define a constructive role for itself in a situation
over which the company has only partial control.
Similarly, it is clearly unfair to expect citizen
advocates to shoulder the burden of organizing a
constructive response to such concerns, she
stressed.
Ms. Briggum, in her statement, then stated that
she considers the interagency demonstration
projects a means to "break through" that cycle of
conflict. She pointed out that the pilot
demonstration projects share several admirable
characteristics. First, the demonstration projects
assign to a Federal coordinating agency the
responsibility of initiating the project and engaging
the affected stakeholders in problem-solving, read
the statement. Ms. Briggum also noted that the
projects attempt to bring community groups
together with already existing Federal resources.
Further, she pointed out, the demonstration
projects are based on open dialogue and
cooperation, rather than confrontation. She
stressed that the concept of the interagency
demonstration projects makes sense because "it is
place-based, tackles a manageable set of issues
and parties, and allows for trial and error." When
good models emerge, they can be replicated and
expanded in the future, she added.
Ms. Briggum stated that, in many cases, the IWG's
projects are similar to the early brownfields pilot
projects, which began with a central agency
coordinator and leveraged substantial private-
sector and government investment from initial EPA
grant money. She pointed out, however, that the
most successful brownfields pilot projects
recognized that the crucial element in resolving
environmental justice concerns was the
partnership between the community and the
businesses whose activities affect that community.
Continuing, she stated that one of the reasons for
the success of the brownfields initiative was that it
engaged, at the onset, local business at individual
sites, supported ongoing communication between
business and community, and then engaged real
estate developers through their trade and
professional associations to agree upon the model.
Ms. Briggum then suggested that the IWG's
projects should take that same course, offering
two recommendations: that each IWG
demonstration project actively engage all affected
businesses and that, once local businesses have
been contacted, a larger infrastructure for positive
contributions by business be created by engaging
major trade associations in the project. Ms.
Briggum suggested that the trade associations that
represent affected businesses, along with
representatives of major citizen advocacy groups,
should be engaged in reviewing the demonstration
projects and assisting the Federal government in
the ongoing evaluation of the success of the
projects.
In closing, Ms. Briggum stated that, by engaging
citizens and business groups together to make the
projects work, the Federal government, along with
state and local governments, can foster a powerful
coalition for future bipartisan initiatives to address
environmental justice concerns.
3.5.3 Local Government Perspective
Mr. Jesus Nava, Deputy City Manager, City of San
Jose, California, provided the perspective of
municipalities on integrated interagency strategies,
and offered suggestions for effectively engaging
municipalities in those strategies. He first stated
that local elected officials are the closest link to the
people of the community and that those officials
have much influence on consensus-building in a
community. City council members know the
"major players" in their town or district, he noted,
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-33
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
adding that Federal officials should recognize city
council members as leaders of the local
community and as potential advocates and
partners in causes that require the building of
consensus in those communities. Continuing, Mr.
Nava stated that direct contact is an extremely
valuable tool of which Federal agencies can take
advantage if they work through the "proper
channels."
The autonomy of the local community should be
respected as well, said Mr. Nava. He explained
that most cities develop their own legislation and
that most have comprehensive land use plans.
Federal agencies seeking the collaboration of
communities should consider that those plans
most likely are the result of an extremely long
citizen participation process, he pointed out. Mr.
Nava urged that Federal agencies become familiar
with the zoning and land use regulations
established by local communities.
Another influence in effectively engaging
municipalities in integrated interagency strategies
is the availability of funding resources and access
to Federal scientists and technical consultants,
continued Mr. Nava. He explained that many cities
are not fortunate enough to have the necessary
revenue streams to take on the needed cleanups
or environmental projects, nor do they have the
funds to hire technical experts.
Continuing, Mr. Nava stated that, if Federal
agencies are to form effective partnerships with
communities, they must be willing to share
information. He also suggested that Federal
agencies keep the interagency partnership
process and language simple. Finally, Mr. Nava
stated that he concurred with the concept of
assigning a Federal coordinating agency
responsibility for initiating a project, noting that
Federal agencies too often place too much of that
responsibility on communities that often possess
only limited resources.
3.5.4 Tribal Perspective
Mr. Terry Williams, Commissioner of Natural
Resources and Fisheries, The Tulalip Tribes,
provided comments on integrated interagency
strategies from a tribal perspective. Specifically,
Mr. Williams stated that his presentation would
focus on implementation of the strategic planning
process.
To communicate the unique tribal perception of
environmental justice, Mr. Williams began his
presentation by explaining that tribal environmental
culture is sustained to a great extent by the use of
fish, wildlife, vegetation, herbs, and berries. He
pointed out that those resources are the backbone
of not only the tribal culture, but also the health and
economy of the tribe. As an example, Mr.
Williams, described the Tulalip Tribe's historical
perspective of its natural landscape, which once
was home to old growth forests, an abundance of
fish, and trade routes. The health of the members
of the tribe was generally good because of the
abundance of food sources. The landscape was
healthy, he added. Today, he continued, a
significant percentage of the natural landscape has
been altered, and the resources that once
supported the tribe are no longer available. As a
result, he explained, the dynamics of the tribe's
social communication and practice have changed,
and the health of its members has declined as well
because of the loss of their traditional food
sources. Mr. Williams stated that although his
people had not fared well, they have learned to
work with the Federal government to develop plans
and goals, determine how to conduct assessments
that encompass both science and traditional
knowledge, and evaluate ways to establish
accountability and enforceability.
However, Mr. Williams pointed out, the
decisionmaking process is "where the action is" in
addressing environmental injustice. He explained
that, even if a tribe suffers the erosion of its tribal
culture, a tribe can at least understand the breadth
of the issues and make good decisions if it is
involved early in the decisionmaking process. Mr.
Williams added that, even if a tribe is unhappy with
the decisions that must be made, it will make the
decisions and therefore "can live with them," unlike
having to accept decisions that are forced upon
them.
Turning his attention to the unique contribution that
tribes can make to the interagency process, Mr.
Williams stated that Federal agencies must listen
to tribes and take advantage of their traditional
knowledge and wisdom. As an example, he stated
that he recently had been approached by the
National Aeronautic and Space Administration
(NASA), which wished to take advantage of the
traditional knowledge of his tribe in conducting a
national air study. He explained further that
because records of the natural landscape in which
his tribe lives are relatively limited, NASA believes
the Indian people could share their traditional
knowledge of how the natural landscape had
looked originally. Mr. Williams then stated his
belief that the integrated interagency strategies
provide an opportunity for Federal agencies not
only to take advantage of the traditional knowledge
of tribes, but also to succeed in restoring and
sustaining tribal cultures.
1-34
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
3.5.5 Academic Research Perspective
Mr. Richard Gragg, Director, Center for
Environmental Equity and Justice (CEEJ) Florida
A&M University, discussed the viability of the
integrated Federal Interagency Environmental
Justice Action Agenda in Florida. Mr. Gragg first
explained that, in 1998, the Florida legislature
established and funded CEEJ, giving it a mission
of environmental justice research, training,
education, community outreach, and policy
development. The expertise of the center currently
lies in environmental modeling, sampling, risk
assessment and communication, environmental
toxicology and human health, and environmental
law and policy, he said. In 1999, CEEJ held its first
meeting, a strategic planning session for
stakeholders, including representatives of state
agencies, grassroots organizations, and industry,
he continued. In 2000, CEEJ, working in
conjunction with the International City/County
Management Association (ICMA), the University of
South Florida Brownfields Resource Center, the
Clearwater Office of Economic Development, and
the Greenhood Neighborhood Associations,
produced the Clearwater Brownfields Area
Environmental Justice Action Agenda, he said. In
the same year, he added, CEEJ held its second
annual conference, during which the Florida
Environmental Justice Action Agenda was
established.
In its role as the environmental justice resource
center for the state of Florida, said Mr. Gragg,
CEEJ is promulgating the principle that the
community should be the focus of environmental
justice and that communities recognize
environmental stressors and certain
socioeconomic or cultural issues; that communities
should organize and gather facts; and that
communities should provide education, training,
outreach, and identification and implementation of
solutions to those problems. CEEJ is
communicating that message to state agencies
and local governments responsible for
environmental justice in Florida, continued Mr.
Gragg. He then stated that CEEJ also had
identified and was communicating the various
factors involved in the issue of environmental
justice, adding that CEEJ works with ATSDR; the
Institute of Public Health (its counterpart at Florida
A&M); and the Florida Department of Health to
address such issues.
Continuing, Mr. Gragg stated that CEEJ currently
was involved in the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP) and was also working
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and the South Florida Water Management District
to develop a socioeconomic environmental justice
management plan. Mr. Gragg explained that the
50-year project, for which the estimated cost is $8
billion, was to be funded by the Federal
government, along with the state of Florida and
other non-Federal entities.
Noting the rigor of the program that Mr. Gragg
outlined, Ms. Shepard asked him about the quality
and breadth of the community involvement in the
development of the CERP. Mr. Gragg
acknowledged that the level of community
involvement had been one of the shortcomings of
the plan, stating that the project had included
neither early nor extensive involvement of the
affected communities. The communities of south
Florida had raised issues related to the need for
the CERP, and the principal objective of the state
had been to improve water quality, he continued.
The effect of the plan on the inhabitants of the
area had been ignored "somewhat," he
acknowledged. Continuing, he said that only
recently had an effort been initiated to investigate
some of the specific effects on communities that
will be affected directly by the project. Ms.
Shepard then asked about the quality of academic
outreach to those communities. Mr. Gragg
responded that CEEJ serves as the technical
resource center.
4.0 REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
4.1 Update on Mossville, Calcasieu Parish,
Louisiana
Mr. Damu Smith, GreenPeace International,
provided an update on activities related to the
investigation of dioxin exposures in Mossville,
Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana that had been carried
out since the May 2000 meeting of the NEJAC in
Atlanta, Georgia. At that meeting, the Health and
Research Subcommittee and the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC met in
a joint session to discuss ATSDR's exposure
investigation, Mr Smith reported. He said the
stakeholders who had participated in the joint
session included representatives of Mossville
Environmental Action Now (M.E.A.N.),
GreenPeace International, the Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH), the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ), the Louisiana Chemical Association
(LCA), EPA Region 6, and ATSDR. Exhibit 1-10
presents background information about the
Calcasieu Parish Initiative.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-35
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 1-10
CALCASIEU PARISH INITIATIVE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region
6 has established the following initiatives related to
environmental conditions in Calcasieu Parish,
Louisiana:
• Made a commitment to meet with the Calcasieu
League for Environmental Action Now
(CLEAN) and other citizens of Calcasieu Parish
at least four times during 2001. The Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ)
has agreed to participate in the meetings.
• Entered into negotiations with key industries in
Calcasieu Parish to develop a Superfund
remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS) of the Calcasieu Estuary. Other agencies
involved in the negotiations include the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
U.S. Department of Commerce; the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI); LDEQ; the
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Forestry;
and the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources. The RI/FS will be conducted to
determine the scope and extent of the
contamination of the estuary, as well as to
identify possible remedies.
• Established at EPA Region 6 an internal
Calcasieu Team that will be responsible to
further evaluate and monitor activities in the
Calcasieu area and actively address concerns of
the citizens.
• Established an environmental compliance
initiative in the Calcasieu Basin area in 1998.
Mr. Smith reminded the members that there exists
an "extraordinary health and contamination crisis"
in the Mossville community. ATSDR has
conducted blood tests of local residents and found
dioxin levels to be three times the national
average, he explained.
Mr. Smith stated that the May 2000 session had
been important because it had provided an
opportunity for constructive dialogue about a range
of issues and policy matters that are important not
only to the case of Mossville, but also to other
communities that face similar circumstances. He
said that one of the principal issues discussed
during the joint session was the response of the
various Federal and state agencies and industry to
the problems in Mossville. He explained that the
communities of Mossville had believed that the
agencies lacked respect for community
organizations and had failed to respond to the
organizations' numerous requests and
recommendations about how best to respond to
the situation in Mossville. Mr. Smith stated that the
discussions held during and immediately after the
joint session helped bring about an atmosphere
conducive to constructive dialogue. He stressed
that those constructive discussions had led to
some very positive results.
Between May and September 2000, Mr. Smith
explained, a number of other meetings had been
held in the community among representatives of
the communities; staff of OEJ, including Mr. Barry
E. Hill; EPA Region 6; and ATSDR. He said that
the residents of Mossville long had been
requesting a meeting of representatives of the
community and experts in pertinent scientific,
technical, and legal matters. He explained further
that the community had wanted to meet face to
face with government agencies to establish "an
equal footing" between the agencies involved and
the community. The community hoped that such a
meeting would provide an opportunity for the
community's experts to review recommendations
and progress reports on the investigation
submitted by the agencies.
Mr. Smith then reported that, on October 24 and
25, 2000, representatives of EPA had visited
Mossville to meet with the community and its
experts. He commented that EPA staff had been
well prepared and was responsive; the community
had been able to obtain answers to many
questions that previously had gone unanswered,
he said. Mr. Smith then stated that, on November
15 and 16, 2000, a similar meeting of
representatives of the community, ATSDR, LDEQ,
and LDHH had been held in Mossville.
Continuing, Mr. Smith stated that very constructive
recommendations had been developed during the
meetings. "We are still a long way from where we
need to be, but we are certainly a long way from
where we were in May, when there was so much
contention among all the parties and we weren't
getting anywhere," he said. Mr. Smith emphasized
that the meetings would not have taken place if
there had not been a change of attitude on the part
of the government agencies at the highest levels,
he said. He then expressed his thanks to the
NEJAC, the staff of OEJ, Mr. Jerry Clifford, EPA
Region 6, and Dr. Henry Falk, ATSDR, for playing
crucial roles in making the meetings possible and
constructive.
1-36
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Mr. Smith stated that the community of Mossville
was committed to continuing to work with EPA and
other Federal agencies to address the problems in
Mossville and other communities. However, he
continued, the Mossville community would be
remiss if it did not continue to keep pressure on
the EPA and the other agencies. He cited as an
example a November 21, 2000 letter
representatives of Mossville had written to the
Attorney General of the United States to request
an investigation of the enforcement practices of
LDEQ and EPA Region 6.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Smith expressed his
pleasure that the agencies are "moving in the right
direction." He then expressed his belief that the
state agencies had been "dragged into the
process, kicking and screaming," but that the
representatives of Mossville will keep pressure on
them. Nevertheless, progress had been made, he
said in concluding his presentation.
Mr. Clifford agreed that the work in the Mossville
and greater Lake Charles community serve as a
model for ways in which, despite tremendous
resistance, communities and agencies can work
through issues together. He commented that he
believed that the May 2000 meeting of the NEJAC
had provided the opportunity for EPA, ATSDR, and
the community to take a "step back and start
afresh and anew" in an effort to regain respect for
one another so that they could begin to solve the
problem together. Mr. Clifford then agreed with
Mr. Smith's observation that much remains to be
done so that they could begin, but stated that he
anticipated that work in that community would be
expanded significantly.
Mr. Clifford explained that the next step will allow
EPA to identify the source of the dioxin and to
determine whether ongoing exposure is occurring
or the dioxin detected in individuals during the
investigation is the result of past exposures. He
stressed that this effort would be extensive and
expensive.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Clifford stated his
hope that all stakeholders are on a very good path
right now and that it was EPA's hope that they all
will be able to "keep pushing the ball in that same
direction."
Mr. Smith added that staff of ATSDR had
conducted dioxin training for medical personnel at
the Bayou Comprehensive Health Clinic. During
the November meeting with ATSDR, he stated, the
representatives of the community clinic had
discussed what services the clinic could provide,
offering concrete recommendations and
commitments to provide additional services
needed by the community, he said. The people of
Mossville now would be able to obtain health
services at the clinic, he said. Further, he added, it
is possible that a new health clinic will be
established in the community of Mossville.
Therefore, ATSDR had helped to facilitate an effort
to make real the promise of health services to the
residents of Mossville, he stressed.
Ms. Miller-Travis asked Mr. Clifford how EPA
would keep the initiative on track after the change
in administration. Mr. Clifford responded that it will
take leadership, persistence, and accountability to
do so. He explained that, although the leadership
is changing, several components of the process
will remain. For example, he pointed out, he will
remain in his position at EPA, as will other agency
officials. Further, individuals, the community, and
government officials will remain committed, and a
work plan for the dioxin reassessment is intact, he
stressed. EPA was working with ATSDR to
resolve the problem of bridging the gap between
access to health care and knowledge about
environmental health issues, he said, adding that
all parties intend to follow up on a regular basis to
evaluate the progress they are making.
Ms. Ramos asked about the state's contribution to
the effort to find solutions to the problems in
Mossville. Mr. Clifford responded that LDHH
recently had participated in a meeting with EPA
Region 6, HRSA, and ASTDR, to discuss the issue
of health care and access to health care.
Continuing, he reported that at that meeting, Dr.
Dale Gidry, LDHH, had provided an informed,
responsive presentation about the dioxin issues
and the findings of a health survey that LDHH
recently had conducted in the community. Mr.
Clifford commented that the case of Mossville had
been educational for state agencies, adding that
officials at the highest levels in the state
government are now grasping that there is a
particular problem in Mossville and that there are
similar problems in other parts of the state, as well.
Mr. Smith added that the representatives of the
community of Mossville had been pleased that
representatives of the state agencies had attended
the meetings, but he emphasized that the state
agencies had not participated in the meetings in
the way that the community would have liked.
Ms. Jane Stahl, State of Connecticut, Department
of Environmental Protection and member of the
Health and Research Subcommittee, commented
that recent activities related to the Mossville case
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-37
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
represent a move away from attempts to define
cause and effect and a move toward the
collaborative effort of various Federal and state
agencies to address and mitigate an
environmental health and environmental justice
issue.
4.2 Update on the National Environmental
Justice Policy Guidance
Mr. Barry E. Hill, Director, EPA OEJ, made a
presentation on EPA's draft national environmental
justice policy guidance document titled "A Guide to
Assessing and Addressing Allegations of
Environmental Injustice." Mr. Hill began his
presentation by identifying the purposes of the
document. The first purpose of the guidance
document, he said, is to provide a conceptual
framework for explaining environmental justice as
both a civil rights and an environmental issue, and
consequently, to develop sound policy in the area.
The document is intended to provide guidance for
EPA's environmental justice coordinators and EPA
staff in program offices at EPA headquarters in
developing a systematic approach for addressing
the particular issues and concerns of a community,
he said.
Second, he continued, the document is intended to
provide a substantive framework for explaining
EPA's environmental justice program, based on
existing environmental laws and regulations. Mr.
Hill stated that the EPA's environmental justice
program is more than a community relations or
training program, nor is it a preferential treatment
program or an affirmative action program.
Mr. Hill stated that a third purpose of the guidance
document is to provide a realistic framework for
assessing the validity of an allegation of
environmental injustice. He explained that the
document includes a model for evaluating various
social, economic, environmental, and health
indicators in an effort to support or refute a
possible issue of environmental injustice. The
model also incorporates public participation and
access to information in the decisionmaking
process.
A fourth purpose of the document, Mr. Hill
continued, is to provide a "road map" for
developing and implementing a holistic approach
for addressing a case of environmental injustice.
He pointed out that the framework focuses on
bringing together local, state, and Federal
agencies and other resources, such as industry
resources, to address the concerns of the
community. Mr. Hill noted that the IWG and its
Action Agenda concentrate on (1) providing better
coordination among stakeholders; (2) improving
the accessibility and responsiveness of
government; and (3) ensuring the integration of the
principles of environmental justice into the policies,
programs, and activities of Federal agencies. He
explained that the national environmental justice
policy guidance document provides a framework
and model for accomplishing these goals.
Mr. Hill stressed that the objective of the guidance
document is not to investigate an allegation of
environmental injustice and arrive at a conclusion;
rather, the objective is to promote the engagement
of constructive and collaborative problem-solving
to address claims of environmental injustice.
Mr. Hill then stated that OEJ had received
comment on the draft guidance document from
EPA headquarters and from the EPA regional
offices and had incorporated changes into the
present draft version of the document in response
to those comments. He said that OEJ next would
submit the document for public review and review
by the NEJAC. He added that he hoped that the
draft guidance document would be published in the
Federal Register by the end of 2000.
Continuing, Mr. Hill explained that training modules
on conducting environmental justice assessments
were to be developed in three main areas - the
CAA, the Clean Water Act (CWA), and solid waste
and emergency response. In addition, standard
protocols for conducting environmental justice
assessments also would be developed, he said.
Ms. Shepard asked for clarification whether the
draft guidance requires that every EPA region and
state agency follow the guidance in response to
every allegation of environmental injustice. Mr. Hill
responded that every EPA region and state should
develop a systematic approach for making a
determination about the validity of an allegation.
Referring to the focus of the national
environmental justice policy guidance, Mr.
Saldamando stated that the guidance seems to
require a certain standard of proof before a
complaint by a community is deemed credible. Mr.
Hill responded that no standard of proof is required
and that no reasonable doubt must be disproved;
rather, he emphasized, the guidance outlines a
method of assessing information to support a
response.
Ms. Miller-Travis asked who was involved in
developing the draft environmental justice policy
guidance document. Mr. Hill answered that the
1-38
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
environmental justice coordinators at EPA
headquarters and at the EPA regional offices,
EPA's deputy regional administrators, EPA's
deputy assistant administrators, EPA's assistant
administrators, and the Office of General Counsel
were involved in developing and commenting on
the document.
Several members of the NEJAC expressed
concern and frustration that EPA OEJ had failed to
request comment on the draft policy guidance
document from the members of the NEJAC.
Mr. Hill responded that the members of the
NEJAC, as well as the public, would have 90 days
to review the draft document. He added that the
document is a dynamic one that can be revised
periodically, adding that EPA welcomes comments
from the public at any time and would consider
comments when making revisions in the future.
Mr. Saldamando pointed out that the NEJAC
seems to be playing the limited role of listening to
communities and putting them in contact with the
appropriate EPA official, rather than being allowed
to play the role intended for the NEJAC - that is,
making policy recommendations to EPA. Ms.
Ramos commented that inviting communities to
comment at the end of the development process
does not constitute real public participation.
Echoing the comments of other NEJAC members,
Mr. Cole explained that the central complaint of
communities grappling with environmental justice
issues always has been that industry and
government make decisions "behind closed
doors," inviting the public to participate only after
those decisions have been made. He stated his
belief that the NEJAC had been somewhat
effective in educating industry and state and
Federal decisionmakers that such a process does
not constitute true public participation. He noted
that the NEJAC had prepared guidelines for public
participation that call for early, effective
participation of stakeholders, who, he pointed out,
are to be involved before decisions are made and
definitions are developed. Mr. Cole then asked, "If
the members of the NEJAC are not the [persons]
helping [EPA] define what should be in an
environmental justice policy document, why are we
here?"
Mr. Cole stressed that the key issue is that EPA
framed the issues and defined the concepts on
which the draft was based without consulting the
members of the NEJAC. He said that EPA does
not take the NEJAC seriously as a body charged
with making policy recommendations if EPA does
not involve the members of the NEJAC in the
drafting of an environmental justice document.
Mr. Hill responded that early, effective public
participation in the environmental decisionmaking
process is crucial but he pointed out that the draft
guidance document does not represent an
environmental justice decision. He then repeated
that the document is in the draft phase and that
revisions would be incorporated in response to the
comments and suggestions of the NEJAC and the
public.
Ms. Stahl stated that she believed that the
members of the NEJAC had played an indirect role
in framing the draft policy guidance. She also
agreed with Mr. Hill that there is enough flexibility
in the drafting and completing a Federal document
to allow the NEJAC the opportunity to review and
comment on the draft document. Ms. Stahl then
stated that, if the document succeeds in providing
environmental justice communities with a vehicle
for actually resolving cases of environmental
injustice, the members of the NEJAC should at
least be grateful that the environmental justice
movement is moving toward problem- solving
because the movement thereby is moving forward.
Mr. Turrentine stated that it is difficult for
communities and the members of the NEJAC to
believe that industry and regulators are listening to
the recommendations provided by the public
through the NEJAC when the members of the
NEJAC had no involvement in the development
and refining of a national environmental justice
policy document.
4.3 Update on the Environmental Justice
Training Collaborative
Mr. Lee stressed the significance of the
Environmental Justice Training Collaborative
(EJTC), describing such training as an important
link between the concepts of environmental justice
and government policies and program
development and implementation. EJTC is a
national network of EPA staff working in
partnership with stakeholders to develop
environmental justice education tools, meet crucial
information needs, and facilitate dialogue to
advance environmental justice through training
workshops, he said. Mr. Lee explained that the
EJTC initiative had brought together experts from
all 10 EPA regional offices, as well as OEJ and
other stakeholder groups, such as states and
community organizations, that recognize the
importance of training in environmental justice.
Exhibit 1-11 provides additional information on the
EJTC.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-39
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 1-11
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE TRAINING COLLABORATIVE
The Environmental Justice Training Collaborative (EJTC) is a national network of U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regional and headquarters staff who work together to develop environmental justice education tools to
enhance the abilities of staff to meet crucial needs for information and dialogue to advance environmental justice.
The EJTC also is intended to encourage, develop, and maintain alliances and partnerships with diverse stakeholders,
particularly with the Federal agencies that are members of the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice
(IWG).
As part of this effort, EJTC members have developed a workshop on the fundamentals of environmental justice; the
establishment of an environment justice training and resources web site; the development of a methodology and
materials for training environmental justice trainers; establishment of a national environmental justice training team;
and an annual environmental justice training institute. The EJTC plans a series of nationwide pilot workshops from
March through May 2001 to obtain more comment on the draft Environmental Justice Fundamentals Workshop.
EJTC held its first planning workshop in Boston, Massachusetts in October 2000 at which the participants began to
formulate EPA's collaborative training curriculum. Planned training modules include (1) environmental justice and
public participation; (2) environmental justice, natural resources, and NEPA; (3) environmental justice and cultural
resources; and (4) environmental justice in Indian country. Approximately 45 persons attended the workshop,
representing EPA, other Federal agencies, state agencies, community groups, and academia. EJTC also seeks the
views of other key groups, such as tribal governments, tribal community groups, and industry.
Mr. Jack McGraw, Deputy Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 8, provided an overview of the
activities of EJTC. During the Summer of 2000,
representatives of EJTC briefed the EPA regional
administrators on the training collaborative and
requested that the regional administrators support
and participate in the initiative, he said. The
representatives of EJTC explained to the EPA
regional administrators that the goal of EJTC was
to provide a fundamental course on environmental
justice that would be pilot-tested with a wide range
of stakeholders and EJTC planned to develop a
national training team, he said. The national
training team will consist of about 30 trainers, of
whom at least four will represent entities outside
the agency, he added.
Within EPA, Mr. McGraw explained, the
environmental justice training effort focuses on
integrating the principles of environmental justice
into EPA programs and the activities of EPA
program offices. He said the objective of the
internal training at EPA is to enrich the dialogue
about environmental justice issues by educating
program directors about Executive Order 12898
and increasing their awareness of community
concern and the need for valid input from
communities when making day-to-day operating
decisions.
Continuing, Mr. McGraw stated that EJTC was
requesting that the members of the NEJAC
provide their comment and lend their support as
EJTC develops the collaborative curriculum. He
invited the members of the NEJAC to participate in
the EJTC planning workshops and to assist the
development of modules currently in the planning
stage.
Providing a community perspective on the first
EJTC workshop, Mr. Jose Bravo, Southwest
Network for Environmental and Economic Justice
(SNEEJ), said that he believed the workshop was
an excellent start for the training collaborative. He
stated that the workshop activities helped to
answer for him the long-standing question, "When
are we going to stop teaching and when are
people going to know the subject?"
Mr. Bravo stated that the workshop had been
important because representatives of numerous
Federal agencies had attended it. He commented
that Federal agencies are "behind" in
understanding and implementing the principles of
environmental justice in their policies, programs,
and activities.
Continuing, Mr. Bravo suggested that future
workshops include a segment on the history of
environmental justice, noting that the first
workshop had lacked such a section. He then
called for grassroots organizations and community
groups to support the EJTC.
1-40
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Ms. Veronica Eady, Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, offering a state perspective, stated
that her reaction to the EJTC workshop had been
"wholeheartedly positive." She congratulated Ms.
Deldi Reyes, EPA Region 8; Mr. Running Grass,
EPA Region 9; and Mr. Nicholas Targ, OEJ, on
that success, stating that she had sensed those
individuals had been the "driving force behind the
training."
Ms. Eady stated that the tone of the workshop had
been open and receptive. For example, activities
and discussion included in the training had not
placed blame on state and Federal regulators for
issues related to facility siting and permitting.
Rather, she continued, the focus of the workshop
had been on learning to understand how a person
or group might react and respond to a certain
issue or controversial statement related to
environmental justice.
Ms. Eady expressed her pleasure that EPA had
invited the state of Massachusetts and other
states, to join in the EJTC effort. She stated that
the training modules that the representatives of
state agencies who participate in EJTC would
research and develop are: (1) how environmental
justice applies to the states and (2) what Title VI
means to the states. In closing, Ms. Eady stated
that she sees much potential in EJTC and
declared that she was excited about participating
in the initiative. Ms. Eady added that she would
like to see a module developed on how
environmental justice applies to the relationship
between states and Indian tribes, commenting that
many states do not have a clear understanding of
their trust responsibilities.
Ms. Stahl commented that the EJTC represents a
vehicle for broadening the reach of environmental
justice by familiarizing more people with the
concepts of environmental justice, its vocabulary,
and the purposes and goals of environmental
justice. She then pointed out that the states are
not enemies. She suggested that, rather than
discussing environmental justice and the states,
the questions "How does environmental justice
apply to the states? How does Title VI apply to the
states?" should be restated as "How can
environmental justice be implemented through the
states? How can Title VI be implemented through
the states?" Many State officials seek the
opportunity to become partners in endeavors such
as the one EJTC had undertaken, she said, adding
that NEJAC should be sensitive to such issues as
subtleties in language that, she pointed out "can in
fact make a big difference."
Mr. Goldtooth stated that he fully supported the
EJTC initiative. He commented that EJTC should
educate Federal agencies about environmental
justice in Indian country. He added that
representatives of tribal governments included in
the training should reflect on the environmental
justice needs of tribal governments and coalitions,
explaining that tribal environmental infrastructures
that are stabilizing and developing.
Continuing, Mr. Goldtooth stated that there is a
need to educate Federal agencies about
environmental justice concerns from the
perspective of tribal community members or tribal
grassroots organizations. He stated that
environmental justice in Indian Country is a very
complicated issue because the tribes support the
government-to-government relationship between
their tribal government and Federal and state
governments, but often face environmental issues
that are not mitigated by remedies applied at the
tribal community level. Mr. Goldtooth provided as
an example a situation in Squaw Valley, Utah. The
Tribal Council has a partnership with the nuclear
waste industry to use tribal lands as a nuclear
waste dump, but tribal community members and
grassroots organizations are opposed to such use,
he said. Mr. Goldtooth stated that such issues are
challenging to agency staff, as well as tribal
leaders. He suggested that EJTC trainers
representing tribal governments discuss such
situations and the diversity of issues in Indian
country.
Ms. Wood stated that she would be happy to
volunteer either herself or some of the Georgia-
Pacific Corporation trainers, stating that, when
developing its own training program, the Georgia-
Pacific Corporation had experienced a similar
learning curve of developing an understanding of
what different things mean to different people.
Mr. Lee concluded the discussion by pointing out
that the EJTC is a developing program and that,
over time, EJTC will develop many modules that
examine specific applications of many
environmental statutes, such as the CAA, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), and the CWA.
4.4 Overview of the Legal Memorandum on
Statutory and Regulatory Authorities
Mr. Anthony Guadagno, Office of General Counsel
(OGC), EPA, presented a legal memorandum titled
"EPA Statutory and Regulatory Authorities Under
Which Environmental Justice Issues May Be
Addressed in Permitting" that OGC had distributed
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-41
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
to the NEJAC on December 1, 2000. Mr.
Guadagno explained that the memorandum
identifies opportunities to promote environmental
justice under EPA permitting programs, specifically
under the CWA, the CAA, RCRA, the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and Title I of the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(commonly referred to as the Ocean Dumping
Act). He said that the memorandum includes a
brief description of each of the various permitting
programs, as well as the legal opportunities
identified within each of those programs for
promoting environment justice. OGC, he added,
was looking forward to working with the EPA
media program offices to further explore the legal
dimensions of taking advantage of the
opportunities identified in the memorandum.
Commenting on the apparent length of the
document, Mr. Cole stated that the memorandum
appeared to have greatly reduced from the length
of the original draft version he and others had
reviewed several years earlier. He commented
that a significant amount of information included in
the original draft must have been lost. Mr.
Guadagno responded that the memorandum had
been written concisely but is comprehensive,
adding that the memorandum addresses a
significant number of opportunities under the
various statutory and regulatory authorities.
Ms. Jana Walker, Law Offices of Jana L. Walker
and member of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee, commented that the memorandum
did not appear to include any mention of tribes or
tribal governments and tribal authority. Mr.
Guadagno stated in response that the principal
focus of the legal memorandum is EPA actions
with respect to permitting, which would be
applicable in Indian country. Ms. Walker informed
him that some tribal governments have permitting
authority.
Ms. Miller-Travis asked Mr. Guadagno to comment
on the purpose of language included in the
introductory paragraph of the memorandum, which
reads, "...Although the memorandum presents
interpretations of EPA's statutory authority and
regulations that we believe are legally permissible,
it does not suggest that such actions would be
uniformly practical or feasible given policy or
resource considerations or that there are not
important considerations of legal risk that would
need to be evaluated." Mr. Guadagno replied that
the language is designed to maintain the context of
the document as a legal memorandum issued by
OGC to its internal agency "clients," rather than as
a definitive legal risk analysis. He added that it
would be largely up to the EPA program office to
identify which of the authorities identified in the
memorandum it wished to pursue.
Mr. Yang stated that, under Executive Order
12898, Federal agencies, including EPA, are
required to implement the order in a manner
consistent with and to the extent permitted by
existing law. He asked whether OGC had
determined the extent to which those authorities
permit EPA to take certain actions - that is, how
EPA will be required to take those actions under
those statutory authorities. Mr. Guadagno stated
that the focus of the memorandum is the amount
of discretionary authority that EPA may possess to
take some actions to promote environmental
justice. He added that the managers of EPA's
media program offices most likely would address
that question as they review the memorandum and
decide which opportunities they would like to
pursue.
Mr. Yang also questioned why the authorities
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) were not included in the
scope of the memorandum. He stated that the
International Subcommittee had spent an entire
morning session discussing adverse health effects
on farm workers and the effects of pesticides. Mr.
Guadagno responded by repeating that the
discussions included in the memorandum did
represent a definitive statement on every
conceivable opportunity.
4.5 Update on the NEJAC Federal Facilities
Working Group
Ms. Augustine, Chair of the Federal Facilities
Working Group introduced Mr. Brandon Carter,
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office,
EPA OSWER, and DFO of the NEJAC Federal
Facilities Working Group, who provided an update
on the activities of the working group.
Mr. Carter explained that Federal facilities include
land and property that either was owned, formerly
owned, managed, or operated by the Federal
government, such as military bases, research
lands, and bombing ranges. The Federal Facilities
Working Group had been chartered by the
Executive Council of the NEJAC in May 2000, in
response to public comments and requests, he
said. The task of the working group, he continued,
was to identify and evaluate key issues of concern
to environmental justice communities related to the
activities and operations of Federal facilities. The
objectives of the working group, he reported, are
to: (1) formulate national policy recommendations
1-42
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
to address such concerns; (2) provide a forum for
the conduct of dialogue with communities; (3)
compile a list of available resources to
communities and stakeholders; (4) increase public
participation; and (5) produce a written report that
summarizes findings and recommendations.
Continuing, Mr. Carter stated that the members of
the working group had been identified and that a
MOU had been signed to formalize the Federal
partnership with the working group. He informed
the members of the NEJAC that the working group
is made up of three community representatives,
two representatives of nongovernmental
organizations (NGO), two representatives of tribal
governments, one representative of state
government, one representative of local
government, and one representative of industry.
Federal partners include DoD, DOE, and DOI, he
added.
Mr. Carter stated that the working group was to
operate over a period of 18 months, from January
1, 2001, to July 1, 2002. He explained that the
term of the working group would be divided in
three six-month periods and that the working group
would conclude activities and report to the NEJAC
at the end of each six-month interval during the
biannual meetings of the NEJAC. Recent activities
of the working group, continued Mr. Carter, had
included: (1) compilation of public comment
related to Federal facilities that had been offered
during earlier meetings of the NEJAC; (2) the
development of an issues statement; and (3) the
conduct of two meetings by conference call. The
working group was to convene its first face-to-face
meeting in late January or early February 2001, he
said.
Mr. Carter stated that communities and the public
would have significant opportunity to participate in
the activities of the working group. He informed all
present that the working group was accepting
requests for proposals for potential case studies
for the review by the working group. The working
group was to begin reviewing case studies on
January 17, 2001, he explained, adding that
interested parties could contact him to obtain
information or to submit a proposal. The working
group would host open meetings at which the
public would be invited to present testimony related
to environmental justice and Federal facilities, he
said. The dates and times of such meetings would
be announced when available, he added.
In response to criticism of the working group and
related comments levied during the public
comment period held December 11, 2000 (see
Section 2.0 in Chapter 2 of this report), Mr. Carter
made several additional comments in defense of
the process adopted and activities conducted by
the working group. Responding to criticism of EPA
for embracing its Federal partners, Mr. Carter
explained that EPA had done so as required under
Executive Order 12580, which establishes
requirements applicable to the cleanup of Federal
facilities. Executive Order 12580 states that a
Federal agency must act as lead agency in the
cleanup of its own facilities, he explained. He also
pointed out that EPA does not have the authority to
enforce cleanups at Federal facilities; therefore, he
stated, EPA must work cooperatively with its
Federal partners to ensure that cleanups are safe,
efficient, and timely.
Mr. Carter then responded to comments that
charged that the scope of the work plan of the
working group is limited. He commented that
concerns about Federal facilities are broad and
varied, citing the enormous number of properties
owned by Federal agencies that are subject to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
RCRA, and other environmental laws. Mr. Carter
also pointed out that the working group had not
wished to duplicate the earlier efforts of other
federal advisory committees formed in the past to
address issues related to Federal facilities and
stakeholder involvement.
Responding to comments made and criticism
levied about the size of the working group and of
the stakeholders groups represented on it, Mr.
Carter explained that the selection process
followed when establishing the NEJAC and its
subcommittees had been used in determining the
makeup of the working group. He explained that
EPA staff has nominated candidates and reviewed
those candidates according to a number of criteria,
including whether they represented the
constituencies of the NEJAC, geographic
distribution, and relevant background or
experience.
Mr. Kent Benjamin, Environmental Justice
Coordinator, Outreach and Special Projects Staff
(OSPS), OSWER and DFO of the Waste and
Facilities Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC,
added that the NEJAC Federal Facilities Working
Group had been formed using the same model
that had been used in forming the Waste Transfer
Stations Work Group. Referring to comments
from Council members about not knowing the
status of the working group, he acknowledged that
EPA could have communicated more effectively
with the members of the NEJAC during the six
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-43
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
months since the May 2000 meeting of the
NEJAC. However, he pointed out that EPA had
been working on a fast track because of the
sensitive nature of the issues involved and the
level of concern expressed at the May meeting.
Dr. Marinelle Payton, Jackson State University and
chair of the Health and Research Subcommittee,
asked Mr. Carter to elaborate on the review of
case studies to be conducted by the working
group. Mr. Carter responded that the working
group was to evaluate a number of specific cases
related to specific Federal facilities or national
policy issues. He stated again that the working
group was accepting requests for cases to be
included in that effort. The proposal process
would be informal, he stated. Interested parties
could contact him for information or send him a
request by letter or electronic mail that describes
the facility or policy issue and the associated
environmental justice concern, he said. He then
explained that, during the review, the members of
the working group would identify factors
contributing to success and failure and would
provide recommendations to the facility about the
cleanup process that facility is undergoing.
Mr. Aragon recommended that the members of the
working group collaborate with the Tribal Solid
Waste (TSW) Task Group, which, he noted, is
based in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Cole asked about the involvement of the
Federal partners in the working group. Mr.
Benjamin explained that, because the working
group is a Federal advisory committee, subject to
the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA), representatives of Federal agencies
cannot serve as members of it; however, added
Mr. Benjamin, representatives of Federal agencies
can be designated to work with the working group
to share information and provide resources.
Mr. Cole commented that the working group was
intended to provide a forum that would allow
members of communities in the vicinity of Federal
facilities to work with the members of the NEJAC
so that their ideas could be refined and
communicated to EPA by the NEJAC. He
expressed his concern that only 3 of the 10
members of the working group are residents of
such communities. Referring to Mr. Benjamin's
earlier comments about the difficult logistics of
managing a large working group, Mr. Cole
commented that representatives of communities
are highly motivated and dedicated. He also
commented that, because those representatives
most often are volunteers and may be unable to
participate in all the activities of the working group,
it is even more important that a large number of
them be included as members of the working
group. Mr. Cole then proposed that the working
group add at least three or four more community
representatives.
Mr. Lee asked Mr. Cole to incorporate his
comments and his proposal into an e-mail to Mr.
Carter and himself, so that those comments and
the related proposal could be considered further.
Ms. Augustine commented that she would like to
invite representatives of DOJ to participate in the
working group. Ms. Shepard recommended that
the working group contact community members
who, she pointed out, had been lobbying the
NEJAC for years about environmental justice
issues related to Federal facilities to let them know
about the review of case studies the working group
was to undertake.
4.6 Presentation on Missed Opportunities in
Environmental Law
Ms. Barbara Arnwine, Executive Director, Lawyer's
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Lawyer's
Committee), provided a retrospective view of
missed opportunities for advancing environmental
justice through environmental litigation. Ms.
Arnwine began her presentation by explaining that
the Lawyers Committee had initiated an
environmental justice project under which the
committee used the "rule of law" to challenge
environmentally discriminatory behaviors and
decisions. Ultimately, she continued, the
committee seeks justice for people of color who
are fighting to clean up contamination on the land
where they live or who are trying to halt
environmentally harmful activities in their
neighborhoods. Reflecting on the current state of
environmental justice, Ms. Arnwine discussed the
challenges the committee had addressed through
litigation, and the successes and failures all parties
involved in the environmental justice movement
had experienced in their efforts to advance this
issue.
Ms. Arnwine pointed out that although the concept
of environmental law is a broad one, only a
relatively small number of lawyers specialize in
environmental justice law. However, she added,
when called upon, lawyers have worked closely in
partnership with communities to formulate the
most effective strategies possible. Often, she
continued, this has resulted in extremely innovative
strategies that use creative and sound legal
theories to best advocate on behalf of these
1-44
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
communities. For example, she explained, the
most successful environmental justice legal cases
have used historical patterns of segregation to
argue that certain decisions that exacerbate
environmental inequities perpetuate the preexisting
segregation, in violation of the equal protection
clause of the U.S. Constitution, Title VI, and the
Fair Housing Act. Lawyers also had used
environmental laws and Executive Order 12898 to
argue that environmental justice concerns must be
addressed, both in the permitting process and in
the selection of sites for facilities that present
environmental hazard, she added.
Ms. Arnwine then stated that the courts had not
been very receptive of environmental justice
cases. While environmental justice communities
can agree that environmental and civil rights laws
have been used in innovative ways to address
environmental justice concerns, in most cases,
she pointed out, decisionmaking at the Federal
level reflects the reluctance of Federal agencies to
use enforcement and civil rights laws as effectively
as possible. More recently, Federal agencies had
been more willing to recognize environmental
justice concerns, but they generally had not used
such concerns as a reason for altering the course
of decisionmaking, she continued. Because of
such hesitancy, environmental justice communities
have had to lead the way, she continued, and to
seize opportunities to use existing laws to
advocate the development of that area of
environmental law. Unfortunately, she said, review
of case law indicates that there has been only
limited success in the Federal courts, which, she
noted, often are unreceptive to newly-stated legal
theories, even though such theories are based on
existing Federal laws.
Continuing, Ms. Arnwine discussed 13 legal cases
that had been adjudicated within the past two
years:
• Three cases in which communities had used
the Executive order to enforce their rights had
been unsuccessful: Acorn vs. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Morongo Band of Mission
Indians vs. the Federal Aviation Authority
(FAA), and Citizens Concerned Against Jet
Noise vs. Dalton.
• Six cases that involved the use of NEPA and
the Executive order proved unsuccessful:
Atlantic States Legal Foundation vs. Browner,
Young vs. General Services Administration,
Acorn vs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Goshan Road Environmental Action Team vs.
USDA, New York City Environmental Justice
Alliance vs. Giuliani, and South Bronx Coalition
for Clean Air vs. Conroy.
• One case that involved the use of the CAA and
the Executive order had been unsuccessful:
Sur Contra Contaminacionvs. EPA.
• Two cases that involved the use of housing
law represented real victories by
environmental justice communities: Jersey
Heights Neighborhood Association vs.
Glendening and Elliott vs. Chicago Housing
Authority.
• Two cases that focused on constitutional
challenges and CERCLA had been
unsuccessful: Washington Park Lead
Community, et at. vs. EPA, and West Dallas
Coalition for Environmental Justice vs. EPA.
Ms. Arnwine then stated that, lacking a change of
strategy in using the rule of law to challenge
environmentally discriminatory behaviors and
decisions, environmental justice communities face
"a long road ahead." She said that lawyers
representing environmental justice communities
should be more strategic in fashioning legal
theories that use existing environmental, civil
rights, and constitutional law and in choosing the
cases through which to test the theories.
Ms. Arnwine pointed out that, in every case she
had mentioned above, a community or community
organization was the plaintiff and a Federal or
state agency or official was the defendant. She
remarked that case law does not show any
affirmative advocacy by Federal agencies on
behalf of communities. In all the cases reviewed,
the community or community group had to find
private counsel to sue the government, she said.
Ms. Arnwine commented that the Federal
government has an affirmative duty to pursue
litigation when ongoing environmentally hazardous
activities take place and to work to prevent such
activities. If standards of environmental justice are
to be integrated effectively with existing standards,
stated Ms. Arnwine, specific legislation that
addresses environmental justice issues at both the
Federal and the state level must be developed.
She said that the lack of such a legal framework
leaves many communities at risk. In addition,
there is a need for a stronger Executive order, and
the Executive order should be explicitly applicable
and enforceable by community groups, she
continued.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-45
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Continuing, Ms. Arnwine stated that limited
resources are available to support litigation by
groups working on environmental justice matters.
She added that because of funding limitations, that
area of the practice of law had become
"constricted," with fewer organizations currently
doing such work than had been doing it eight years
ago.
Concluding her remarks, Ms. Arnwine stated that
litigation groups and advocates of environmental
justice must "reconnect, reconvene and
restrategize" to use the rule of law to challenge
environmentally discriminatory behaviors and
decisions in future cases. Civil rights
organizations, she continued, must give greater
priority to environmental justice. For example, she
said, the Lawyer's Committee was to make a
recommendation at the Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights that its Environmental Justice Task
Force be reactivated immediately. Further, she
said, environmental justice and civil rights groups
should collaborate to persuade EPA and other
Federal agencies, as well as members of
Congress, the administration, and state and local
officials to advance and include a commitment to
environmental justice in their policies, programs,
and decisionmaking.
Dr. Payton asked how many environmental justice
cases in history had used health as a criterion for
considering environmental justice issues in
decisionmaking. Responding, Ms. Arnwine noted
that the majority (about 70) of cases over the past
decade had been decided or settled privately or
brought administratively; most of the cases did
involve some threat to public health. Continuing,
she stated that health is a major issue in many
cases, but she added that there is "a kind of
callousness" in the courts, which fail to recognize
and to judge what are fundamentally dangerous
health problems and what situations represent
permissible risks to the communities.
Ms. Shepard asked what were the common
components of the successful cases. Ms. Arnwine
responded that most of the successful cases used
fair housing legislation in a creative way. Other
successful cases involved applications of the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution and
other constitutional challenges, she said, noting
that the courts seem to be more receptive to cases
that are based on a constitutional challenge than to
other arguments. Ms. Arnwine added that the
courts seem to be more willing to consider
arguments based on equal protection under the
law rather than failure to comply with the
provisions of NEPA, other environmental laws, and
the Executive order.
4.7 Report on the Community-Based Health
Research Model
Mr. Martin Halper, Senior Science Advisor, OEJ,
presented a report on the NEJAC Community-
Based Health Research Model. He began by
stating that his presentation would draw on the
proceedings of the meeting of the NEJAC in
Atlanta, Georgia in May 2000. Exhibit 1-12
provides information about the panel presentations
on environmental justice and discussions of the
community-based health research model held
during that meeting.
Mr. Halper explained that, in responses to issues
discussed during that meeting, a 20-member work
group comprised of members of the NEJAC and
representatives of HHS and EPA, had been
formed. The work group met in September 2000
to develop a draft proposal, he said, which it had
distributed in October 2000 to the Executive
Council of the NEJAC for a 45-day review period.
Changes had been incorporated, and a conference
call had been held at the end of November 2000,
continued Mr. Halper. Members of the Executive
Council had received copies of the document on
Monday, December 11, 2000; changes in
response to discussions held during the current
meeting would be incorporated, he noted. Mr.
Halper then expressed his hope that the revised
document would be distributed to the Executive
Council during the week following the current
meeting to be considered for adoption.
Mr. Goldtooth requested that the attachment to the
document that presents the comments and
recommendations of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee of the NEJAC about environmental
health in Indian Country be presented to the EPA
Administrator as a separate document. Mr. Lee
assured him that that action would be taken. Mr.
Halper then explained that one-third of the
document had been taken verbatim from the report
of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee.
Ms. Payton then identified the recommendations
presented in the document: (1) develop a
universal definition of community-based health
research; (2) devise a way to provide scientific
data to fill the current data gaps related to the
subject; (3) develop better coordination among
agencies; (4) include socio-vulnerability issues in
the decisionmaking process; and (5) provide
healthcare to communities.
1-46
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Exhibit 1-12
PANEL PRESENTATIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
AND DISCUSSION OF THE COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTH MODEL
The May 2000 meeting of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) focused on Federal efforts
to secure disease prevention and health improvement in communities in which there are health disparities that may be
the result of, or be exacerbated by, disproportionate effects of environmental pollutants and certain socioeconomic
and cultural factors. During the meeting, the members of the NEJAC received comments and information related to
environmental justice and public health on the topics identified below.
Panel 1 - Overview: To what extent might an integrated community-based public health model that includes
assessment, intervention, and prevention contribute to disease prevention and health improvement in environmental
justice communities?
Panel 2 - Ixssons from the Field: What strategies and areas of research should be pursued to achieve more effective,
integrated community-based health assessment, intervention, and prevention efforts?
Panel 3 - Socioeconomic Vulnerability: How can consideration of socioeconomic status and cultural factors
(a) contribute to a better understanding of health disparities and cumulative and disproportionate environmental
effects and (b) be incorporated into community health assessments?
Panel 4 - Key Federal Initiatives: What strategies should be developed, implemented, and evaluated so as to insure
substantial participation, integration, and collaboration by Federal agencies, in partnership with impacted
communities; public health, medical, and environmental professionals; academic institutions; philanthropic
organizations; state, tribal, and local governments; and the private sector?
5.0 REPORTS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES
On December 13, 2000, each subcommittee met
for a full day. This section presents summaries of
the action items developed during those
discussions, as well as updates on the activities of
the subcommittees. Chapters three through eight
of this report present detailed summaries of the
deliberations of each of the subcommittees.
5.1 Air and Water Subcommittee
Ms. Jaramillo reported on the activities of the Air
and Water Subcommittee. She announced that
the subcommittee had met in New York, New York
on October 17 and 18, 2000 to focus on issues
related to public utilities. After considerable
discussion, she reported, the subcommittee
recommended, and EPA agreed to pursue, the
actions identified by the subcommittee, with the
primary goal of achieving through every practical
method, a reduction to 0.5% in fuel sulfur at Puerto
Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) power
plants.
Ms. Jaramillo also reported that the Air and Water
Subcommittee had heard presentations on the
Agency's asthma initiative and the Agency's
guidance for reducing toxic loadings. Ms.
Jaramillo then explained that, after the
presentations the members of the subcommittee
had separated into four work groups, each
considering one of four issues: cumulative
permitting, fish consumption, public utilities, and
urban air toxics.
Ms. Jaramillo stated that, in the coming year, the
Air and Water Subcommittee would focus on (1)
developing a concept for a citizens guide that
deals with existing or new power plants, (2)
working on a resolution that addresses the
upcoming off-road vehicle diesel rule, (3)
developing comments on EPA's National Air
Toxics Assessment national scale assessment, (4)
developing recommendations for four proposed
legislative bills aimed at further reducing
emissions, (5) completing a manual on effective
community involvement on environmental issues,
and (6) continuing planning on the December 2001
NEJAC meeting that will focus on subsistence
consumption.
Ms. Jaramillo also said that Ms. Dana Minerva,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
(OW), EPA, had offered a list of issues that the Air
and Water Subcommittee might expect OW to
develop in the future. Those issues include tribal
water standards and the rule on concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFO).
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-47
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Ms. Jaramillo announced that the subcommittee
had approved its mission statement and
recommended that Ms. Eileen Guana,
Southwestern University School of Law, be named
vice chair of the subcommittee. The Executive
Council approved that nomination.
5.2 Enforcement Subcommittee
Ms. Savi Home, North Carolina Association of
Black Lawyers and vice-chair of the Enforcement
Subcommittee, reported on the activities of the
Enforcement Subcommittee. She began by stating
that the subcommittee had heard a presentation
about DOT's implementation of Title VI and
requested that a copy of DOT's informal guidance
on investigating environmental justice complaints
filed under Title VI be distributed to the members
of the subcommittee. She also announced that
Mr. Cole had requested that staff of EPA who are
responsible for SEPs convene a meeting of 8 to 10
community-based organizations that have
experience in administering SEPs to identify the
problems and obstacles those organizations had
encountered. Ms. Home then reported that Mr.
Cole had requested that Mr. Herman provide a
copy of paperwork, including pleadings and
complaints, challenging air pollution from CAFOs
located in Missouri, North Carolina, and Indiana.
Representatives of DOT, DOJ, and HUD had
engaged in extensive discussion about the
implementation of Title VI, Ms. Home continued.
She reported that HUD does not maintain a policy
of dismissing Title VI complaints because they are
untimely; rather it had received 5,000 to 6,000
complaints and had assigned 600 investigators,
she continued. In contrast, she said, EPA's Office
of Civil Rights had received more than 100
complaints and has assigned only two
investigators. None of the complaints filed with
EPA had been resolved, she reported, and the
investigators had been provided no guidance.
5.3 Health and Research Subcommittee
Dr. Payton first recognized and thanked the
subcommittee's new co-DFO, Ms. Aretha Brockett,
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS), and then reported on the
activities of the Health and Research
Subcommittee. Dr. Payton explained that
members of the subcommittee had heard
presentations and reports provided by several
representatives of Federal agencies who had been
asked to speak about the involvement of their
agencies in (1) building healthy communities and
(2) working in collaborative partnerships with other
agencies to integrate the principles of
environmental justice into their policies, programs,
and activities.
Dr. Payton then described for the Executive
Council several commitments and suggestions
made during the meeting of the subcommittee:
• A commitment by Mr. Harold Zenick, Acting
Assistant Administrator, Office of Research
and Development (ORD), EPA, to provide to
the members of the subcommittee background
information on the initiatives he had discussed
during his presentation.
• A recommendation that the Executive Council
of the NEJAC request the EPA Administrator
initiate a program to train middle managers of
Federal agencies in ways to incorporate the
principles of environmental justice into their
day-to-day work.
• A recommendation that the Executive Council
recommend that the U.S. Department of
Education be included on the IWG.
• A recommendation that DoD create an
environmental justice office.
Ms. Shepard announced that the subcommittee
had suggested that she attend an upcoming
conference on genetics in September 2001 and
report to the subcommittee on the conference at
the December 2001 meeting.
Mr. Goldtooth suggested that the Health and
Research Subcommittee include the Indian Health
Service (IHS) in its request to the EPA
Administrator for documentation of ways in which
Federal agencies can collaborate to provide
health-based services to low-income and minority
communities.
Dr. Payton then announced that the subcommittee
had been invited to participate in the
Environmental Justice Summit to be held in April
2001. She also reported that the subcommittee
would provide to Ms. Pattey Lovera, Center for
Health Environment and Justice, information about
the building of schools on contaminated soil.
Dr. Payton concluded her report by providing an
update on the Decision Tree Framework that was
under development by the subcommittee. She
announced that she had made a presentation on
the Decision Tree Framework to ORD on the
preceding Friday.
1-48
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
5.4 Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
Mr. Goldtooth reported on the activities of the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee. He first read a
written statement by retiring subcommittee
member Mr. Brad Hamilton, State of Kansas
Native American Affairs Office. The letter
expressed Mr. Hamilton's appreciation for having
been able to serve as a member of the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee. In the letter, Mr. Hamilton
stated, "It has been my great honor and privilege to
have walked among these leaders of
environmental justice."
Mr. Goldtooth explained that the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee had focused its
deliberations on the theme of interagency
collaboration and as such had invited
representatives of several agencies to discuss how
the agencies ensure environmental justice in
Indian country. He explained that some of those
Federal agencies had policies and guidance in
place, while others did not. Mr. Goldtooth stated
that the discussions with the representatives of the
agencies had been very helpful to the
subcommittee when the subcommittee developed
its recommendations.
Mr. Goldtooth then listed the recommendations the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee had developed:
• Agencies should provide financial and
technical resources and training for tribes to
enhance awareness and understanding of
laws, regulations, and policies.
• Each agency should develop a system for
tracking environmental justice complaints so
that the agency can be held accountable for
responding equitably to tribal concerns and
needs.
• When the activities of Federal agencies are
coordinated, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation must be included as early as
possible in the planning stages.
• Ensure that Federal agencies are fully aware
of the Executive order on tribal colleges, as an
avenue of enlisting support for those
institutions.
Mr. Goldtooth concluded his report by
recommending that a meeting of the NEJAC be
held in Alaska so that the concerns of indigenous
peoples in that area can better be addressed. Mr.
Lee reminded Mr. Goldtooth that the December
2001 meeting of the NEJAC was to be held in
Seattle, Washington and that one of the primary
purposes of that meeting would be a discussion of
tribal issues. Mr. Goldtooth stated that that
approach was unsatisfactory because many
indigenous people do not have the funds to travel.
He also stressed the importance of more extensive
involvement of Native Americans in EPA and
questioned the criteria used to define who is a
Native American. Ms. Shepard than asked for
information and the percentages by ethnicity and
race among staff of EPA. She also requested
information about the locations in which meetings
of the NEJAC had been held in the past so it could
be determined whether all regions had hosted one
or more of those meetings.
Ms. Jaramillo then requested information about the
representation of minorities on Federal advisory
committees. The response indicated that such
information is not available, but information about
that representation by stakeholder group is
available. Ms. Ramos expressed her concern that
many FACA committees are "saturated" with
representatives of industry. Mr. Lee stated that the
DFOs and those who oversee the charters of such
committees had engaged in dialogue about how to
increase diversity in their membership, both
racially and in representation of stakeholder
groups. Mr. Lee stated he would provide
information about the issue to the Executive
Council. Mr. Turrentine said that the NEJAC
should take on the responsibility of identifying
appropriate individuals, as well as the appropriate
federal advisory committees for them to serve on.
5.5 International Subcommittee
Mr. Saldamando reported on the activities of the
International Subcommittee. Mr. Salamando
asked that the Executive Council of the NEJAC
approve the subcommittee's proposal that it send
a letter to the EPA Administrator about the
subcommittee's proposed recommendation related
to "Plan Colombia." He explained that the
subcommittee was requesting a general policy
statement on the part of the NEJAC that sets forth
the reasons the United States should not provide
financing for aerial fumigation of drug crops with
chemical herbicides that pose a serious threat to
the health of indigenous peoples. The Executive
Council approved such a letter on the condition
that Mr. Whitehead meet with Mr. Salamando and
Ms. Jaramillo to review the document before it is
sent.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-49
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr. Saldamando then discussed the United
Nations World Conference Against Racism
(WCAR) and the Environment Position Paper.
The purpose of the conference scheduled to be
held in South Africa in 2001, he said, was to
promote all peoples' right to a clean and healthy
environment by reducing and eliminating the
disproportionate share of adverse environmental
burdens placed on certain communities. Mr.
Salamando commented that the definition of the
word "stakeholder" set forth in the position paper is
not clear. EPA should offer a better definition, he
suggested, adding that the American definition of
the word may not be appropriate in an international
context.
Mr. Saldamando also explained that there had
been interest among members of the NEJAC in
sending a delegation to the conference, but the
attendance of such a delegation would not be
possible because the NEJAC is not viewed as a
national institution.
Mr. Saldamando then reviewed recommendations
and requests made during the meeting of the
subcommittee:
• A recommendation by Mr. Alan Hecht,
Principle Deputy Assistant Administrator EPA
Office of International Activities, that the United
States Trade Representative (USTR)
acknowledge environmental review as part of
the trade agreement decision process.
• A request on the part of the subcommittee that
its members participate in follow-up dialogues
with the U.S. Department of State and the
USTR on issues related to trade and the
environment.
• A request that EPA provide to the members of
the subcommittee a list of non-government
organizations that usually attend various
meetings at which proposals for loans to
multinational development organizations are
reviewed.
• A recommendation that the USTR invite and
include all stakeholders in discussions of
issues related to trade and the environment.
• A request that EPA explain why the current
legal memorandum on statutory authorities to
implement environmental justice did not
include FIFRA, although earlier drafts had.
5.6 Puerto Rico Subcommittee
Mr. Carlos Padin, The Metropolitan University and
chair of the Puerto Rico Subcommittee, submitted
a memorandum to the NEJAC that reported on the
activities of the subcommittee. The memorandum
described the first meeting of the subcommittee
held on September 26 and 27, 2000 in Manati,
Puerto Rico. During that meeting, Ms. Marva King,
OEJ, had presented an orientation to the NEJAC,
highlighting background information and the
responsibilities of the council, and Ms. Linda
Smith, OEJ, had presented an overview of the
types of costs associated with the maintenance
and activities of the NEJAC.
The memorandum stated that Ms. Jeanne Fox,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2, had
welcomed all participants to the meeting and
discussed the history of the formation of the
subcommittee. The report described her
discussion of the status of the pending waivers in
Puerto Rico of requirements under section 301 (h)
of the CWA and request for the subcommittee's
advice on Region 2's interim guidance on
environmental justice. Mr. Terry Wesley,
Environmental Justice Coordinator, EPA Region 2,
had discussed the interim guidance in more detail,
and Mr. Carl-Axel Soderberg, Director of the EPA
Caribbean Environmental Protection Division
(CEPD), had given an overview of environmental
conditions in Puerto Rico, continued the report.
On the evening of September 26, the
subcommittee had held a public comment period
that was attended by more than 40 people, the
report continued, noting that comments offered
had covered a wide range of issues, including
concerns about public participation, solid waste,
and the continued bombing at Vieques Island,
Puerto Rico.
On Wednesday, September 27, the subcommittee
had focused on next steps. The members of the
subcommittee had decided to form five work
groups to address on the following areas: (1)
public participation, (2) water quality, (3) solid
waste, (4) air quality, and (5) Vieques Island, said
the report. Members also had agreed to discuss
the EPA Region 2 interim guidance and strategic
plan for environmental justice. Subsequently,
during a conference call on October 16, 2000, the
members of the subcommittee decided to
postpone the formation of the work groups and
focus on a review of the public participation
process, continued the report.
1-50
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
On November 14, 2000, the report continued, the
subcommittee had met with Mr. Wesley and Mr.
Jose Font, Deputy Director, CEPD, to discuss the
region's interim guidance on environmental justice
and the environmental justice analyses conducted
to support the evaluation of the NPDES permits
and 301(h) waivers.
The report stated in conclusion that the
subcommittee had expressed concern about
anticipated changes in its membership as a result
of the outcome of the election in Puerto Rico.
Members expected that four positions on the
subcommittee would become vacant in January;
the subcommittee therefore was searching for
candidates and nominating them to EPA,
concluded the report.
5.7 Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Ms. Miller-Travis reported on the activities of the
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee.
She reported that the subcommittee had engaged
in an active discussion, in which Mr. Fields and Mr.
Steven Luftig, Acting Deputy Assistant
Administrator, OSWER, had participated. The
subcommittee meeting had included a two-hour
review of land use planning issues, an update on
the status of EPA's brownfields program, a report
on the Responsible Care® initiative from a
representative of industry, and a report on SEPs.
The subcommittee heard presentations by
representatives of communities faced with
concerns about issues related to exposure to
contaminants, including a representative of the
Vieques Island community in Puerto Rico and
Reverend Dias of Freetown, Massachusetts, said
Ms. Miller-Travis.
The subcommittee then heard updates by
representatives of EPA Region 4 on the Anniston,
Alabama PCB site, EPA Region 6 on delegated
authority and enforcement activities, and OSWER
on the Agency's policy on relocation under
Superfund.
Ms. Miller-Travis stated that the subcommittee had
concluded the day's deliberations with a discussion
of the Federal environmental justice demonstration
projects pertinent to the subcommittee. The three
projects reviewed by the subcommittee, she
reported, were the Spartanburg, South Carolina
project, the East Saint Louis, Illinois program, and
the Bridges to Friendship Program in Washington,
D.C.
Ms. Travis-Miller then discussed the action items
adopted by the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee during its meeting. The members
of the subcommittee agreed to develop an
environmental justice paradigm for land use
planning, she reported. To do so, she continued,
the subcommittee would: (1) develop a best-
practices manual on the environmental justice
implications of local land use decisions related to
the siting of waste management facilities; (2)
identify implementation issues associated with land
use and environmental justice; and (3) develop a
resource guide on land use planning issues. The
subcommittee agreed to develop a work plan for
discussions to be conducted during a conference
call to be held in January 2001 as a first step in
implementing the land use framework, continued
Ms. Miller-Travis.
The subcommittee conducted a thorough
discussion of the Superfund program, reported Ms.
Miller-Travis, but, more important, the
subcommittee received an update on actions
related to the recommendations set forth in its
1996 report on environmental justice and
brownfields redevelopment. She reported that Ms.
Linda Garczynski, OSWER, had presented an
extensive report on the status of the brownfields
program. In her presentation, Ms. Garczynski had
stated that the program is a direct example of how
the NEJAC has affected the outcome of
enforcement issues within the Agency, said Ms.
Miller-Travis.
Ms. Miller-Travis reported that the members of the
subcommittee also had discussed the Superfund
program. Action items resulting from that
discussion included:
• A request that OSWER provide to the
subcommittee, a copy of the brownfields
revitalization legislation currently before the
United States Senate and all relevant
correspondence about it.
• The recommendation that representatives of
the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection and members of the
Freetown community meet with EPA Region 1,
representatives of OSWER, and staff of the
Office of the Attorney General of
Massachusetts to discuss ways to resolve
environmental justice issues affecting the
Freetown community.
• The recommendation that, in the case of
Vieques, Puerto Rico, the NEJAC Federal
Facilities Working Group examine as a case
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-51
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
study the continued bombing of the island;
that other Federal agencies, especially
DoD and its military components, be asked to
join EPA in a further investigation of
community concerns; that Region 2 identify its
community activities more clearly to the
affected community; and that there will be
ongoing followup with EPA Region 2, OSWER,
and the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee on activities related to Vieques.
6.0 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
This section summarizes the discussion on the
role of the NEJAC as a provider of advice and
acknowledges those members of the NEJAC
whose terms have expired.
6.1 Clarification of the Role of the NEJAC as a
Provider of Advice to the EPA
Administrator
In light of Mr. Hill's presentation on the
environmental justice policy memorandum (see
Section 4.2 of this chapter), the members of the
Executive Council of the NEJAC agreed to deviate
from its agenda to focus on clarifying the role of
the NEJAC as a provider of advice to the EPA
Administrator. The NEJAC requested that either
Mr. Barry E. Hill or Mr. Steven Herman return on
Thursday to discuss in more detail the role of the
NEJAC. Mr. Lee assured the members that the
Agency considers the NEJAC an advisory
committee, but stated that the definition of a
federal advisory committee needs to be clarified
and that this discussion should be continued
tomorrow. Because of Mr. Hill's illness, Mr.
Herman agreed to meet with the NEJAC.
At a special session on December 14, Mr.
Turrentine thanked Mr. Herman for returning to
meet with the NEJAC, adding that it is important
for the NEJAC to have an audience with upper
management of EPA who can address concerns
such as those expressed by the members of the
Executive Council. Mr. Lee explained that Mr.
Herman had been engaged actively in the activities
of the NEJAC and that he is a "friend to
environmental justice."
Mr. Herman first stated that he had not hesitated to
attend the meeting because of his respect for the
members of the NEJAC and his pride in the work
EPA and the NEJAC had completed together. He
then stated that he "desperately" wishes to see
that work continue; therefore, he said, he was
eager to hear and resolve the concerns of the
Executive Council. Mr. Herman stated that
disagreements occur, but the one shared value of
environmental justice should not be forgotten. He
then opened the floor to discussion.
Mr. Herman responded to the questions raised by
explaining that the NEJAC is a federal advisory
committee (commonly referred to as a FACA
committee); therefore; its role is to advise the
Agency on all matters about which the Agency
requests its views, he said. The Agency, he
continued, is not required to ask for advise on
every policy, but that fact does not preclude the
council from offering its views in other contexts.
He explained that the environmental justice policy
memorandum had been prepared at the requests
of EPA's regional offices. The memorandum was
not a final version and had not been reviewed by
entities outside the Agency, he continued. Mr.
Herman repeatedly assured the NEJAC that it was
not the intention of the Agency to exclude
stakeholders, including the NEJAC. Ms. Jaramillo
supported Mr. Herman, stating that she had
spoken with many representatives of industry and
that those individuals had not seen the guidance.
In response to the question of why the NEJAC
could not examine the environmental justice policy
memorandum. Mr. Herman explained that the
document was not complete and that he wanted to
consult his staff before making the decision to
release the document for comment. Continuing,
he stated that the document is an "internal road
map" of information the regional offices had
requested. Mr. Herman stated that, if the
members of the NEJAC truly believe they were
being treated differently from members of other
FACAs, as Dr. Gelobter had stated, that issue
would require further examination. Mr. Aragon
then stated that, since the document was not
complete, the time would be opportune for the
NEJAC to provide its comments. Ms. Jaramillo
explained that she thought the process by which
the guidance had been developed differed from
that by which guidances had been developed in
the past. She explained that, usually, the guidance
would have been posted to a web site by its
current stage of development. It would be better to
seek advice while the document is in draft form,
rather than risking the kind of "firestorm" the Title
VI guidance had engendered, she observed.
Ms. Augustine expressed her opinion that, after
seven years, EPA still does not understand the
concept of environmental justice. She stated that
she believed that the Executive Council had "lost
the NEJAC to EPA." She explained that it was her
desire to hear from communities, adding the
suggestion that the public comment period held by
1-52
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
the NEJAC during its meetings should be made
more "user-friendly" to accommodate the public.
Mr. Herman responded that the public currently
had more direct access to EPA and to EPA's
approach to policy than had been the case in the
past.
Mr. Herman agreed to take the issue under
advisement, meet with his staff, and get back to
the NEJAC within two weeks with a decision on
how to proceed. Mr. Lee announced that a copy of
the slides used in Mr. Hill's presentation would be
distributed to the NEJAC and that a conference
call would be arranged to discuss this "very
important issue."
(Note: Subsequent to the meeting, a special
meeting of the Executive Council was convened to
meet with EPA and discuss the NEJAC's role as a
federal advisory committee, and how best to make
recommendations to the Agency on this issue.)
6.2 Acknowledgments
Mr. Lee announced that OEJ would recognize and
honor members of the NEJAC whose terms were
expiring on December 31, 2000. He also
expressed his appreciation to Mr. Turrentine for
managing the deliberations of the Executive
Council of the NEJAC. Mr. Turrentine then
thanked the chairs of the subcommittees for their
hard work. He stated that his experience as chair
of the Executive Council had been an "incredible
experience." He then asked the NEJAC to
continue its hard work for its constituents. He also
expressed his respect for Ms. Shepard, for her
support as vice-chair of the Executive Council.
Exhibit 1-13 presents the names of the retiring
members of the NEJAC.
Mr. Lee presented, on behalf of OEJ, a plaque to
Timothy Fields, Jr., the Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, for his
commitment and leadership in the area of
environmental justice. Noting that he first met Mr.
Fields in 1988, Mr. Lee commented that they have
worked on many different projects. The plaque
read:
"For Outstanding Leadership and Tireless
Dedication to the Pursuit of Environmental
Justice For All."
Mr. Lee also recognized the following individuals:
• Ms. Mindy Lubber, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 1
Exhibit 1-13
RETIRING MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY
COUNCIL
Retiring members of the National En vironmen tal
Justice Advisory Council
Mr. Don Aragon
Dr. Bunyan Bryant
Mr. Luke Cole
Ms. Claudia Cuykendall
Mr. Delbert DuBois
Mr. TomGoldtooth
Ms. Beth Hailstock
Mr. Brad Hamilton
Mr. Michael Holmes
Mr. Charles Miller
Ms. Lillian Mood
Dr. Marinelle Payton
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos
Ms. Brenda Lee Richardson
Mr. Gerald Torres
Mr. Haywood Turrentine
Mr. Damon Whitehead
Ms. Jeanne Fox, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 2
Mr. William Muszynski, Deputy Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 2
Mr. Francis Lyons, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 5
Ms. Gail Ginsburg, General Counsel, EPA
Region 5
Mr. Gregg Cooke, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 6
Mr. Jerry Clifford, Deputy Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 6
Mr. William Yellowtail, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 8
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
1-53
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• Mr. Jack McGraw, Deputy Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 8
• Ms. Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9
• Mr. William Sanders, Director, Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA
OPPTS
• Ms. Linda Garczynski, Director, Office of
Outreach and Special Projects, EPA OSWER
• Ms. Clarice Gaylord, the former Director of the
Office of Environmental Justice
Mr. Hill then presented an award to Mr. Lee. The
plaque read,
"The United States Environmental
Protection Agency, the Office of
Environmental Justice, recognizes Charles
Lee for his visionary work in pursuing
environmental justice for all Americans
regardless of race, ethnicity, or economic
status. Presented at the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Meeting December 11, 2000."
Calling Mr. Lee a genius, Mr. Hill explained that
Mr. Lee is a "true visionary because his genius
allowed him to perceive things in an 'unhabitual'
way." Mr. Lee has had a unique role in why we are
all gathered here today, he continued. Pointing to
the 1987 United Church of Christ report "Toxic
Waste and Race in the United States," authored by
Mr. Lee, Mr. Hill called attention to three
recommendations made in that report he said
demonstrated the "genius" of Mr. Lee.
• Calling upon the President to issue an
Executive Order mandating that all Executive
Branch Agencies access and consider the
impact of their current policies and regulations
on racial and ethnic communities and to take
such considerations into account when
establishing new policies and promulgating
new regulations. Executive Order 12898,
which also established the Interagency
Working Group, was issued on February 11,
1994.
• Calling for EPA to immediately establish an
Office of Hazardous Waste and Racial and
Ethnic Affairs to address the problems in those
communities by monitoring the cleanup of
uncontrolled sites, as well as the siting of new
hazardous waste facilities to ensure that
adequate consideration is given to the racial
and socioeconomic characteristics of these
potential host communities. In 1991, EPA
established the Office of Environmental Equity,
the predecessor to OEJ.
• Calling for EPA to establish a national advisory
council on racial and ethnic concerns to be
comprised of recommendation from African-
American, Hispanic-American, Asian-
American, Pacific Islander, and American
Indian communities. The purpose of this
council was to provide ongoing advice to EPA
on crucial environment issues and to facilitate
the dissemination of information on these
issues to those communities. The NEJAC was
established in 1993.
Mr. Lee also recognized several senior EPA
managers who were in attendance at the meeting.
Stating that their very attendance at the meeting
demonstrated the commitment of senior EPA
managers to the issue of environmental justice and
to the importance in which they hold NEJAC, he
noted that such a commitment is critical toward
making sure that the collaboration with
stakeholders becomes a reality.
1-54
Arlington, Virginia, December 11, 12, and 14, 2000
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 13, 2000
Arlington, Virginia
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Alice Walker
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Co-Designated Federal Official
Wil Wilson Annabelle Jaramillo
Office of Air and Radiation Chair
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Co-Designated Federal Official
-------
CHAPTER THREE
SUMMARY 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 13, 2000, during a four-day meeting of
the NEJAC in Arlington, Virginia. Ms. Annabelle
Jaramillo, Citizens' Representative, Oregon Office
of the Governor and former vice chair of the
subcommittee, assumed the role of chair. Ms.
Alice Walker, Office of Water (OW), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Dr.
Wil Wilson, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR),
EPA, 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 six sections, including this
Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks, summarizes
the opening remarks of the new and former chairs
of the 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
the questions asked and comments offered by
members of the subcommittee. Section 4.0,
Activities of the Subcommittee, summarizes the
discussions of the activities of the subcommittee,
such as the progress of the four work groups of
the subcommittee. Section 5.0, Summary of
Dialogue on Environmental Justice, features
discussions that occurred during the open dialogue
period of the subcommittee meeting, including
comments offered by representatives of OAR and
OW about the future of environmental justice at
EPA under the upcoming Administration of
President-elect George W. Bush. Section 6.0,
Significant Action Items, summarizes the action
items adopted by the subcommittee.
2.0 REMARKS
Ms. Jaramillo opened the subcommittee meeting
by welcoming the members present and Ms.
Walker and Dr. Wilson to the fourth meeting of the
Air and Water Subcommittee. Ms. Jaramillo then
asked the members of the subcommittee,
presenters, and members of the audience to
introduce themselves.
Exhibit 3-1
AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 13, 2000
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo, Chair
Ms. Alice Walker, co-DFO
Dr. Wil Wilson, co-DFO
Dr. Bunyan Bryant
Ms. Daisy Carter
Ms. Clydia Cuykendall
Ms. Eileen Gauna
Dr. Michel Gelobter
Dr. Daniel Greenbaum
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos
Mr. Leonard Robinson
Mr. Damon Whitehead
Ms. Marianne Yamaguchi
Member Who Was Unable To Attend
Dr. Elaine Barron
Ms. Jaramillo distributed updated contact
information for the members of the subcommittee.
She then introduced Ms. Eileen Gauna, Professor
of Law, Southwestern University School of Law,
who was attending her first meeting as a new
member of the subcommittee. Ms. Clydia
Cuykendall, JC Penney, noted that the list of points
of contact should indicate that this was to be her
last meeting as a member of the subcommittee.
Dr. Michel Gelobter, Graduate Department of
Public Administration, Rutgers University, and
former chair of the subcommittee, explained that
he had decided to relinquish his role as chair after
the May 2000 meeting of the NEJAC because he
felt overburdened by his personal and professional
responsibilities. He thanked Ms. Jaramillo for
taking over the chair.
Mr. Robert Brenner, Acting Deputy Assistant
Administrator, OAR, complimented Dr. Gelobter
for his efforts and accomplishments during the two
years he served as chair. Mr. Brenner stated that
many activities carried out by the subcommittee
would be important to EPA in the upcoming years,
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
3-1
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
including its work on issues related to the
concentration and combination of toxic pollutants
in communities and outreach to communities. Ms.
Dana Minerva, Deputy Assistant Administrator,
OW, also expressed her appreciation to the
members of the subcommittee for their efforts.
She added that, as a political appointee, she was
attending her last meeting of the NEJAC in her
current capacity. She urged the subcommittee to
continue working to ensure that certain
communities are not affected disproportionately by
pollution, regardless of the political atmosphere.
Dr. Gelobter remarked that it would be useful for
the subcommittee to hear the views of Mr. Brenner
and Ms. Minerva about policies that EPA could be
expected to pursue during the six weeks before
the presidential inauguration that may help in the
struggle for environmental justice. He suggested
as well that they share their views on the future of
environmental justice at EPA under the Bush
Administration. Ms. Jaramillo agreed with
Dr. Gelobter that the subcommittee would benefit
from hearing the views of Mr. Brenner and Ms.
Minerva input during the open dialogue portion of
the subcommittee meeting.
Ms. Jaramillo concluded the opening remarks by
reviewing the agenda and inviting members of the
audience to ask questions during the open
dialogue period.
3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes presentations made and
reports submitted to the Air and Water
Subcommittee about EPA OAR's asthma initiative
and its Guidance for Reducing Toxic Loadings.
3.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation's Asthma
Initiative
Mr. David Rowson, Director, Center for Healthy
Buildings, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, OAR,
provided information about the agency's asthma
initiative. He described (1) current EPA research
on the asthma epidemic and its effect on
communities grappling with issues related to
environmental justice, (2) challenges in addressing
asthma in such communities, and (3) EPA
programs related to asthma outreach and
prevention.
Mr. Rowson noted that, while there also are
ambient air issues related to asthma, his
presentation would focus on the effect of indoor air
on those who suffer from asthma. Explaining that
asthma is a chronic inflammation of the airways
that can lead to numerous health problems, he
reported that current statistics show that more than
17 million people in the United States have been
diagnosed with asthma. Mr. Rowson commented
that, despite those numbers, the medical diagnosis
of "chronic inflammation" and the statistics
associated with the asthma epidemic are in flux.
He then stated that, although asthma occurs in all
populations at similar rates, (1) African Americans
and Hispanic Americans are six times more likely
than Caucasians to die of complication of asthma;
(2) rates of emergency room visits are four times
higher among African Americans than among
Caucasians; and (3) African American children
who live in urban communities in which the highest
levels of ozone are found exhibit the highest rate of
emergency room visits for asthma.
Mr. Rowson listed several challenges associated
with the effort to address asthma. Lack of access
to health care, misdiagnosis, and lack of
awareness about the symptoms of asthma often
cause underestimation of the actual number of
cases of asthma, he said. Further, he added,
many people who have asthma are following a
comprehensive asthma management plan. These
plans may not provide adequate health care due to
certain barriers. Such barriers include time,
money, and access, he explained, adding that
managed care organizations - including Medicaid
and Medicare - may not offer asthma case
management. Mr. Rowson noted that another
challenge associated with the effort to reduce
asthma rates is competing priorities. Individuals
may not have the time or money to deal with the
symptoms of asthma, he said. Mr. Rowson then
reported that, in some Hispanic populations, being
diagnosed with asthma often is regarded as a sign
of weakness. When priorities for infrastructure
resources are examined, other issues that may
compete with asthma include the need to eradicate
gun violence and the effort to reduce rates of
teenage pregnancy.
Ms. Gauna remarked that it appears that there are
two principal parts to EPA's asthma initiative:
(1) awareness and education and (2) the effort to
address indoor air quality. She asked Mr. Rowson
whether EPA has developed strategies to actually
improve indoor air quality. She also asked for a
discussion of the agency's efforts to improve the
quality of ambient outdoor air.
Mr. Rowson referred inquiries about EPA's outdoor
air efforts to others in OAR who work in the area of
ambient air quality. On the subject of indoor air, he
stated that most of the $5 million program was
3-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
focused on efforts in homes and schools because
that is where children most likely will be affected.
In homes, EPA primarily is educating individuals
and families about managing the home
environment to reduce indoor conditions that can
trigger an attack, he explained. Lessons include a
proper medical regime, what to do in emergency
situations, and how to avoid things that will trigger
an attack. For schools, EPA is working with the
American Lung Association and other partners to
improve general air quality in classrooms,
explained Mr. Rowson. He added that, at the
Federal level, voluntary programs to improve
indoor air quality also are under development.
Exhibit 3-2 describes EPA Indoor Environments
Asthma Program. He observed that EPA was
supporting efforts by states to adopt requirements
for the improvement of indoor air quality.
Ms. Gauna asked whether there are specific
strategies to reduce the occurrence of asthma
triggers in schools, specifically through mitigation
and intervention. Mr. Rowson responded that
good ventilation and source reduction strategies
are encouraged because such approaches reduce
the proliferation of molds and remove irritants.
Ms. Daisy Carter, Director, Project AWAKE, asked
whether asthma is caused by industrial emissions
or is hereditary. She also requested a list of
Federal and state agencies and non-government
organizations that have conducted or are
conducting research and outreach related to
asthma. Mr. Rowson acknowledged that there are
several theories about the cause of asthma, which
range from obesity to growing up in an
environment that is "too clean," thereby limiting the
development of the immune system to
environmental irritants, tobacco smoke, and
exposure to dust mites. He admitted that there is
more understanding of the triggers of asthma than
its causes. Mr. Rowson agreed to provide the list
of agencies and organizations to the
subcommittee, adding that new organizations are
being formed constantly, especially at the state
and local level.
Dr. Daniel Greenbaum, Health Effects Institute,
commented that his organization had conducted
significant research on asthma. He reported that
many outdoor pollutants exacerbate the effects of
asthma. As a follow-up to Ms. Gauna's question
about work in schools, Mr. Greenbaum reported
that studies that track populations in school
systems located both near and distant from trucks
and diesel traffic have shown conclusively that the
incidence of asthma attacks is higher among those
nearer to emissions sources. Mr. Greenbaum
added that, throughout much of the United States,
schools were the last to see the installation of air
conditioning systems, which stop the inflow of
outdoor air.
Dr. Gelobter asked about examples of interagency
activity related to address asthma triggers,
especially any activity having an environmental
justice aspect. Mr. Rowson responded that EPA is
working with other agencies, including the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
the National Asthma Education Project (NAEP).
He explained that NAEP is an entity under which
many Federal agencies work together to address
issues related to asthma. He added that inherent
in all those efforts is an environmental justice
theme because the agencies recognize that
members of environmental justice communities
suffer from asthma at a rate disproportionate to
their number in the overall population. However,
he acknowledged that NAEP has not established
an environmental justice coordinating committee.
3.2 Guidance for Reducing Toxic Loadings
Ms. Jeneva Craig, Office of Policy Analysis and
Review, OAR, provided an update on the Agency's
proposed guidance for reducing the levels of toxics
in a community. She noted that comments on the
guidance that were provided by the NEJAC and
various stakeholders identified three primary
concerns:
• Incentives are necessary to encourage
communities to develop toxic reduction plans
voluntary.
• EPA must provide more direction for
developing a toxic emissions inventory and
setting a baseline for tracking progress.
• Provisions of the guidance must be tested
through pilot studies.
Ms. Craig noted that the goal of the Guidance for
Reducing Toxic Loadings is to encourage
establishment of goals for reductions at the
beginning of the planning process. She
acknowledge that OAR's efforts were in an early
stage. She reported that, at the next meeting of
the NEJAC, her office planned to work with OW to
discuss particulate matter being transferred from
air to water, monitoring requirements, and ideas
for educational activities.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
3-3
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 3-2
EPA INDOOR ENVIRONMENTS ASTHMA PROGRAM
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Indoor Environments Asthma Program features a National
Awareness and Education Campaign that involves a national advertising campaign to increase awareness about
asthma and how to manage its symptoms effectively. The initiative seeks to identify and replicate the most effective
asthma programs that already are in place. Under the program, EPA is directing resources to programs that exhibit a
positive track record related to the prevention and management of asthma. The program incorporates partnerships
with national, state, and community-based efforts associated with environmental justice populations. Because one
activity may not be suitable for all populations, EPA is establishing partnerships with entities that can reach target
audiences.
The national advertising campaign involves a multimedia approach and a partnership with the Ad Council.
Advertisements are being pilot-tested in urban Hispanic and African American communities in New York, New
York; Chicago, Illinois; Miami, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and New Haven, Connecticut. The posters and public
service announcements, which are available in both Spanish and English, encourage people to actively manage their
asthma on a daily basis. Members of affected communities were asked to comment on the design of the ads, and a
number of their suggestions were incorporated. Information hotlines also have been established in the pilot cities.
Other partnerships supported by EPA that target asthma in environmental justice communities include:
• San Francisco, California, Department of Health emergency room education and follow-up program: The
program strives to match asthma patients with a respiratory care therapist who will advise them how to manage
their asthma daily and follow up on their cases three to six months later to track the patents' progress. The
program is being developed in partnership with the American Respiratory Care Foundation and includes a
significant evaluation component for measuring the success of the program.
• The Children's Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in-home asthma education and management program:
Developed in conjunction with the Bureau of Primary Health Care, an arm of Philadelphia's Health and Human
Services, the program provides medical services to the underserved and uninsured; educates patients in the
management of asthma; works with patients to provide services, rather than dispensing medication; and focuses
on establishing durable daily practices and limiting exposure to indoor triggers.
Programs aimed at reducing school-related asthma include:
• National Organization of Black County Officials pilot study in communities in Mississippi, Alabama, and
Louisiana: The goal of the program is to build awareness of issues related to asthma in communities and to
encourage schools to adopt better indoor air practices.
• Open Airways Program developed by the American Lung Association: The program is designed to reach out to
and work with minority communities to improve air quality in schools.
Examples of awareness and education programs being implemented through the Hispanic media include:
• Hispanic Radio Network, Inc.: The network, an educational radio program, broadcasts advertisements about
asthma and presents novellas or short stories about people in real-life situations who must deal with asthma.
The Hispanic Radio Network also sponsored an information hotline on asthma.
• The National Council of LaRaza (LaRaza) program: In conjunction with EPA, LaRaza is working with
educators to provide health-care advice to Hispanic children and their parents. The effort is unique in that
instructional materials were developed in Spanish, rather than translated from English.
3-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
Ms. Craig commented that she had hoped to have
more revisions ready to submit to the
subcommittee for review, but, unfortunately, the
revisions were not ready in time to be submitted
during the meeting. She assured the members
that, over the coming year, she would work to
establish pilot programs to evaluate the guidance.
She stated that grants from EPA and other
sources would be used to support such efforts.
Ms. Craig also reported that, as part of a pilot
study, EPA was working with an air advisory
committee that had been established by Michael
R. White, Mayor of Cleveland, Ohio. The project
would examine both indoor and outdoor sources of
air pollution, she explained.
Ms. Gauna asked whether EPA had received any
comments on the relationship between the
proposed guidance for reducing toxic loadings and
EPA's guidance on addressing complaints filed
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She
also commented that it was not clear when the
guidance was to be announced in the Federal
Register. Ms. Craig responded that, as yet, there
had been no discussion of the announcement of
the proposed guidance in the Federal Register.
Continuing, she stated that the current focus was
on the conduct and evaluate of the pilot studies. In
terms of the relationship between the two guidance
policies, Ms. Craig acknowledged that both
guidances discuss area-specific agreements.
Mr. Damon Whitehead, Earth Conservation Corps,
asked how the toxics reduction program considers
Title VI violations. He requested clarification on
the role of the program in the analysis related to
Title VI. Stating that comparing the two programs
resembles comparing apples and oranges,
Mr. Whitehead said that Title VI pertains to
permitting, while the toxics reduction program
establishes incentives for reducing pollution. Mr.
Brenner acknowledged that, although compilation
of the guidance was conducted independently of
preparation of the Title VI guidance, the question
had been raised during the development of the
Title VI guidance whether mitigation efforts should
be considered in deciding if basic rights have been
violated. Mr. Whitehead countered that either a
person's rights have been violated or they have
not; it is a clear-cut issue, he declared. Mr.
Whitehead then stated that mitigation should be in
a part of the remedy; the issue is not whether the
violation occurred. Mr. Brenner stated that such
issues were being discussed.
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos, Community Leader,
Community of Catano Against Pollution, asked
whether it would be possible to establish a pilot
study in Puerto Rico. Ms. Craig responded that,
after the pilot study in Cleveland has been
completed, additional pilot studies were to be
initiated as more resources become available.
She said that the Agency would keep Puerto Rico
in mind as a candidate for a subsequent pilot
study.
4.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
This section discusses the activities of the
subcommittee, which included discussion of the
progress of the four work groups of the
subcommittee, the establishment of priorities
among the action items identified during the
October 2000 meeting of the subcommittee held to
discuss power plants in Puerto Rico, and
development of the mission statement of the
subcommittee.
4.1 Work Groups of the Subcommittee
Members of the Air and Water Subcommittee met
with their respective subcommittee work groups -
specifically, the work groups on Cumulative
Permitting, Fish Consumption, Public Utilities, and
Urban Air Toxics. A representative of each work
group then presented to the other members of the
subcommittee a status report on the progress of
that work group.
4.1.1 Work Group on Cumulative Permitting
The Work Group on Cumulative Permitting,
chaired by Ms. Cuykendall, discussed four primary
issues: (1) the draft guidance for reducing toxic
loadings prepared by OAR; (2) the revised Title VI
guidance prepared by EPA's Office of Civil Rights;
(3) the public participation requirements under the
Tier 2 Clean Fuels Initiative; and (4) White Paper
No. 3, a draft guidance on designing flexible air
permits prepared by OAR. Exhibit 3-3 defines the
Tier 2 initiative. The work group also noted that it
is awaiting EPA's issuance in the near future of
guidance on public participation.
Ms. Cuykendall stated that the Work Group on
Culmulative Permitting could be retained, except
that she suggested it might be appropriate to
revise its scope. Ms. Cuykendall commented that
it might be appropriate to dissolve the work group,
stating that another work group may be able to
assume the responsibilities of the current work
group. She reminded the subcommittee that the
work group had been convened to address issues
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
3-5
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
related to cumulative permitting. She identified two
issues that should be considered by the work
group:
• Federal requirements for issuing permits for
building schools, which had been discussed
during the public comment period held on the
previous evening.
• The framework for assessing the
environmental justice issues presented on the
previous day by Mr. Barry Hill, Director, EPA
Office of Environmental Justice. Ms.
Cuykendall emphasized that those individuals
who had expressed frustration and annoyance
because the NEJAC had not had the
opportunity to review the proposed national
policy guidance on environmental justice were
concerned about the process by which the
policy is being developed, rather than the
substance of the document. She stressed that
it was important that the work group focus on
substance.
Ms. Gauna, the only other subcommittee member
serving on the work group, stated that she was
shocked that issues related to air permitting do not
have a higher profile among the members of the
subcommittee. She stressed that, overwhelmingly,
environmental justice issues are permitting issues.
She stated that it was crucial to move "such issues
higher on the agenda," given the amount of
interest in it. Ms. Guana said that she would be
pleased to join the Work Group on Public Utilities if
the Work Group on Cumulative Permitting were
dissolved. She added, however, that she was
concerned that several significant permitting
issues, such as the Tier 2 Clean Fuels Initiative,
may not be appropriate subjects for a group that is
focused on public utilities to consider. She urged
that the subcommittee consider dealing with
permitting in a broader context than that of public
utilities. Ms. Gauna strongly recommended that
the work group be retained because EPA was to
undertake several significant initiatives during in
the upcoming year.
Ms. Gauna encouraged the expansion of the
subcommittee to include representatives of other
stakeholder groups. With Ms. Cuykendall leaving
the subcommittee, Ms. Gauna pointed out, she
herself would become the only remaining member
of the subcommittee serving on the work group.
Ms. Ramos urged that representatives of affected
communities be invited to participate in the work
group. Ms. Gauna stated that the work group
would continue to identify issues and comment on
EPA's approaches to permitting.
Exhibit 3-3
TIER 2 CLEAN FUELS INITIATIVE
In December 1999, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) announced new general
emission standards (Tier 2 standards) for passenger
cars, light trucks, and larger passenger vehicles. The
program focuses on reducing the emissions most
responsible for the ozone and the effect of particulate
matter from those vehicles. The program also will,
apply for the first time the same Federal standards to
all passenger cars, light trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles.
In addition, the Tier 2 Clean Fuels Initiative will
reduce average levels of gasoline sulfur emissions
nationwide. Refiners will install advanced refining
equipment to remove sulfur during the production of
gasoline. Importers of gasoline will be required to
import and market only gasoline that meets the sulfur
limits.
Ms. Gauna then summarized the work group's
discussions about the Tier 2 Clean Fuels Initiative,
on which Mr. William Harnett, Acting Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA
Region 4, had presented a status report for the
subcommittee. She stated that the requirements
may pose an unfair or disproportionate impact on
environmental justice communities. According to
Ms. Gauna, Mr. Harnett had announced that an
information disclosure process was to be
established that will provide to agencies
information on where there will be access on a
county-by-county basis. In terms of baseline
information, she continued, EPA will examine
information from counties about local emissions
from mobile sources. An evaluation of how
emissions may change in light of the Tier 2 Clean
Fuels Initiative then can be performed, she said.
Ms. Gauna noted that Mr. Harnett had stated that
educational programs would be developed to
inform communities about the permitting process.
There had been little discussion of Title VI
because the NEJAC as a whole, had commented
on the guidance, Ms. Gauna reported. The U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) had taken the
position that it cannot involve itself in Title VI
complaints until EPA makes a finding of disparate
impact in response to an administrative complaint.
Ms. Gauna stated that the alternative to
involvement on the part of DOJ is private litigation.
She reported that the Title VI guidance likely would
not be reissued until summer 2001.
3-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
Ms. Gauna then discussed White Paper No. 3, a
draft guidance on allowing flexibility in permitting
under the Title V Operating Permits Program that
was prepared by EPA OAR. Exhibit 3-4 describes
the draft guidance. Ms. Gauna emphasized that
the guidance is a significant initiative of the agency
that requires the immediate attention of the
subcommittee. She stated that the guidance
should be evaluated within the context of a pilot
project. There is some concern, she added, that
advance approvals of flexible permits will be
issued before new data on health effects become
available that may contradict the data on which
permit conditions were based.
4.1.2 Work Group on Fish Consumption
The subcommittee's Work Group on Fish
Consumption, chaired by Mr. Leonard Robinson,
TAMCO, had discussed two primary tasks for the
upcoming year: a review of EPA OW's National
Report on State Consistency, which addresses
issues related to fish consumption, and efforts
to provide significant influence in the planning of
the next NEJAC meeting, scheduled for December
3 through 6, 2001 in Seattle, Washington, which
will focus on risk communication and management
in environmental justice communities. The work
group plans to incorporate the views of the public
into the planning process for that meeting,
reported Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson conducted a discussion of the
activities of the work group that included a
conference call with individuals who had been
unable to attend the meeting. Other members of
the Air and Water Subcommittee who were
present during the discussion were Ms. Marianne
Yamaguchi, Director, Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Project; Ms. Carter; and Ms. Jaramillo.
Ms. Minerva, Ms. Walker, and Mr. Moses
Squeochs, Confederate Tribes and Bands of the
Yakama Nation and a member of the Indigenous
Peoples subcommittee, also attended the session.
Mr. Robinson then reported that the work group
had reviewed the preliminary agenda for the
December 2001 meeting of the NEJAC in Seattle
and identified 10 items to be incorporated into the
final agenda:
• Models of successful risk communication
efforts provided by various stakeholders.
• Consistency and adequacy of risk assessment
in fish consumption studies (the limiting factor
usually is resources, rather than policy).
Exhibit 3-4
WHITE PAPER NO. 3: DRAFT GUIDANCE ON
DESIGNING FLEXIBLE AIR PERMITS
On August 7, 2000, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Air and Radiation
(OAR) issued a draft guidance on designing flexible
permits for certain sources of air pollution. The
guidance provides to state and local permitting
authorities information about how to design flexible
permits for sources regulated under the Title V
Operating Permits Program. According to EPA,
flexible permits are intended for sources that make
frequent and quick operational changes, generally to
meet changes in market demand. Examples include
the pharmaceutical and computer industries.
While the draft guidance is not mandatory, it
encourages state and local permitting authorities to
use flexible permits when so allowed under
regulations and as resources and needs dictate. The
guidance does not exempt sources from fully
complying with the requirements of Title V of the
Clean Air Act.
A copy of the draft guidance is available at
.
• Case studies, including Columbia River,
Wilamette River Keeper, Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chesapeake Bay, Gulf
Program, St. Lawrence Basin, an Alaska
study, and a local Seattle study.
• Demonstration of applicable technologies,
including the use of geographic information
systems to map areas for which fish advisories
had been issued.
• Grant opportunities for research on fish
consumption in environmental justice
communities; grants from all Federal agencies
that are related to fish consumption,
specifically in environmental justice
communities; may be presented as a
workshop.
• Research on the health effects of fish
consumption in environmental justice
communities, including studies of minor,
major, and long-term effects.
• Prevention and intervention strategies and
cultural issues.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
3-7
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• A video, PowerPoint, or poster presentation,
developed with the support of the Region 10
Tribal Conference to replace a site tour that
may present logistics problems.
• Remediation technologies - remedies and
solutions.
• Regulatory approaches - the air and water
program, total maximum daily loads, quantities
of fish, and multimedia approaches.
4.1.3 Work Group on Public Utilities
The Work Group on Public Utilities, chaired by Dr.
Greenbaum, had discussed three potential action
items, presented by Dr. Greenbaum, for the work
group, specifically:
• Development of a guide for environmental
justice communities that provides emissions
data and information about the enforcement
status of both new and existing facilities.
• Review of four legislative bills intended to
reduce emissions further.
• Review of Federal government programs that
examine demand efficiency and management.
The work group also urged that Puerto Rico must
be considered during all discussions related to
public utilities, reported Dr. Greenbaum.
Dr. Greenbaum commented that the work group
was relatively new and still was organizing. Other
members of the subcommittee who participated in
the work group were Dr. Gelobter and Ms. Ramos.
Mr. Greenbaum had expressed agreement with
Ms. Gauna that it is difficult for the work group to
make informed recommendations when some
stakeholders are not represented during its
discussions. He expressed his support for the
approach taken by the Work Group on Fish
Consumption, which provided a conference call for
individuals who were unable to attend the meeting.
Dr. Greenbaum state that he agreed with Ms.
Gauna that permitting is part of a much larger
issue. He stated that there are two drivers to the
permitting concerns related to public utilities: (1) a
series of changes, pressures, and trends, such as
deregulation, fluctuations in price, and concern
about existing coal-fired facilities, most of which
are near or in urban areas, in the public utilities
industry that have radical implications for
environmental justice communities and (2) the
siting of many smaller facilities in communities and
neighborhoods and the emergence of renewable
and cleaner resources.
Dr. Greenbaum had stated that the work group
should obtain from EPA: (1) data on existing
public utilities, including the number, locations, and
enforcement status and (2) summaries of four
proposed legislative bills intended to reduce
emissions further. Continuing, Mr. Robinson
reported that Dr. Greenbaum then had stated that
the work group's inquiry into the four proposed bills
was intended primarily to support an analysis of
the bills, rather than to be an effort to lobby
Congress.
4.1.4 Work Group on Urban Air Toxics
The Work Group on Urban Air Toxics of the
subcommittee, chaired by Mr. Whitehead, who
also reported on the discussion held by the group,
had discussed four primary issues. Mr. Whitehead
described those issues as follows:
• Results of EPA's National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) national-scale
assessment, a report which is to be issued in
early 2001.
• Information needed by the work group about
the Agency's urban air toxics monitoring
strategy.
• The structure of state, local, and tribal (S/L/T)
programs that deal with urban air toxics.
• The anticipated EPA diesel retrofit program.
The national-scale assessment report, which is
under review by EPA's Science Advisory Board
and expected to be made final in early 2001,
presents data on emissions inventories and
ambient concentrations from four pilot cities
around the country: Raleigh, North Carolina;
Detroit, Michigan; Tampa, Florida; and Portland,
Oregon. Mr. Whitehead stated that the
subcommittee would be called upon to provide
comments when the report becomes available.
Exhibit 3-5 describes the NATA program.
Continuing, Mr. Whitehead commented that
representatives of EPA also had presented to the
work group a briefing on its air monitoring strategy
for urban areas. Mr. Whitehead stated that the
presenters had noted that, when data are lacking,
EPA uses modeling, adding that when actual data
are obtained, they often indicate that the modeled
emissions had overestimated the actual
emissions. The general consensus among
stakeholders about monitoring has been that
additional data are required to fill data gaps,
identify problem areas, and help develop better
3-8
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
Exhibit 3-5
NATIONAL AIR TOXICS ASSESSMENT
PROGRAM
The National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
program is one of four components identified in the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy to reduce air toxics. The NATA
program will help EPA identify areas of concern,
characterize risks, and track progress in achieving the
agency's overall goals for air toxics programs.
Activities under NATA include expansion of
monitoring, improvement in and periodic updating of
emissions inventories, improvement of air quality,
multi-media and exposure modeling, continued
research on health effects and exposures to both
ambient exposure and assessment tools. The
activities will provide EPA with improved
characterization of risk posed by air toxics and risk
reductions that are achieved through the imposition
of emissions control standards and the adoption of
initiatives for stationary and mobile-source
programs.
models, said Mr. Whitehead. He then noted that
the work group had requested that EPA OAR
provide information about how the Agency plans to
spend the $16 million it has allocated for
monitoring of air emissions under the urban air
toxics strategy.
Mr. Whitehead then described the process EPA
applied in drafting the integrated urban air toxics
strategy, which had been mandated by statute and
on which the NEJAC had provided comments. He
also announced that Mr. Christopher Stoneman,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
had replaced Ms. Laura McKelvey, OAR, as the
EPA point of contact for the urban air toxics
strategy. Noting that EPA had established a work
group made up of representatives of various
stakeholder groups, Mr. Whitehead stated that Dr.
Bunyan Bryant, Professor, School of Natural
Resources and Environment, University of
Michigan, and Dr. Elaine Barron, Paso Del Norte
Air Quality Task Force, also contributed to the
efforts of the EPA work group. He reported that
the work group was providing comments on
methods of structuring the urban air toxics
program to deal with risk. Exhibit 3-6 describes
the urban air toxics strategy.
Mr. Whitehead requested that the other members
of the subcommittee express their views about
how to proceed. For example, he said, the work
group needs assistance in identifying strategies to
determine how to reduce risk in urban areas. He
said that the national screening-level assessment
being conducted under NATA would be used as a
resource because it would help characterize risks
posed by air toxics nationwide by evaluating
potential health risks associated with inhalation
exposures to 33 hazardous air pollutants and
diesel particulate matter (PM). Mr. Whitehead
then stated emphatically that it was important that
the NEJAC have a role in developing the program.
Mr. Whitehead then reported that the work group
had discussed EPA's work plan for S/L/T
programs that deal with urban air toxics. The work
plan, he noted, had been developed in September
2000 by the Clean Air Act Advisory Council
(CAAAC). Dr. Barron and Dr. Bryant also had
been involved in the development of that work
plan, he added. Mr. Whitehead then explained
that the work plan describes in detail the types of
programs that S/L/T communities can develop
stated that it was anticipated that the work plan will
be final by February 2001. The Work Group on
Urban Air Toxics would provide comments on the
work plan, he announced.
The work group also had discussed the issue of
mobile sources compared with stationary sources,
Mr. Whitehead continued, adding that
implementation of the anticipated diesel retrofit
program, described in Exhibit 3-7, was expected
soon. The program, Mr. Whitehead observed,
would be of great significance for the NEJAC and
environmental justice communities. Mr.
Whitehead stated that the subcommittee should
obtain more information about the program and
urged that EPA promote it to urban communities.
He emphasized the importance of the
subcommittee's support for the voluntary diesel
retrofit program. Mr. Whitehead also noted that
the work group also had discussed the
involvement of local communities in the program.
While the work group had not made any
immediate recommendations or prepared any
resolutions to forward to the NEJAC, said Mr.
Whitehead, he anticipated that a need for a
resolution on the diesel rule would arise in the
upcoming year. Mr. Brenner responded that the
subcommittee might not have time to complete the
resolution process because the rule was to be
issued very shortly. However, suggested Mr.
Brenner, the subcommittee could focus on the
upcoming off-road diesel rule. Mr. Whitehead
agreed, adding that the work group also would
provide comments on the national-scale
assessment report when it is issued.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
3-9
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 3-6
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
INTEGRATED URBAN AIR TOXICS STRATEGY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy focuses on reducing the
threats to human health posed by toxic air pollutants in urban areas in which large numbers of people live and work
near a variety of sources of pollution. In the strategy, EPA outlines actions that it will take in the future to reduce
emissions of air toxics and improve its understanding of the health threats posed by air toxics in urban areas.
EPA's goal for the strategy includes the reduction of risks of cancer and noncancer health threats associated with air
toxics in urban areas. Several objectives of the strategy are:
• Reduce by 75 percent the risk of cancer associated with air toxics from both large and small commercial and
industrial sources.
• Substantially reduce noncancer health risks (such as birth defects) associated with air toxics from small
commercial and industrial sources.
• Address and prevent disproportionate effects of air toxics, such as those in areas known as "hot spots," and
effects on sensitive populations in urban areas, including children, the elderly, and members of minority or low-
income communities.
Exhibit 3-7
VOLUNTARY DIESEL RETROFIT PROGRAM
To address the nationwide concern about pollution
from diesel engines, EPA developed a program to
significantly reduce pollution from new diesel
engines. The program consists of a two-step
approach. First, EPA will set new emission standards
for diesel engines that will take effect in 2004. Then
the Agency will establish even more stringent
emission standards for diesel engines beginning in
2007, in combination with requiring the use of low
sulfur diesel fuel. However, because these rules will
not begin to take effect right away, EPA developed
the Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program to help make a
difference in the immediate future. The program will
address pollution from diesel construction equipment
and heavy-duty vehicles that are currently on the road
today.
Additional information on the voluntary diesel
retrofit program is available at
.
4.2 Power Plants in Puerto Rico
The subcommittee discussed the establishment of
priorities among action items identified during the
Air and Water Subcommittee meeting on power
plants in Puerto Rico that had been held in New
York, New York, on October 18, 2000. That
meeting had focused on air quality and human
health issues in the San Juan, Puerto Rico
metropolitan area, where such problems could
attributable to a variety of industrial and
commercial activities.
Ms. Ramos commented that the priorities of
communities had not been included among the
action items developed during the October
meeting. Speaking for such communities, she
stressed that their priorities are to urge industries
in Puerto Rico to use cleaner fuel that has a 0.5
percent sulfur content and supporting the
implementation of a requirement that urging that
the commonwealth to revise its state
implementation plan (SIP) to achieve a mass
emission limit of 0.1 pound per million British
thermal units (Btu).
Ms. Cuykendall reminded the members of the
subcommittee that EPA and the Puerto Rico
Electric Power Authority (PREPA) were engaged in
litigation about opacity standards for stationary
sources and facilities. Ms. Ramos added that the
Clean Air Act requires that states reconcile mass
emissions standards by complying with opacity
requirements. Charging that the violations by
PREPA were criminal, Ms. Ramos urged that EPA
order Puerto Rico to establish a mass emissions
standard that is as restrictive as those required
under Federal law in other cases.
3-10
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
Mr. William Muszynski, Deputy Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 2, stated that the
primary action item for EPA is to monitor the
Federal government's 1999 consent decree. Mr.
Muszynski reported that the U.S. District Court has
been asked to take additional action to ensure
compliance. Stating that he considers the debate
to concern the proper level of opacity, he then
explained that the issue is one about old power
plants. He then listed other issues the agency
considers to be of higher priority. He explained
that EPA first will ask that the government of
Puerto Rico revise its SIP, adding that the agency
believes the commonwealth will agree voluntarily
to make such revisions. He also remarked that the
agency considers several other long-range action
items identified by the subcommittee; several of
them are difficult to act upon under current
circumstances, he acknowledged.
When asked whether the 1999 consent decree
covers facilities throughout Puerto Rico, Mr.
Muszynski responded that it does not. Ms. Gauna
then asked whether the modifications of the SIP
would pertain only to opacity or would encompass
additional issues. Mr. Muszynski stated that the
proposed revision would pertain to all areas that
would help facilities in Puerto Rico achieve the
0.1 pound-per-million Btu limit.
Ms. Ramos expressed her appreciation to Mr.
Brenner and other representatives of EPA
headquarters for facilitating the dialogue with EPA
Region 2. She commented that she had known
Mr. Muszynski for 10 years and stated her belief
that he is a "man of his word." Reporting that
Puerto Rico had just elected a new governor, Ms.
Ramos emphasized the importance of making the
new governor aware of the circumstances of the
relationship between EPA and PREPA. She asked
that the agency develop a contingency plan under
which EPA would require that Puerto Rico comply
with the Federal 20-percent-opacity rule, because,
she cautioned, it is not known what changes might
be made under the new governor's administration.
Noting that corruption is a problem in Puerto Rico,
Ms. Ramos also asked that EPA investigate
implications of criminal activity related to the use of
dirty fuel in Puerto Rico.
Mr. Muszynski responded that EPA preferred that
states, and special-status entities such as the
commonwealth like Puerto Rico, voluntarily make
changes in compliance plans. He assured Ms.
Ramos that the agency will encourage the
commonwealth strongly to voluntarily comply with
the opacity rule, explaining that in its negotiations
with the commonwealth, the agency would present
reasons why Puerto Rico should comply with the
rule, rather than attempt to force the
commonwealth to comply.
Mr. Muszynski commented that PREPA is not like
Consolidated Edison in New York because the
governor of Puerto Rico would have more
influence on the management of PREPA than
would be the case in any discussions between that
company and the governor of New York. If the
governor of Puerto Rico considers the issue a
priority, Mr. Muszynski suggested, EPA can carry
out work smoothly. He noted further that, if
facilities continue to be in non-compliance, EPA
can notify the court that its efforts are insufficient to
gain compliance. However, the agency cannot ask
the court to force facilities to become cleaner, he
said. The "hammer," he stated, is the fact that
EPA can demonstrate cause and effect.
Dr. Greenbaum commented that he had found the
October 2000 meeting in New York very helpful in
understanding the situation in Puerto Rico. He
stated that there did not appear to be
disagreement about what must be done. Dr.
Greenbaum noted that, although the list of action
items developed during the New York meeting was
long, the items could be grouped in two broad
categories: (1) regulatory actions, including strict
monitoring of compliance with the requirements of
the 1999 consent degree and modification of the
SIP, if appropriate, and (2) community pressure,
including training of the community in detection of
violations of the opacity rule, establishment of a
technical team to evaluate the costs and benefits
of using low-sulfur fuel and making other
operational improvements at PREPA power plants,
education of various audiences about the health
benefits of using cleaner fuels, and enlistment of
the support of the National Institutes of Health in
addressing the issue. Dr. Greenbaum added that
the establishment of a technical team could prove
very beneficial in convincing the governor of the
importance of the issue.
Ms. Jaramillo supported Dr. Greenbaum's
approach of categorizing the long list of action
items in two areas. She acknowledged that EPA
had made a commitment to achieving the
purposes of several action items that the agency
had designated priority issues.
Ms. Gauna asked whether the primary pollutant of
concern associated with the facilities is PM or
sulfur. She also asked about attainment status.
Mr. Muszynski stated that, currently, the primary
pollutant of concern is sulfur. On the subject of
attainment status, he reported that the
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
3-11
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
commonwealth had been in nonattainment since
violations were reported in 1998 and 1999. He
explained that Puerto Rico would retain its
nonattainment status until the commonwealth
requests that it to be changed. He added that data
since have shown that the commonwealth is in
compliance for particulate matter having a
diameter of less than or equal to 10 microns. Dr.
Greenbaum countered that it is conceivable,
however, that Puerto Rico is in nonattainment for
particulate matter having a diameter of less than or
equal to 2.5 microns.
Ms. Ramos commented that EPA also should
consider stricter emissions limits under Title V of
the Clean Air Act. Mr. Muszynski explained that
EPA cannot establish new emissions limits under
Title V because the statute requires only that
existing reporting requirements be included in a
permit. Ms. Ramos reported that Puerto Rico's
regulations allow the review and strengthening of
emissions limits if the community can prove that it
is necessary to do so.
Ms. Cuykendall commented that she does not
favor making allegations of criminal activity on the
basis of the information available. She stated, that
if the subcommittee "goes too far," it could
jeopardize the progress made in New York.
Ms. Jaramillo concluded the discussion by
suggesting that the subcommittee forward to the
NEJAC a letter recommending that EPA continue
to take action in Puerto Rico. Ms. Ramos and Dr.
Greenbaum were designated the leads for
preparation of the letter. Ms. Ramos commented
that a resolution would be a stronger tool for use
against PREPA and for empowering EPA Region
2. Ms. Jaramillo reminded Ms. Ramos, however,
that issuing a resolution requires 30 days during
which the NEJAC deliberates; such a delay in the
process would be undesirable, suggested Ms.
Jaramillo.
4.3 Mission Statement of the Subcommittee
The members of the Air and Water Subcommittee
discussed the final draft of its mission statement.
After numerous changes in the wording were
suggested, discussed, and accepted or rejected,
the mission statement was amended to read:
"The mission of the Air and Water
Subcommittee is to identify, review, and
recommend creative, sustainable, and
environmentally just solutions so that
informed policy decisions can be made. In
all of its efforts, the Air and Water
Subcommittee will encourage active
stakeholder input."
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
5.0 SUMMARY OF DIALOGUE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Mr. Jaramillo invited members of the
subcommittee, speakers, and members of the
audience to raise any issues they believed had not
been addressed during the subcommittee meeting.
In addition, Ms. Minerva and Mr. Brenner
presented their perspectives on the future of
environmental justice at the Agency under the new
Administration.
5.1 Enforcement
Mr. Whitehead asked about the policy on startups
of new facilities and how that policy is related to
Title V and other permitting issues. Mr. Brenner
responded that many of the underlying rules
related to new source performance standards
(NSPS) include provisions for dealing with startups
and malfunctions of existing or new facilities.
Mr. Harnett reported that, while most enforcement
actions are initiated when a facility is found to be in
violation of minimum limits, enforcement may not
take place when there is a malfunction. He added
that, as long as facilities minimize emissions and
the effects of those emissions, they are given
exemptions if the violations do not continue for an
unacceptably long period of time.
Mr. Carl Edlund, Director, Planning and Permitting
Division, EPA Region 6, stated that the Agency
had found that, when some facilities experience
one or two spills a day, such conditions appear to
be a routine part of operations. However, he
continued, when the situation is viewed from an
enforcement perspective, such spills can indicate a
problem. Consequently, EPA is developing
guidance for establishing better monitoring
practices, especially in communities located near
facilities. Mr. Edlund acknowledged that the
problem of routine spills remains unresolved. He
added that requirements for better monitoring
practices by facilities in the Houston, Texas ship
channel and the St. Charles Parish, Louisiana area
were scheduled for implementation in 2001. He
also acknowledged that short-term emissions are
difficult to measure.
Mr. Whitehead asked whether source pollution
arising from a malfunction would not be considered
a violation, as long as a facility reports the
malfunction that is covered under its permit. Mr.
Brenner replied that the facility must report such
incidences if there is not a required rule. Ms.
Elizabeth Bartlett, EPA Region 4, reported that, in
reviewing Title V permits, she had found that many
states include in their SIPs provisions that address
source pollution arising from malfunctions.
3-12
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
Ms. Carter requested information about the life
expectancy of old plants that continue to operate.
She asked whether there was a plan for the
phasing out of such facilities and their replacement
with new technology. Mr. Brenner responded that
the replacement of antiquated or outdated
facilities, especially larger facilities, was one of the
central issues under discussion by the CAAAC.
Mr. Brenner reported that, currently, no provision
requires that old plants be "retired" from operation.
Owners of utilities often have claimed to retire
plants after 30 to 40 years, he continued, adding
that there are, however, many plants that are 50 to
60 years old. There is no evidence, however, that
phasing out of such plants is being planned, he
noted. Mr. Brenner stated that EPA's new source
review programs were working to address that
issue. He added that, unfortunately, the Clean Air
Act does not require the use of new technology.
5.2 Public Involvement Policy
Ms. Lisa Kahn, EPA, referring to the public
involvement policy, said that the policy was to be
issued within several weeks for a 120-day public
comment period. Ms. Kahn stated EPA would
apply the policy in making decisions related to
regulations, policies, and permits. She reported
that the policy includes many aspects discussed by
the subcommittee, including provisions for all
affected parties to express their views on such
issues. Ms. Kahn then stated that EPA looked
forward to receiving the subcommittee's comments
on the policy.
Ms. Gauna reported that public participation had
been the focus of the work group on permitting's
discussions. Explaining that the anticipated policy
statement differs from the proposed guidance on
public involvement that EPA recently issued, she
recommended that the upcoming policy statement
be brought to the attention of the NEJAC.
Although there would not be enough time for the
NEJAC or the Air and Water Subcommittee to
comment on the guidance as a group, she said,
members should comment on it individually.
Ms. Gauna also reported that the work group had
discussed impediments to the public participation
process. She said the work group had been
hesitant to make any recommendations to the
subcommittee because stakeholders were not well
represented on the work group. She stated that
other stakeholder groups, such as representatives
of community groups, should be present during the
discussions of the work group. Citing that early
involvement is crucial to success in encouraging
public participation, Ms. Gauna noted that
communities not must only be called to the table
from the beginning of the decision-making
process, but also must have access to
independent technical advice.
5.3 Transportation Subsidies
Mr. Marc Brenman, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), reviewed issues related to
transportation subsidies. He stated that, in terms
of the potential regressive effects of tolls and
variable pricing, the Federal Highway
Administration requires equity analysis to evaluate
the potential effects of such costs on populations.
For example, he explained, such analyses have
found that individuals of lower income spend more
time commuting to work than persons in higher
income brackets. He added that there was "a
spatial mismatch problem." He then reported that
the state of Maryland was conducting an
experiment that examines the equity impact of
tolls.
Ms. Gauna asked whether DOT had investigated
any differences between subsidies for commuters
and those for city dwellers. She also asked what
the effects on air quality were in both situations.
Mr. Brenman responded that EPA Region 2 had
received many complaints filed under Title VI that
allege that more subsidies are provided to white,
middle-income riders who commute from the
suburbs to downtown than to riders in lower-
income, urban communities. The complaints
allege disparities in subsidies, he explained,
adding that the complaints state that urban
commuters receive fewer subsidies. Urban
commuters, who typically commute by bus, are
primarily lower-income or minority residents, he
noted. Mr. Brenman acknowledged that the topic
was difficult to address because Congress had
earmarked funds for heavy rail systems and
because of the trend toward development of light-
rail systems. In addition, he said, ferry riders can
obtain subsidies of up to $700 per year. DOT had
begun to receive complaints about those issues,
as well, he noted.
Ms. Gauna stated that "one piece missing from the
puzzle" appeared to be that, if there is a disparity in
subsidies and if less money is allocated to urban
transportation systems than to commuter systems,
the problem of overpolluting buses in urban areas
then would arise. Mr. Brenman agreed, stating
that one approach under examination as a
resolution to the problem is a partnership among
various stakeholders.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
3-13
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Citing a partnership established among
stakeholders in the Atlanta, Georgia metropolitan
area, Mr. Brenman explained that a coalition of
civil rights and low-income advocacy organizations
had filed a lawsuit alleging Title VI and
environmental justice violations in the Atlanta area.
In response, he continued, EPA Region 4 had
established a partnership with the coalition, which
then determined that any approach to addressing
inequities should include early public participation
and an equity analysis. Mr. Brenman reported that
stakeholders had been involved in the process
from its beginning. As part of the equity analysis,
he continued, EPA Region 4 was developing a tool
for transportation planners to use in improving their
planning processes, he reported.
Mr. Brenman remarked that the goals of the
project include changing the perception among
surface transportation planners that building new
roads will reduce congestion and taking an
inventory of transportation needs and services.
Planners therefore should examine the
transportation needs of various communities and
determine whether proposed remedies meet those
needs, he suggested. For example, he explained,
if the general tendency is to build roads, the roads
will not benefit most African Americans because
the percentage of African Americans who own cars
is lowest among all ethnic groups in the United
States. Acknowledging that the issues are
"complicated," Mr. Brenman stressed the
importance of examining the benefits and burdens
of surface transportation in metropolitan areas and
determining how those benefits and burdens can
quantified.
5.4 Future of Environmental Justice
Members of the subcommittee asked Ms. Minerva
and Mr. Brenner about upcoming policies and
regulations that the subcommittee should consider.
The members also asked Ms. Minerva and Mr.
Brenner to discuss their perspectives on how the
new Administration might affect the environmental
justice community.
Ms. Minerva reported on three rules that OW
expected to issue in the near future:
• Tribal water quality standards: Collectively,
Indian country is the size of New England, but
only 15 tribes have implemented Federal water
quality standards. According to Ms. Minerva,
EPA, with the endorsement of the tribes, had
drafted the rule to cover all of Indian country.
She reported that the Tribal Operations
Committee recently forwarded to EPA a
resolution about that rulemaking.
• Concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFO) rule: EPA released the rule on
December 15, 2000. Exhibit 3-8 describes the
CAFO rule.
• Sanitary sewer overflows rule: The rule
requires that sewage treatment authorities
create plans under which they develop
methods of addressing sewage overflows.
Exhibit 3-8
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING
OPERATIONS RULE
On December 15, 2000, Ms. Carol Browner,
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), signed the proposed revisions of the
Nonpoint Source Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) regulations and effluent guidelines for
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO).
The proposed revisions are intended to reduce the
amount of water pollution generated by 26,000 to
36,000 large livestock operations. The revisions
clearly define which facilities are animal feeding
operations and which are CAFOs; the latter are
subject to the NPDES program. Specific
requirements to be included in NPDES permits that
govern handling of manure at production and land
application areas also are detailed in the proposed
revisions.
A copy of the proposed CAFO rule is available on
the EPA Office of Wastewater Management's web
site at .
Ms. Minerva also discussed the risk
communication conference to be held in May 2001
in Seattle, Washington, which was to focus on
issues related to fish consumption. She explained
that EPA was working with states and tribes to
encourage them to test fish and inform the public
of the results.
Ms. Minerva also reported that EPA OW recently
had issued revisions of the national guidelines
related to ambient water quality criteria (AWQC).
Exhibit 3-9 describes the Revised Methodology for
Deriving Health-based Ambient Water Quality
Criteria. Ms. Minerva stated that states and tribes
that set water quality standards should not
consider only general levels of consumption when
they set those standards. Rather, she said, the
states and tribes also should consider the effects
increased consumption has on the quality of the
water body. For example, she explained, if a
person consumes five times more fish than
3-14
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
Exhibit 3-9
REVISED METHODOLOGY FOR DERIVING
HEALTH-BASED AMBIENT WATER
QUALITY CRITERIA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has published revisions of the 1980 Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC) national guidelines to better
protect human health. The 1980 AWQC National
Guidelines outlined the methodology to be used by
states and tribes to develop water quality criteria
based on protection of human health. The revisions
of the 1980 guidelines incorporate significant
scientific advances in such key areas as cancer and
noncancer risk assessments, exposure assessments,
and bioaccumulation in fish. The revised
methodology provides more flexibility for decision
making at the state, tribal, and EPA regional levels.
According to EPA, it likely would result in more
stringent criteria for bioaccumulative compounds and
generally similar values of nonbioaccumulative
compounds.
The AWQC revised methodology is available on line
at .
average, the water quality standard should protect
that individual five times more strictly than those
who consume average amounts of fish are
protected. Ms. Minerva assured Ms. Ramos that
the methodology document applies to all surface-
water bodies and is not limited to rivers and lakes.
Mr. Brenner stated that, as a nonpolitical
appointee, he would continue to serve in his
position under the new Administration. He
identified two items that EPA was expecting to
pursue under the new Administration: (1) issuance
of the mercury regulatory determination scheduled
by December 15, 2000 and (2) completion of
rulemaking on the voluntary diesel retrofit rule. Mr.
Brenner presented information about another
rulemaking related to off-road diesel generators,
including construction vehicles, that is to be
initiated in 2001. The states had asked EPA for
help in regulating such vehicles, Mr. Brenner said.
He encouraged the members of the subcommittee
to participate in the rulemaking, remarking that the
goals of the members of the subcommittee are
well aligned with the priorities of EPA's air
programs.
Ms. Gauna inquired whether there may be a
potential conflict between reinvention initiatives
and environmental justice. She asked whether
both can be accomplished responsibly and
wondered how the subcommittee's views might be
received by EPA under the Bush Administration.
Mr. Brenner responded that he had worked with
the NEJAC to find ways to incorporate the
concerns of the NEJAC into the initiatives of EPA
OAR. He stated that the goal of that office is to
achieve reductions in pollution that are meaningful
to environmental justice communities. As an
example, he described an initiative in New York
City under which community groups are asked to
identify areas in which reductions could be
achieved. Mr. Brenner said that he had sensed a
willingness in those communities to make the
project work.
Dr. Bryant commented that in the early days of the
Clinton administration, representatives of the
environmental justice community had met with Mr.
William Riley, the EPA Administrator appointed by
George Bush, and had asked that EPA make
environmental justice a high priority among the
goals to be explored during the transition to the
Clinton Administration. He urged that the new
Bush Administration be reminded that support for a
national approach to environmental justice began
under a Republican administration and that
environmental justice should continue to have a
high priority. Dr. Bryant said that stakeholders in
environmental justice may have only "one shot at
this."
5.5 Vice Chair of the Subcommittee
Ms. Jaramillo asked members of the
subcommittee to nominate one member to serve
as vice chair of the subcommittee. Ms. Cuykendall
nominated Ms. Gauna. Ms. Gauna commented
that she would be pleased to take on the
responsibility, but noted that she was new to the
subcommittee. Ms. Ramos nominated Dr.
Greenbaum, who declined. Dr. Bryant then moved
that nominations be closed. The members of the
subcommittee unanimously elected for Ms. Gauna
vice chair.
5.6 Manual for Effective Community
Involvement in Environmental Justice
Issues
Dr. Bryant, who was leading the effort to develop a
guidance manual for environmental justice
communities, reported that two graduate students
at the University of Michigan might be able to
contribute to the manual. He said that he would
coordinate a meeting between EPA and the
students within the coming two weeks to discuss
their involvement further.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
3-15
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
6.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the action items the
subcommittee adopted.
/ Requested that EPA OAR provide information
about how that of ice plans to spend the $16
million that the agency allocated for the
monitoring of air emissions under the urban air
toxics strategy.
/ Requested that EPA OAR provide information
about existing public utilities that includes their
number, locations, and enforcement status.
/ Requested that EPA OAR provide a summary
of four legislative bills intended to reduce air
emissions further.
/ Recommended that EPA OAR continue
pursuing the actions identified by the Air and
Water Subcommittee and EPA OAR during the
meeting of the subcommittee held in New York
in October 2000 to examine issues related to
the reduction of the sulfur content of fuels
burned in coal-fired power plants located in
Puerto Rico.
3-16
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 13, 2000
Arlington, Virginia
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Shirley Pate
Designated Federal Official
Savonala "Savi" Home
Acting Chair
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
CHAPTER FOUR: MEETING OF THE ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE 4-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 4-1
2.0 REMARKS 4-1
3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS 4-1
3.1 Interagency Panel on the Implementation of Title VI 4-2
3.1.1 U.S. Department of Justice 4-2
3.1.2 U.S. Department of Transportation 4-4
3.1.3 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 4-7
3.1.4 Update on the EPA Title VI Guidance 4-9
3.2 Update on Supplemental Environmental Projects 4-10
3.3 History of Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice 4-11
3.4 Status of EPA Targeting Efforts 4-14
4.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS 4-16
-------
CHAPTER FOUR
MEETING OF THE
ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Enforcement Subcommittee of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
conducted a one-day meeting on Wednesday,
December 13, 2000, during a four-day meeting
of the NEJAC in Arlington, Virginia. Mr. Luke
Cole, Center for Race, Poverty, and the
Environment, continues to serve as chair of the
subcommittee. Ms. Shirley Pate, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA), continues to serve as the Designated
Federal Official (DFO) for the subcommittee.
Exhibit 4-1 presents a list of the members who
attended the meeting and identifies those
members who were unable to attend.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Enforcement Subcommittee,
is organized in four sections, including this
Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks, summarizes
the opening remarks of the chair of the
subcommittee. Section 3.0, Presentations and
Reports, presents an overview of other
presentations and reports received by the
subcommittee, as well as summaries of the
questions and comments on the part of the
members of the subcommittee that those
presentations and reports prompted. Section
4.0, Recommendations and Action Items,
summarizes the significant action items adopted
by the subcommittee.
2.0 REMARKS
Mr. Cole, opened the subcommittee meeting by
welcoming the members present and Ms. Pate.
In his review of the guidelines of the NEJAC to
remind the members and observers of the
protocol to be followed, Mr. Cole stated that the
meeting was conducted for the members of the
Enforcement Subcommittee. The comments of
observers, would be taken throughout the
meeting at the discretion of the chair, he
explained. At the request of Mr. Cole, the
members of the subcommittee and members of
the audience then introduced themselves.
Mr. Cole announced that this meeting would be
the last meeting for all but four members of the
subcommittee. He explained that although the
departing members primarily represent non-
governmental organizations and community
groups, the new incoming members largely will
represent academic and industry organizations.
He stated that the subcommittee members
planned to discuss during the discussion with
Mr. Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator,
OECA, their concerns about what appears to be
an imbalance in membership. See Section 3.5
of this chapter for a detailed summary of that
conversation.
3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations
made to the Enforcement Subcommittee on
issues related to enforcement and compliance
assurance. An interagency panel discussion
was held concerning the implementation of Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI).
Following the panel presentation,
representatives of EPA's Office of Civil Rights
(OCR) provided an update on EPA's activities
related to Title VI. Other presentations made
include reports on supplemental environmental
projects (SEP), an overview of the history of
Exhibit 4-1
ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 13, 2000
Mr. Luke Cole, Chair
Ms. Savonala (Savi) Home, Vice Chair
Ms. Shirley Pate, DFO
Mr. Delbert Dubois
Ms. Rita Harris
Ms. Zulene Mayfield
Ms. Lillian Mood
Mr. Gerald Torres
List of Members
Who Were Unable To Attend
Mr. Robert Varney
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
4-1
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Order 12898 on Environmental
Justice, and an update on the status of EPA's
targeting efforts.
3.1 Interagency Panel on the Implementation
of Title VI
Mr. Cole remarked that the panel session was
convened as part of the theme of the current
NEJAC meeting: to explore interagency
coordination of environmental justice issues.
Before the panel discussion began, he stated
that the subcommittee was interested in learning
how other agencies undertake enforcement of
Title VI. Labeling as "abysmal" EPA's record of
enforcement, he stated that EPA has not acted
on the more than 100 complaints submitted to
EPA by community organizations during the
previous 7 years. The subcommittee hopes that
the panelists could provide lessons learned and
offer "good Ideas" on civil rights enforcement
that can be passed on to EPA.
Mr. Cole then introduced three speakers on the
panel: Mr. Andrew Strojny, Deputy Chief,
Coordination and Review Section, Civil Rights
Division, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ); Ms.
Betsy A. Ryan, Senior Equal Opportunity
Specialist, Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD); and Mr. Marc
Brenman, Senior Policy Advisor, Departmental
Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT). Mr. Cole added that Ms.
Yasmine Yorker, EPA Office of Civil Rights
(OCR) would provide an update on EPA's civil
rights guidance, as well as report on the status
of the Agency's enforcement activities.
3.1.1 U.S. Department of Justice
Mr. Strojny first presented a brief overview of
DOJ's Coordination and Review Section. He
stated that the section is charged by Executive
Order 12250 with responsibility for coordinating
enforcement of Title VI and all other grant
related federal statutes that prohibit
discrimination. See Exhibit 4-2 of this chapter
for a description of the activities performed by
the section.
Mr. Strojny then provided background
information about Title VI, which he explained
was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as well as how provisions of Title VI
are enforced. Title VI prohibits discrimination on
the basis of race, color, and national origin in
programs and activities receiving federal
financial assistance, he said, adding that Title VI
prohibits acts of intentional discrimination.
However, he added, most funding agencies have
Exhibit 4-2
OVERVIEW OF
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
COORDINATION AND REVIEW SECTION
The Coordination and Review Section of the U.S.
Department of Justice Civil Rights Division operates
a comprehensive, government-wide program of
technical and legal assistance, training, interagency
coordination, and regulatory, policy, and program
review, to assure that federal agencies consistently
and effectively enforce various landmark civil rights
statutes and related Executive Orders that prohibit
discrimination in federally assisted programs and in
the federal government's own programs and
activities. Specifically the Section:
• Develops model regulations, policies, and
enforcement standards and procedures, and
reviews and approves similar products
developed by individual federal agencies.
• Reviews plans and data submitted by federal
agencies that describe their civil rights
enforcement priorities, activities, and
achievements.
• Conducts Technical Assistance Reviews of Title
VI enforcement, such as the review completed in
2000 of the Federal Highway Administration's
Federal Aid Highway Program.
• Provides technical assistance and training to
improve the compliance and enforcement
programs of individual agencies. One training
course combines classroom study of legal
requirements, theories of discrimination, and
investigative techniques, and culminates in the
hands-on workshop "investigation" of a mock
complaint.
Two major documents produced by the Section, a
Title VI Legal Manual and an Investigation
Procedures Manual, are designed as essential
building blocks for the development of an agency's
Title VI compliance program. The Section also
publishes a quarterly newsletter, The Civil Rights
Forum.
4-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
promulgated regulations implementing Title VI
that prohibit practices that have the effect of
discrimination.
Mr. Strojny stated that the Title VI can be
enforced in one of three ways: an administrative
remedy, an administrative appeal for injunctive
relief, and a private cause of action or lawsuit:
• Aggrieved individuals may file an
administrative complaint with the federal
agency providing financial assistance to
recipients. Under an administrative remedy,
primary responsibility for enforcement rests
with the federal agency that provides the
assistance. The administrative remedy
process is designed to encourage people to
talk about their concerns and to "work things
out."
• Under an administrative appeal, if a recipient
of federal assistance is found to have
discriminated and voluntary compliance
cannot be achieved, the federal agency
providing the assistance can either initiate
proceedings to terminate funding or refer the
matter to DOJ for injunctive relief. If an
agency chooses the latter, DOJ attempts to
seek assurances that the party will comply
with Title VI. DOJ formalizes this agreement
with a "contract" that spells out how
compliance will be achieved. This appeal
process also focuses on resolving issues
without resorting to court sanctions.
• Aggrieved individuals may file in federal
district court a private cause of action for
appropriate relief. With the limited number
of such cases, one can look to case law for
enforcement of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 to see how this process would work.
Mr. Strojny also explained several differences
between pursuing an administrative remedy and
pursuing a private cause of action, notably the
time frame in which a complaint can be filed. He
explained that under an administrative remedy,
which is promulgated by regulation, aggrieved
individuals must file a compliant within 180 days
of the act of discrimination. Under a private
cause of action, which has court-made
limitations, there is no statute of limitations for
filing a compliant, he continued, adding that the
courts have set as a standard the closest
applicable state action that is "like" Title VI.
Mr. Strojny explained that most cases filed under
Title VI have been brought as private rights of
action. Citing a case currently before the U.S.
Supreme Court, he stated his opinion that the
only issue at hand is whether a private citizen
can use a private right of action to enforce the
discriminatory effects clauses of agency
regulations implementing Title VI. He said that
he could not identify any other federal statute
that precludes an individual from enforcing
implementing regulations through a private right
of action. In fact, he said, most federal circuit
courts have ruled that enforcement statutes do
not preclude such action.
Mr. Strojny then returned to a discussion of the
role of DOJ in civil rights enforcement. He
stated that DOJ coordinates enforcement across
agencies, conducting coordination reviews that
examine how each agency conducts its civil
rights enforcement and identifying specific items
that agencies can emulate. He added that no
federal agency can promulgate regulations to
implement Title VI unless the U.S. Attorney
General, as the President's designee signs off
on the regulations. Mr. Strojny added that DOJ
also is responsible for coordinating complaints
filed with multiple agencies. Resolution of such
case often are lengthy and time-consuming, he
explained, because DOJ must seek consensus
among all federal agencies involved. Although
the Executive order has assigned to DOJ
responsibility for resolution, DOJ can not make
unilateral decisions because its authority over
other federal agencies is limited, he continued.
For example, DOJ can not affect the budget of
another federal agency, he remarked.
Mr. Strojny described DOJ as a major provider of
federal financial assistance, noting that
recipients of DOJ funds include state and local
law enforcement agencies, courts, corrections
systems, juvenile justice systems, and a variety
of non-governmental entities. Under
agreements reached with several DOJ funding
components, the Section conducts
administrative investigations of selected
complaints of discrimination by recipients of
financial assistance provided by DOJ, he
continued. The Section seeks case resolutions
through the use of alternative dispute resolution
techniques, if appropriate, in lieu of full field
investigations, he stated, adding that in other
cases, investigations may result in the issuance
of formal findings of compliance or non-
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
4-3
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
compliance. If voluntary compliance cannot be
achieved where non-compliance is found, the
Section refers the case to the appropriate DOJ
Division for litigation or, in cooperation with the
appropriate funding component within the
Department, seeks to terminate the Federal
financial assistance through an administrative
hearing, said Mr. Strojny.
Mr. Strojny reported that DOJ has published a
Title VI Legal Manual to assist federal agencies
that provide financial assistance, the wide variety
of recipients that receive such assistance, and
the actual and potential beneficiaries of
programs receiving federal assistance. He
explained that the manual sets forth legal
principles and standards. Additionally, the
Department has published an Investigation
Procedures Manual that provides to federal
agencies practical advice about how to
investigate Title VI complaints, he added. Also
available on the Section's Internet web site are
many other materials that may be helpful to
those interested in ensuring effective
enforcement of Title VI, he said.
Ms. Mood asked Mr. Strojny to describe the role
of DOJ in overseeing the implementation of Title
VI by other federal agencies. Has DOJ
established a procedure by which it requests and
uses representatives of other agencies to help
with oversight, she added. Mr. Strojny stated
that in response to Executive Order 12250,
agencies meet quarterly to discuss concerns and
implementation plans about a variety of
complaints received by agencies. Many of the
complaints filed by agencies involve Title VI and
Section 504, he said, although most of the case
backlog involves Section 504. However, the
problem is that only Title VI offers a clear
enforcement mechanism, but it is being
stretched into areas that it does not fit, he said.
Ms. Mood commented that including the
viewpoint of the community could help in those
interagency discussions. She recommended
involving a member of the NEJAC to help
provide this perspective.
3.1.2 U.S. Department of Transportation
Mr. Brenman reported that DOT is very much
involved with enforcement of Title VI as well as
environmental justice. He stated that in addition
to issuing its own environmental justice order,
the Department has established regulations for
implementing Title VI. When a complaint under
Title VI is filed with DOT, it is referred for
investigation to one of DOT'S 10 operating
administrations if it concerns a single mode of
transportation, he explained. For complaints
involving multiple modes of transportation or
intermodal operations, different administrations
within DOT must work together to resolve the
complaint. He reported that the Federal
Highway Administration had issued guidance for
Title VI, as well as an environmental justice
order. The Federal Transit Administration,
currently operating under the Title VI Circular
issued more than 15 years ago, has started to
develop new procedures for implementing Title
VI, he said. Mr. Brenman also reported that he
had developed a manual describing how to
investigate environmental justice complaints
under Title VI.
Mr. Brenman stated that DOT'S environmental
justice order emphasizes Title VI. Through the
order, DOT has tried to institutionalize
environmental justice concepts throughout is
programs and polices, he said. The agency also
has issued guidance to recipients of DOT
financial assistance on the provision of separate
language services to people with limited English
proficiency, he said, which emphasizes Title VI.
However, he stated, one of problems with relying
on enforcement of Title VI as the primary remedy
for environmental justice is that it does not
specifically address low-income populations. He
stated his belief that the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act
of 1993, which concerns the provision of post-
disaster emergency assistance, is the only
federal statute that explicitly prohibits
discrimination on the basis of income.
Fortunately, he added, a significant number of
low-income people are addressed by other
statutes because many are included among
minority populations, as well as among those
individuals with limited proficiency in English.
DOT uses a variety of approaches to investigate
Title VI complaints, continued Mr. Brenman. In
additional to traditional investigative processes,
DOT utilizes alternative dispute resolution in
accordance with the Executive Order that
encourages federal agencies to explore using
such techniques. However, Mr. Brenman
acknowledged, DOT has not been "hugely"
successful in mediating civil rights cases. We do
not know exactly why, he admitted, explaining
4-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
that mediation could be affected by such factors
as the unfamiliarity of the mediation community
with environmental justice cases, the selection of
the "wrong mediator," or the Department may
have not selected appropriate cases for
mediation. Perhaps DOT'S failure in mediation is
because none of the parties are willing to budge
from their positions, he continued.
Discussing another DOT approach for
incorporating environmental justice, Mr.
Brenman explained that, several years earlier,
DOT had received a notice of intent to bring law
suits against DOT from a number of
environmental justice organizations in the
Atlanta, Georgia area. After meeting with the
environmental justice groups in Atlanta, the
groups had agreed to the conduct of a two-part
environmental justice review of the Atlanta area,
in lieu of litigation, he said. After conducting an
investigation, DOT developed a public
participation approach that included local
environmental justice organizations, as well as
the Georgia Department of Transportation, the
Atlanta Regional Transportation Commission,
and the Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit
Agency, the local transit agency, he stated. The
approach consisted of some 25
recommendations for implementing change in
the public participation process in the
metropolitan Atlanta area, he said.
Mr. Brenman stated that other approaches
employed by DOT to investigate Title VI
complaints include the use of stakeholder
partnerships as a way to encourage all the
parties to work together. He cited a study
conducted in the metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia
area in response to a letter notifying DOT of an
intent to sue the Department for alleged
violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DOT
responded quickly, he continued, to address
environmental justice concerns in the
metropolitan Atlanta area because of the
environmental justice implications. Working
closely with affected stakeholders, including local
government agencies and community groups,
DOT has developed a two-step approach to
addressing the issues of concern, he added.
The first step focuses on improving public
participation in the planning process, said Mr.
Brenman, noting that such participation is
essential throughout the lengthy planning
transportation process. When communities file
complaints late in the process, such as when
construction is about to begin, they will face
tremendous barriers because of the extensive
planning that has been conducted over what is
often a 20 plus year period, he warned.
Mr. Cole asked what options are available to the
"innocent" landowner who has never been
informed that plans are underway until "the
bulldozers show up one day." Mr. Brenman
responded that the real question may not be
whether they had received notice, but rather,
was the notice effective and had the person
been afforded an equitable opportunity to
participate.
Mr. Brenman stated that the second part of
DOT'S response in Atlanta features an equity
analysis that identifies the transportation needs
of a community and examines how well these
needs are being served. He said the analysis is
being conducted to address allegations that a
substantial gap exists between a community's
needs and what services are being supplied.
Noting that car ownership among African
Americans is very low in comparison to other
ethnic groups, Mr. Brenman reported that one
question the equity analysis is examining is
whether a regional transportation plan that is
almost exclusively oriented toward roads
adequately serves the African American
community.
Continuing, Mr. Brenman reported that DOT had
settled an environmental justice lawsuit involving
the Jersey Heights neighborhood near Salisbury,
Maryland, a predominantly African-American
community that had been uprooted when U.S.
Route 50 was built. After the community was
resettled, the state of Maryland had undertaken
an effort to build another highway project that
would have had an adverse effect on the
community. Mr. Brenman explained that the
outcome of the settlement had been a "win-win"
result for the community and the state of
Maryland. That settlement had set the stage for
the way in which DOT had begun to address
environmental justice complaints in the future, he
said.
Mr. Brenman cited several other examples of the
types of issues for which Title VI complaints
have been filed alleging inequalities in:
• Responses to noise pollution (for example,
when state highway departments install
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
4-5
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
sound barriers in response to complaints
by white residents while ignoring the
complaints of inner city, largely minority
residents)
• Road tolls, which could effectively bar low-
income persons from accessing
communities and jobs that would require the
use of a toll road
• Subsidies on different modes of
transportation that typically serve different
constituencies (for example, transit buses in
minority communities and commuter trains
used by white suburban commuters)
• Location of bus facilities (complaints allege
that minority communities are home to noisy,
polluting diesel buses while white
communities are getting quieter, cleaner
natural gas buses)
Mr. Brenman stated that the lessons DOT has
learned are: (1) Title VI does not have
jurisdiction in all complaints alleging
environmental injustice; (2) reminding many
recipients of federal financial assistance who
think Title VI imposes new requirements that
Title VI has been around since 1964; and (3)
there is an unending need for stakeholder
education, both internally and externally. There
is a need for more training, an area in which the
members of the subcommittee could help, he
continued. DOJ can not be everywhere, doing
all the training, he emphasized.
Turning to a discussion of socioeconomic
concerns, Mr. Brenman stated that agencies and
consultants conducting environmental impact
assessments need to understand that an equity
analysis should be a part of the impact analysis.
An analysis of environmental justice concerns
should be commensurate with the analysis
conducted of other issues under NEPA, he
urged.
Mr. Cole asked how many Title VI complaints
have been filed with DOT. Mr. Brenman
responded that fewer than 20 environmental
justice complaints are pending; all but one
currently are being addressed, he explained,
with some new cases at the initial complaint
intake stage. He added that very few cases
have been resolved because the process is a
long one. He acknowledged that the established
relationships between regional transportation
offices and state transportation offices can be
"both good and bad." Their can be a level of
trust that allows DOT to go in and attempt to
settle the complaint, as well as the perception
that the interests of the people giving the money
is identical to those of the people getting the
money, he explained. Mr. Brenman stated that
for some issues, a simple telephone call can
resolve complaints.
In response to a request by Mr. Cole, Mr.
Brenman agreed to provide the members of the
subcommittee and EPA OCR with a copy of
DOT'S informal 'cookbook" on investigating
environmental justice complaints under Title VI.
Mr. Cole remarked that although the document
is not an official document of the agency, it is a
strong document that seeks to discover "what
the problem is and attempt to solve it" rather
than seek to block the complainant out at every
step, Mr. Cole said.
Referring to a case in Texas involving the
reopening of a 50-year old, 700 mile former
crude oil pipeline, Mr. Gerald Torres, University
of Texas Law School and member of the
Enforcement Subcommittee, stated that the case
technically does not fall under the jurisdiction of
Title VI. However, there are issues related to the
conduct of an environmental assessment (EA)
that did not address environmental justice
concerns, he said. He added that an
environmental impact statement (EIS) would be
preferred through which to address Title VI
concerns. Although the plan raises concerns
about threats to an endangered salamander, and
the impact of the pipeline on the Karst aquifer,
local residents in predominantly black and brown
communities have significant fears about the
potential for explosions when the pipeline
reopens carrying gasoline under pressure.
Calling Mr. Torres comments "well taken," Mr.
Brenman responded that DOT had the week
before participated in a meeting with several
stakeholders. They concluded that DOT needed
to conduct more research and prepare an
emergency response plan, he continued.
Mr. Delbert Dubois, Four Mile Hibernian
Community Association, Inc. and member of the
Enforcement Subcommittee, asked whether
federal agencies used a "report card" system to
track or monitor the status of Title VI cases. Mr.
Brenman responded that DOT has a
4-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
computerized tracking system through which it
tracks Title VI complaints. However, he added,
the system does not include some litigation in
which DOT is involved nor those environmental
justice complaints that do not legally constitute a
complaint or fall under the jurisdiction of Title VI.
To enhance case monitoring and improve
coordination between the operating
administrations within DOT, the agency has
convened an environmental justice council of
senior management officials who meet
periodically to discuss new cases and the status
of pending cases, said Mr. Brenman. The
Council has been moderately successful in
getting the different operating administrations to
work together in a coordinated approach, he
added, explaining that DOT has begun to use a
team approach to investigate complaints. These
teams bring together technical and legal experts
and staff knowledgeable of DOT programs, he
said.
Mr. Dubois asked whether the subcommittee
could prepare a report card that tracks Title VI
complaints within the various federal agencies.
Citing the subcommittee's mission to provide
advice to EPA, Mr. Cole suggested that a report
assessing the ways various agencies are
approaching its obligations under Title VI, could
prove useful to EPA in assessing its own
procedures. Mr. Torres added that the
assessment also would provide advice to EPA
on how to drive interagency cooperation. Mr.
Brenman recommended the subcommittee
examine the surveys of the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights in which it assesses every 10 years
what each federal agency has done or is doing
for civil rights enforcement.
3.1.3 U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Ms. Ryan opened her presentation by describing
how HUD processes complaints received by the
Department. She explained that HUD's 10
regional offices conduct intake for complaints
alleging discrimination. She noted that in
addition to complaints filed under Title VI and
Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, a significant number of complaints are
received alleging discrimination under Title 8 in
which no federal financial assistance is received.
Investigators in HUD's 50 offices also may be
assigned to investigate complaints, she said.
Ms. Ryan reported that HUD coordinated an
extensive training effort with DOJ, in which 200
of the agency's 600 investigators were trained.
She added that HUD prefers to use a team
approach to address major complaints. This
team approach, modeled after the teams used
for compliance reviews, brings together staff with
different areas of expertise, such as legal and
knowledge of program and policy issues.
Ms. Ryan stated that having the proper
equipment on-site is essential; the lack of
laptops, printers, and digital cameras makes it
difficult to conduct an investigation in a short
period of time, she explained. In addition,
specific roles for staff conducting the
investigation should be clearly identified, she
said.
Turning to the number of complaints currently
pending before HUD, Ms. Ryan reported that
approximately 675 complaints have been filed,
with an additional 75 active cases slated for
compliance reviews. She acknowledged that
progress toward resolving these complaints has
been hampered because HUD has had to direct
significant resources to responding to a lawsuit
in which 70 housing authorities in East Texas
have been charged with violating Title VI. The
investigation requires HUD to conduct
compliance reviews of each housing complex,
she continued. To date, HUD has completed 52
of the 70 reviews, she added. Because of time
limits imposed by Congress, fair housing
complaints are given priority over other
complaints, she commented.
Ms. Ryan noted that 12 of the 675 complaints
involve issues related to environmental justice.
She stated that HUD has not done a good job
responding to the environmental justice
complaints. Part of problem is the lack of
technical resources and expertise onsite to
address concerns, such as groundwater, which
do not fall under the jurisdiction of HUD, she
explained. However, EPA has been helpful in
responding to these concerns, she said.
Interagency cooperation also has proven useful
in several other cases, Ms. Ryan stated, adding
that having more than one agency exerting
pressure can help move the process faster.
Ms. Lilian Mood, South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control and member
of the Enforcement Subcommittee, asked Ms.
Ryan to provide an example of an environmental
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
4-7
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
justice complaint handled by HUD. Ms. Ryan
referred to one case in which public housing
subsidized by HUD had been built on a
contaminated site. The question for HUD has
been do you tear down the housing or build new
housing, Ms. Ryan continued. Other cases cited
by Ms. Ryan involve the construction of new
homes for low-income residents on land in which
the shallow groundwater may be contaminated,
and the proximity of low-income housing to
contaminated sites such as a lead smelter.
There are not enough resources to go around,
she stated.
Ms. Zulene Mayfield, Chester Residents
Concerned for Quality Living and a member of
the Enforcement Subcommittee, stated that one
of her primary concerns relates to the relocation
of families where housing is contaminated with
lead. She urged that all housing subsidized by
HUD should be tested before families are placed
into the unit. Ms. Ryan responded that part of
problem is that private individuals own Section 8
housing, in which the rent is subsidized by funds
received from HUD through a local housing
authority. Ms. Ryan stated that although she
was unfamiliar with how lead is addressed in
Section 8 housing, HUD has an active program
for lead abatement in public housing units. In
addition to the fact that landlords participating in
the Section 8 program are not direct recipients of
federal financial assistance, many low-income
residents go into the private rental market, find a
unit, which in turn is subsidized by a local
housing authority. Ms. Mayfield stated that
despite the local housing authority "middle man,"
the money leads back to HUD. HUD should do
more to test for contamination, she emphasized.
Referring to a recent request for funding in which
HUD is working in cooperation with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to address
the rural housing needs of farm workers, Ms.
Savonala "Savi" Home, Land Loss Prevention
Project and member of the Enforcement
Subcommittee, suggested HUD include a
component in which EPA monitors pesticides in
these communities. Including pesticides
monitoring as part of rural housing plans, would
further enhance interagency cooperation, said
Ms. Home. Ms. Ryan agreed to forward to HUD
the suggestion that the two agencies collaborate
on this issue.
Mr. Cole asked how HUD conducts
environmental reviews. Ms. Ryan responded
that the agency requires local housing authorities
to conduct an environmental assessment (EA).
However, some local governments do not
complete each step fully, she added, explaining
that they may not examine concerns that should
be considered during the project. Unfortunately,
HUD has very few environmental officers who
can perform in-depth reviews of EAs, she
continued, stating that with those limited
resources, HUD can only monitor that an EA has
been completed. Ms. Ryan added that when
HUD discovers that an EA has not been
completed properly, it can impose program
sanctions, including affecting funding.
Ms. Rita Harris, Community Living in Peace and
member of the Enforcement Subcommittee,
asked whether HUD, given its limited in-house
environmental expertise, had sought interagency
support from EPA. Ms. Ryan stated that HUD
consults regularly with EPA, but added that the
problem is not having an environmental expert
on site when conducting investigations.
Although EPA has been very helpful, it is better
to have an expert on site who can address
issues as they arise, Ms. Ryan said.
When asked how each agency handles Title VI
complaints when a suit is filed simultaneously in
court, Ms. Ryan stated that HUD defers action
on the complaint until the litigation is resolved.
Mr. Brenman added that, absent any
extraordinary circumstances, administrative
deferrals are the standard approach taken by
federal agencies because agencies do not want
to get into a dispute where the court decides one
way and the agency another. However, deferrals
would be made only in those cases in which the
litigation addresses the same issues and
involves the same parties, interjected Mr.
Strojny. One of the benefits of deferral are that
federal judges have more power to impose
equitable remedies because federal agencies
are limited to the withdrawal of federal financial
assistance.
Mr. Cole remarked that EPA has taken the
position that it will dismiss administrative
complaints filed with it when litigation also has
been initiated. NEJAC has voiced strong
objections to this policy, he stated, because it
effectively eliminates the administrative
complaint as a viable option for remedy. If a
complainant attempts to refile the administrative
4-8
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
complaint after litigation has concluded, typically
more than 180 days after the alleged
discrimination, the statute of limitations would
prevent consideration of the complaint.
Ms. Mayfield stated that she recognizes that
action by federal agencies on Title VI often is
hampered by financial constraints. However,
she added, the very allocation of resources by
an agency in which environmental justice
concerns routinely fail to be addressed because
of insufficient funds is, in itself, a form of
discrimination. Agencies are not in compliance
with Executive Order 12898 on environmental
justice, she emphasized. Ms. Ryan responded
that HUD has given "top priority" to
environmental justice; such cases are forwarded
to HUD headquarters for resolution, she said.
Ms. Mayfield recommended that, in light of the
financial constraints, agencies should look for
creative ways to ensure that complaints relating
to environmental justice and Title VI are given
equal consideration.
3.1.4 Update on the EPA Title VI Guidance
Ms. Yorker provided an update on the status of
the administrative complaints filed with EPA.
She acknowledged that EPA has not processed
complaints timely, adding that the Agency has a
backlog of cases. EPA's Office of Civil Rights
(OCR) is "under the gun," she commented.
Unfortunately, EPA is "short on resources," she
stated, explaining that currently three case
managers and one technical expert have been
allocated to process the more than 100
complaints on file. However, EPA recently has
been given the authority to hire four temporary
staff members to help OCR attack the backlog
that exists, she announced.
Ms. Yorker then discussed the efforts by EPA to
prepare guidance on Title VI. She reported that
after a "robust" stakeholder involvement
process, EPA published in the Federal Register
on June 27, 2000 for public comment two draft
guidance documents related to Title VI. The first
document was the Draft Title VI Guidance for
EPA Assistance Recipients Administering
Environmental Permitting Programs (Draft
Recipient Guidance), which was written at the
request of the states and is intended to offer
suggestions to assist state and local recipients in
developing approaches and activities to address
potential Title VI concerns. During the comment
period, OCR conducted seven public listening
sessions throughout the U.S.
Ms. Yorker also discussed EPA's Draft Revised
Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative
Complaints Challenging Permits (Draft Revised
Investigation Guidance), which describes a
framework for how OCR will process complaints
that allege discrimination in the environmental
permitting context. Public comments for this
document also were accepted through August
28, 2000.
Ms. Yorker stated that during the 30-day
comment period, OCR had received 96
comments, with an additional 5 comments
received after the comment period had
concluded. She said that while most of the
comments focused on specific areas of concern
to the commenter, several comments
commended OCR on making a significant effort
to involve all stakeholders during the drafting of
the documents. Ms. Yorker stated that the key
areas of controversy identified by the comments
falls into four general areas: justification, the
recipient's scope of authority, "due weight"
accordance, and who has a standing to file a
complaint. In a memo distributed by Ms. Yorker
to the members of the subcommittee, OCR had
summarized for each key area, the general
concern expressed by four stakeholder groups:
• Justification
— Industry: too narrow
— Community: should be limited to the
legitimate interests of the recipient
— Civil Rights: economic development
should not justify disparate impacts
— States: guidance lacks details on
adequate justification
• Recipient Scope of Authority
— Industry: scope of impact should be
limited to what is within the authority of
the permitting agency
— Community: states should be responsible
for all impacts, whether or not they have
the authority
— Civil Rights: all impacts from a permit
should be considered because Title VI is
not a sub-component of EPA's
environmental responsibilities
— States: guidance does not address land
use decisions not made by the recipient
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
4-9
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• Due Weight Accordance
— Industry: should be granted beyond Area
Specific Agreements (ASA)
— Community: ASA will shield states from
investigation
— Civil Rights: OCR and communities
should have a role in ensuring that ASA
and other settlements between recipients
and complainants are enforced
— States: guidance lacks details
• Who Has Standing
— Industry: standing should be limited to
those in the community
— Community: guidance limits who can file
the complaint
Ms. Yorker reported that, in addition to analysis
of all key issues, OCR is preparing a list of key
issues sorted by stakeholder. OCR anticipated
receiving a draft summary of comments by the
end of December 2000, she said. After all
comments have been considered carefully, OCR
will make final the draft guidance documents and
publish them in the Federal Register, Ms. Yorker
concluded. In response to Ms. Home's question
about whether the NEJAC would be able to
provide additional comment to OCR's final
analysis, Ms. Yorker said she would refer the
matter to the Director of OCR.
When asked whether copies of the written
comments would be made available to the
public, Ms. Yorker stated that each document
can be accessed from OCR's Internet web site
at . She explained
that each document had been scanned and
could be retrieved simply by clicking on the
name of a specific commenter.
Referring to earlier discussions about the
"standard practice" of deferring administrative
complaints filed simultaneously with litigation,
Mr. Cole requested that OCR explain why EPA
policy is to dismiss complaints rather than defer
them for later consideration, which runs counter
to the standard policy of other federal agencies.
He expressed concern that EPA's policy is just
one part of EPA's pattern of "hurting" civil rights
complainants. The anti-complainant "mind-set"
is very troubling, he said.
3.2 Update on Supplemental Environmental
Projects
Mr. Torres opened the discussion with a brief
overview of supplemental environmental projects
(SEP). He stated that the presentation would
focus on limitations on the capacity of affected
communities to negotiate what a SEP would be.
He asked to members of the subcommittee to
consider ways to get all relevant and affected
stakeholders to play an active role in the
formulation of SEPs. He then turned the
presentation over to Ms. Mayfield, who
presented information to the members of the
Enforcement Subcommittee on the obstacles
faced by her organization in operating a SEP.
Ms. Mayfield, whose Chester, Pennsylvania
community had initiated a lawsuit alleging
violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by the a
local sewage treatment facility, stated that her
community initially had not known about EPA's
SEP program, nor had federal, state, or local
government agencies informed her community
about what could be accomplished with one.
She stated that the members of her community
had believed that the penalties paid by polluters
was sent directly to the federal and state
government rather than invested back in the
affected community. When they had inquired
about developing a community-driven SEP, the
members of her community had been told that a
community could never implement or operate a
SEP, she explained, adding that any SEP
programs were controlled by the polluter or
contractor for the polluter. Subsequently, she
declared, they had discovered that several
communities were running SEPs across the
country, despite claims to the contrary by EPA.
Ms. Mayfield continued by explaining it was not
until her community had initiated a lawsuit, that
EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) had become
involved in the suit. Eventually, it became a five-
way negotiation, she said. The consent
agreement, she noted, could not be
implemented for three years primarily because of
objections voiced by industry to the community
implementing the program. There were many
barriers, she said, declaring it an "insulting and
extremely hard process." There were no
problems with the SEP itself, she continued.
Although not a typical SEP, which usually focus
on beautification efforts, the Chester project was
4-10
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
designed to provide "something of value" to the
community, Ms Mayfield said. The purpose of
the project, which addresses childhood lead
poisoning prevention, will be to identify children
before they are exposed to lead and try to
minimize their exposure or prevent that exposure
from occurring, she explained.
Ms. Mayfield reported that, in light of the
obstacles they had and continue to face, many
members of her community believe that the EPA
and the Pennsylvania DEP have not been as
supportive as they could have been. However,
she acknowledged there are certain individuals
at EPA who have helped the community initiate,
implement, and administer the SEP. However, a
number of barriers imposed by federal, state,
and local agencies remain, Ms. Mayfield
claimed. As example, she expressed her belief
that decisions made by the local government
have resulted in the perception that it does not
want the project to succeed. Pointing to an
ongoing problem with reporting requirements,
she explained that the community only has used
one reporting process to date; however, she
continued, it appears that the reporting
mechanism no longer is valid. No one will tell
the community an alternate method to use, she
claimed. Ms. Mayfield admitted that the
community is responsible for some of the
problems. However, for those problems over
which the community has no control, they are
repeatedly asked to identify a solution, she
emphasized. We feel we are always backed into
a corner, she stated.
Ms. Mayfield explained that despite many
problems, the project is running smoothly. It has
had a positive effect on the community, she said.
Lessons learned include the need to educate
communities about SEPs and their benefits, as
well as how to implement a SEP, she continued.
In addition, federal, state, and local agencies
need to put in place a mechanism that would
ensure that communities are receiving sufficient
resources to achieve the goals of its SEP, she
concluded.
Mr. Cole asked whether Ms. Mayfield believed
that a training program for community-run SEPs
would be helpful for communities. The members
of the subcommittee then recommended that
EPA create such a training program for
communities related to the implementation of
SEPs.
Mr. Torres then stated that SEPs usually arise
from litigation about a case. He explained that it
is very important that the SEP does no more
harm to the community than the original pollution
and that is why defendants should not have as
much control over SEPs as they currently do.
He stated that SEPs should be recognized as a
project that can help control legal issues and act
as an ancillary related to environmental issues.
3.3 History of Executive Order 12898 on
Environmental Justice
Mr. Cole introduced Mr. Torres and Ms. Deeohn
Ferris, President, Global Environmental
Resources, Inc., to provide a historical overview
of Executive Order 12898 on Environmental
Justice. Mr. Cole stated that the lessons to be
drawn from the presentation particularly would
be appropriate the coming years. He introduced
Mr. Torres who had been the Acting Attorney
General for Natural Resources, DOJ, when the
executive order was drafted. Mr. Cole stated
that Ms. Ferris, who had been with the Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights and the Washington
Office for Environmental Justice when the order
was drafted, will offer the perspective of the non-
government "outsider" involved in the process .
He also reminded the members that Ms. Ferris
previously had served as the chair of the
Enforcement Committee.
Opening the discussion, Mr. Torres explained
that the Executive order illustrates the capacity
of a concerted and long-term effort by
community activists to change public policy.
One thing that the documents from the transition
between the Bush and Clinton administrations
clearly demonstrate was the effort to determine
the best way to address environmental justice,
he continued. Although legislation had been
considered, the two bills under consideration
were not considered capable of passage, he
said, adding that issuance of a presidential
executive order would be one of the best ways to
achieve the goal.
Mr. Torres stated that although DOJ had been
tasked to direct the effort to draft the order, it did
not do so in isolation. In addition to meeting with
members of the White House Council on
Environmental Equity (CEQ), DOJ had held a
series of hearings at which community groups
were invited to present their concerns to DOJ
staff. The goal was to draft language that
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
4-11
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
defined what issues to address and how to
address them in the order, as well as how to use
the executive order to change the way the
federal agencies do business, he continued.
The process was lengthy; DOJ continued to
meet with community organizations, CEQ, and
representatives of other federal agencies, he
said, adding that these discussions also were
designed to determine the impact of an
executive order on agencies whose programs
and policies directly and indirectly affect the
environment.
Mr. Torres added that most of the difficulty
experienced by DOJ in drafting the order
occurred when negotiating with CEQ and various
federal agencies on the language for creating
the Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice (IWG). He stated that the
IWG also has experienced obstacles in fulfilling
its mission as stated in the order. He cited as an
example the difficulty in obtaining environmental
justice strategies for every federal agency. In
addition, he stated, one intention of the executive
order was for the IWG to serve as a central point
of contact to whom citizens could bring
complaints, which in turn would be referred to
the appropriate agency for response.
One of the early working models for the order
was the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), said Mr. Torres. Although an early critic
of NEPA because it appeared to have no real
law behind it, he stated he now can see that one
advantage of using NEPA to address
environmental justice is that we can see whether
it has changed how those agencies that do not
have clear environmental mandates make
decisions.
Ms. Ferris noted that some of the activities that
had occurred during the early stages of
environmental justice public policy development
are applicable to what is happening in policy
development today. Notably, the tremendous
momentum at the grass roots level was
remarkable, she explained, adding that although
she would like to see that momentum
regenerated today, she understands that a
number of political circumstances would
continue to make that a challenge. This
momentum reflected the phenomena of grass
roots organizations around the country and
internationally that were unifying around the
position that communities should provide input
into and be involved in decisions about the
environment and other issues affecting the
quality of their life, she continued. Ms. Ferris
added that grass roots organizations also were
redefining what constituted environmental
justice; environmental issues did not stop at the
door but rather was a quality of life issue, she
explained. As such, the umbrella of
environmental justice was wide and diverse, she
said.
As grass roots organizations began linking up
across state, regional, and increasingly global
borders, the momentum flourished, Ms. Ferris
continued, and there was a growing public
awareness about the issues. What initially had
resonated with the public were concerns about
facility siting and expansion, although that model
has changed so that facility siting is just but one
component of reassigning what constitutes the
phrase "the environment" and how one
addresses environmental issues, she said. The
media played an important role in capturing and
focusing the attention of the public on those
issues, she added, which in turn captured the
attention of government agencies, Congress,
and state legislatures.
Ms. Ferris commented that its important to
understand that the environmental justice
movement is not populated exclusively with
Democrats. Rather, she explained,
environmental justice activists represent a multi-
political configuration. The grass roots
momentum was happening during the
administration of George Bush, she added,
noting that community groups had captured the
attention of the then EPA Administrator William
Reilly. It was during Reilly's tenure that EPA had
begun to realize that certain populations of
Americans were treated differently when
environmental burdens and benefits were
allocated, she continued. During the transition to
the Clinton administration, grass roots
organizations had the ear of many incoming and
outgoing political officials, said Ms. Ferris, noting
that this type of political support was
unprecedented. She stated that she had
assembled a core group of community activists
who prepared a paper outlining community
problems relating to environmental racism; two
members of the group later served on Clinton's
transition team assigned for the environment,
she added.
4-12
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
At that time, the core group was expanded to
include a broader set of diverse interests who
could come together collaboratively and think
collectively about what could be achieved if given
a choice to define an environmental agenda for
the Clinton administration, Ms. Ferris continued.
In drafting the transition paper, the group
extracted the most important issues to
communicate, she said, noting that the paper
focused on recommendations that were "true to
ideals of the environmental justice movement."
Ms. Ferris commented that the process by which
the paper was drafted was "very interactive."
We worked hard to communicate the views from
the bottom up, she declared.
Ms. Ferris outlined several key
recommendations presented in the paper which
later were implemented in some form:
• Establishment of an executive order on
environmental justice
• Establishment of a federal interagency
council on environmental justice in
recognition of the need to coordinate cross-
cutting and cross-jurisdictional impacts
affecting communities of color and low
income communities
• Establishment of a federal advisory
committee on environmental justice
• Consolidation by EPA of American Indian
programs and activities into an American
Indian office and establishment of a tribal
coordinating council.
Ms. Ferris observed that the transition paper had
foretold the environmental issues currently
facing the nation. The paper addresses where
the environmental agenda needs to be; where
sustainable development needs to be; and the
direction of global sustainability, she explained.
In addition, the paper calls for increased scrutiny
of state programs and the establishment of a
federal role in ensuring that states fulfill their
responsibilities, she added. Within that context,
the recommendations discussed the applicability
of Title VI and the need for states to examine
how they address environmental justice, said
Ms. Ferris, adding that the paper called for an
extension of the federal mandate to that.
Acknowledging that congratulations are in order
for what has been accomplished, Ms. Ferris
urged the environmental justice community to
examine the other concerns raised in the
transition paper that still need to be addressed.
She cited the need for equity impact statements,
which analyze the impacts on sensitive
communities affected by environmental
conditions. She noted that although much
attention has been placed on the assessment of
environmental impacts on children's
environmental health, much remains to be done.
Other areas of concern include: global
sustainability, sustainable development, the
revitalization of blighted communities, an
increase in compliance and enforcement
targeting, and consideration of not only external
environmental conditions but also internal
environmental conditions that include lack of
access to health care and other quality of life
deficiencies.
Other recommendations hailed as "cutting edge"
by Ms. Ferris includes urging EPA to examine
the development of environmental policies in
developing countries, a comparative analysis of
consumption in developing countries and
consumption in industrial countries, the provision
of assistance to developing countries so they
would not replicate the problems that industrial
countries had created. She remarked that the
paper also urged that EPA be elevated to
cabinet-level status. In addition, the paper
insisted that EPA recognize that health and
environment are synonymous, Ms. Ferris
explained, as well as urged the agency to
examine the regressive impact of economic and
environmental policies such as the trading of
pollution credits. She remarked that the United
States increasingly is encouraging the merging
market treatment of environmental issues.
Admitting that she does not necessarily oppose
such a trend, Ms. Ferris urged caution.
Ms. Ferris concluded her presentation with an
acknowledgment of the various persons working
to address these issues, including the members
of NEJAC and the EPA staff supporting them.
Ms. Harris agreed that there is a lot more work to
do, particularly at the state and local level. For
example, she said, the State of Tennessee is
just completing its strategic plan for
environmental justice. Although not pleased with
all the elements of the plan, she commented that
at least the state has begun to talk about the
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
4-13
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
issues. Ms. Harris expressed concern about the
plan's use of the term "disparate impact on
sensitive populations." Business and industry
interests do not want that terminology to be
used, she explained. We supposedly have
come a long way since 1994 but we have a long
way to go, Ms. Harris remarked.
Ms. Mood asked that copies of the Clinton
Administration transition paper on environmental
justice be distributed to the members of the
subcommittee. Ms. Ferris agreed to provide a
copy of that document.
Mr. Cole asked that, given that Ms. Ferris was
among the first members of the NEJAC, what
advice would she give to current members. Ms.
Ferris offered the following recommendations:
• First, pay attention to "survival" because the
advent of the new administration represents
"changed circumstances" for the NEJAC.
The NEJAC, as well as its allies should
contact key congressional and
administration representatives to increase
empathy for and education about the
importance of stakeholder involvement in
environmental decision making, as well as
the role of the NEJAC in making that
happen. The administration needs to
understand that environmental justice is not
anti-business, nor is it anti-development;
rather environmental justice is about
broadening and diversifying the stakeholders
present at the decision making table so that
decisions are more informed, more holistic,
and more sustainable. Environmental
justice is not just about taking a place at the
table but also is a recognition that the new
stakeholders can offer new insights and
perspectives.
• Second, stick with what we know needs to
improve. The Enforcement Subcommittee
should shift to bread and butter issues of
compliance and enforcement and continue
to make the incoming administration aware
of the need to make advances in these
areas. Agencies should be encouraged to
take enforcement actions that will directly
benefit disproportionately affected
populations around the country.
• Third, urge government agencies to continue
to learn about what steps can be taken with
respect to enforcement to protect
populations that traditionally are under-
protected.
• Fourth, continue to address the concept of
permitting, especially area-wide permitting.
Improve stakeholder interaction and
involvement in the process for issuance of
permits.
3.4 Status of EPA Targeting Efforts
Mr. Herman prefaced his comments by
remarking that he was not attending the meeting
alone. He explained that he had asked several
members of OECA headquarters and EPA
regional staff to attend to answer and respond to
comments. He added that it always has proven
helpful to hear directly what the subcommittee
members are saying and asking. He assured
the members of the subcommittee that their
comments and recommendations do have an
impact on the Agency's deliberations.
Pointing to several of the recommendations
offered by Ms. Ferris, Mr. Herman commented
that several are very important. He urged the
NEJAC to not only reach out to those seen as
allies and friends, but to widen the approach to
include all key officials. Referring to the "bread
and butter" issues of compliance and
enforcement, he acknowledged there are
different ways to approach the issues.
Disagreeing with Ms. Ferris, Mr. Herman stated
that he believed that there has been a significant
change in the way EPA does enforcement. He
cited as example the shift from bundling
individual cases after the fact as a initiative to a
serious and comprehensive planning and
targeting process. Targeting now is focused on
what we know are the most serious threats to
not only the environment but serious health
risks, as well, he said. He offered as example
efforts undertaken by the Agency to reduce air
and water pollution which are associated with
premature mortality and respiratory illnesses
which are rampant in minority and poor
communities.
Today, the Agency is fielding fewer complaints
about lack of responsiveness about enforcement
actions and community concerns, said Mr.
Herman, than it did when the Clinton
Administration came into office in 1992. In those
eight years, EPA has doubled the number of
4-14
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
agents assigned to its criminal program, taken
on large industry cases that have
disproportionately affected low-income and
minority communities, and increased the
amounts of fines and penalties while producing
reductions in pollutants, he explained. Mr.
Herman added that, overall, EPA's record of
enforcement reveals that it has attempted to
cultivate a program that is sophisticated and
produces reductions in contaminants. He noted
that although SEPs are a "slightly more
cumbersome process," it is an active and vibrant
program. He acknowledged that despite the
current hiring freeze, he is proud of all that has
been accomplished in the past eight years.
Mr. Herman stated that industry is not doing
nearly as well as it would like to think it is. He
said that EPA is pursuing violations by many
different types of companies, even "respectable
ones" who are in violation. Mr. Herman
acknowledged that he was disappointed in the
Agency's relationship with the states. However,
he added, things are starting to turn around. Mr.
Herman concluded his presentation by asking
the members of the subcommittee to "keep
telling EPA how it is doing and how it can
improve."
Ms. Mayfield asked about the relationship
between EPA and affected communities.
Pointing to her Chester, Pennsylvania
community as example, she questioned whether
it should help companies who are slow or refuse
to take action. Claiming inaction on the part of
state and federal agencies, she stated that EPA
has not made a strong presence about
enforcement in the eight years her organization
has been trying to address local concerns. Mr.
Herman responded that he will try to encourage
some action by the EPA Region 3 office. He
acknowledged that in several instances, states
have issued permits without correct information
or made a token action in response to a
violation. Ms. Mayfield added that she does not
understand why states and industry are allowed
to continue with rectifying a problem when it is
known that a community is overburdened with
impacts and EPA has stated that more
enforcement and compliance efforts are needed.
What happens in those communities in which
less is known about what is going on, she asked.
Mr. Herman stated that the EPA regional offices
are working with communities around the
country and has initiated several lawsuits. He
agreed that to prompt swifter action by
companies, fines should increase as the severity
of the violation increases. Although EPA has
limited tools with which to address the lack of
action by states, Mr. Herman stated that EPA
does retain the right to take back any programs it
has delegated to a state, although it never has
been done. To think that EPA would do a better
job is questionable, he said. He cited recent
efforts to improve enforcement in Texas in which
EPA threatened to take back the water program
because of the state's order privilege law. He
added that the NEJAC can do more with states
by inviting their representatives to attend a
NEJAC meeting, either to observe or to make a
presentation. EPA is trying to get the "biggest
bang for its buck and do with what we have,"
said Mr. Herman.
Mr. Gregg Cooke, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 6, added that resources do dictate what
strategies are used to confront a myriad of
issues. Pointing to the state of Louisiana, which
has many issues, he said that the regional office,
as well as staff from OECA headquarters are
working together to target various areas.
Echoing Mr. Cooke's comments about
combining enforcement strategies in all sectors,
Mr. Jerry Clifford, Deputy Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 6, commented that
the region targets inspections, tracks violations,
and increases media attention to the area. In
addition, penalty actions have increased, said
Mr. Clifford. Mr. Herman added that EPA has
been conducting additional inspections to create
a statistically valid universe of data by which to
assess compliance rates in the regions, as well
as to help the Agency better distribute its limited
resources.
A representative of EPA Region 5 noted that a
recent federal court ruling suggests that EPA
may have to assume Indiana's regulation of
concentrated animal feeding operations. Ms.
Home added that in addition to similar cases
pending in California and Michigan, the River
Permitting Council has petitioned EPA to take
over permitting operations in seven states, most
of which are in the south.
Mr. Cole referred to earlier discussions about the
difficulties experienced by citizen groups in
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
4-15
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
implementing a SEP, either due to not having the
resources or training to properly implement the
SEP or having restrictions placed on how the
SEP was to be implemented that are not placed
on other SEPs. He suggested that a SEP
"cookbook" designed to help communities share
knowledge and lessons learned might be useful
for the Agency. Mr. Herman agreed, noting that
the document also should outline what can and
can not be done in a SEP and why. Mr. Herman
added that before 1992, EPA had drawn
criticism from Congress and the U.S.
Government Accounting Office for how it
handled SEPs, although the Agency has not
received that criticism lately. He suggested that
if it would be helpful to the subcommittee, OECA
would be willing to review EPA's policy on SEPs
to help determine what kind of cookbook would
be useful to communities.
Ms. Mayfield stated that although citizen
organizations do need training in what a SEP is
and how to manage SEP projects, staff of EPA
should be trained in how they communicate with
local communities to improve its sensitivity to
community organizations that are willing to take
the lead on a SEP. Mr. Herman responded that
EPA recently had issued an internal guidance on
developing uniform guidance on how to
approach communities about SEPs. He
reminded the members of the subcommittee that
defendants can not be compelled to conduct a
SEP unless they agree to.
4.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS
The following is a list of action items the
members adopted during the subcommittee
meeting:
• Requested Mr. Brenman forward to EPA
OCR and the subcommittee copies of DOT'S
informal guidebook that describes how to
investigate environmental justice complaints
under Title VI.
• Ms. Yorker agreed to forward to Ms. Ann
Goode, Director, EPA OCR, the request of
the NEJAC to provide additional comment to
the final analysis of EPA's guidance
documents related to investigating Title VI
complaints.
• Requested EPA OCR provide the
Enforcement Subcommittee with an
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
explanation of how EPA's policy of
dismissing administrative complaints filed
simultaneously with litigation was
formulated, as well as how EPA can justify
continuing that policy when it is at odds with
the standard practice of other federal
agencies is to defer such complaints.
• Requested that the staff of EPA responsible
for administering SEPs, convene a meeting
of eight to ten community-based
organizations that have experience in
implementing SEPs to identify problems and
obstacles they have encountered. With the
consultation of the community-based
organizations, EPA should draft a manual or
"cookbook" to assist community groups in
implementing SEPs.
• Requested Mr. Herman provide the
subcommittee a copy of the documents,
including pleadings and complaints, that
challenge air pollution from concentrated
animal feeding operations located in
Missouri, North Carolina, and Indiana.
4-16
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 13, 2000
Arlington, Virginia
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Brenda Washington
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Co-Designated Federal Official
Aretha Brockett Rose Augustine
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, Acting Chair
and Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Co-Designated Federal Official
-------
CHAPTER FIVE
MEETING OF THE
HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Health and Research Subcommittee of the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) conducted a one-day meeting on
Wednesday, December 13, 2000, during a four-
day meeting of the NEJAC in Arlington, Virginia.
Dr. Marinelle Payton, Department of Public Health,
School of Allied Health Sciences, Jackson State
University, continues to serve as chair of the
subcommittee. Ms. Rose Augustine, Tucsonans
for a Clean Environment, serves as co-chair of the
subcommittee. Ms. Brenda Washington, Office of
Research and Development (ORD), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Ms.
Aretha Brockett, Office of Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), EPA, serve as
the Co-Designated Federal Officials (DFO) for the
subcommittee. Exhibit 5-1 presents a list of the
members who attended the meeting and identifies
those members who were unable to attend.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Health and Research
Subcommittee, is organized in five sections,
including this Introduction. Section 2.0, Activities
of the Subcommittee, summarizes the discussions
about the activities of the subcommittee, including
the status of development of the Decision Tree
Framework for Community-Directed Environmental
Health Assessment (decision tree). Section 3.0,
Presentations and Reports, presents an overview
of presentations and reports provided to members
of the subcommittee by representatives of various
Federal agencies, as well as a summary of
questions asked and comments offered by
members of the subcommittee. Section 4.0,
Summary of Public Dialogue, summarizes remarks
offered during the public dialogue period provided
by the subcommittee. Section 5.0, Action Items,
summarizes the action items adopted by the
subcommittee.
2.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
This section summarizes the activities of the
subcommittee that were discussed during the
meeting, including a discussion of the continuing
development of the decision tree. In addition to
discussing the decision tree, members of the
subcommittee participated in a working session to
define the goals and objectives the subcommittee
Exhibit 5-1
HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 13, 2000
Dr. Marinelle Payton, Chair
Ms. Rose Augustine, Vice Chair
Ms. Brenda Washington, Co-DFO
Ms. Aretha Brockett, Co-DFO
Mr. Don Aragon
Mr. Lawrence Dark
Mr. Philip Lewis
Mr. Carlos Porras
Ms. Peggy Shepard
Ms. Jane Stahl
Members
Who Were Unable To Attend
Mr. Michael DiBartolomeis
Mr. Jess Womack
would pursue in response to the information
presented by the representatives of various
Federal agencies. See Section 3.0 of this chapter
for a summary of those presentations.
2.1 Status of the Decision Tree Framework for
Community-Directed Environmental Health
Assessment
Dr. Payton began the discussion of the Decision
Tree Framework for Community-Directed
Environmental Health Assessment by stating that
EPA had organized an adhoc group of individuals
to discuss and assess the framework. Dr. Payton
explained that the group had been formed in
response to a recommendation made by the
subcommittee to the Executive Council of the
NEJAC in May 2000 and the Executive Council's
subsequent request to EPA that the agency make
the decision tree one of its priority research
projects and provide resources for further
development of the decision tree framework.
Having provided that background information, Dr.
Payton asked Ms. Washington to explain to the
members of the subcommittee how the group was
formed and to provide an update of the group's
activities. Exhibit 5-2 provides a description of the
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
5-1
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 5-2
THE NEJAC DECISION TREE FRAMEWORK
FOR COMMUNITY-DIRECTED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT
The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) Health and Research Subcommittee Work Group on
Community Environmental Health Assessment has been working on development of the Decision Tree Framework
for Community-Directed Environmental Health Assessment (decision tree). The purpose of the decision tree is to
provide a framework that communities can use to identify, prevent, and solve direct and indirect environmental
problems. The decision tree consists of a series of steps. At each step, the user is prompted to assess information
and set priorities among items and to evaluate possible options and actions. In addition, at each step, the user is
referred to a repository of various tools, models, and data that can assist in the formulation of problems and the
assessment of strategies.
The decision tree currently is under development. Planned developmental steps include:
• Identifying community and government resources
• Identifying potential links with local, state, federal, tribal, and regional resources, including universities and
health agencies
• Promoting the product to community users
• Providing technical assistance to communities that will be using the product
• Arranging for evaluation by users and the collecting and analyzing the comments of users and developing a
mechanism to provide ongoing comment to government agencies about research and data gaps, information and
resource needs, and establishment of priorities among issues in light of comments offered by users
Throughout the development process, a conscious effort is being made to ensure that the content and language is
appropriate for a broad, lay audience. That point is especially important because the subcommittee intends that the
decision tree be used by a variety of people, including community members who may not have technical or scientific
backgrounds.
The NEJAC Health and Research Subcommittee also has identified the following desired outcomes of the decision
tree project:
• Empower communities for effective leadership.
• Strengthen links between environmental and public health agencies and affected communities.
• Identify deficiencies in the existing repository.
• Guide subsequent research and related work.
decision tree framework currently under
development by the subcommittee's Work Group
on Community Environmental Health Assessment.
Ms. Washington explained that staff of ORD, as
well as other individuals, including a representative
of the International City/County Management
Association (ICMA), participated in an all-day
session on December 8, 2000 to discuss the
decision tree. Continuing, Ms. Washington stated
that she had invited Dr. Payton to participate by
telephone to present the perspective of the NEJAC
on the decision tree. At the time the meeting was
held, the group had not yet been made aware of
"the NEJAC perspective," Ms. Washington added.
Pointing out that some confusion existed with
respect to the activities of the group and the
reason members of the subcommittee had not
been made aware sooner of the existence of the
group, Dr. Payton clarified a few historical facts.
She explained that, after the December 1999 and
May 2000 meetings of the subcommittee, Mr.
Lawrence Martin, EPA ORD and former co-DFO of
the subcommittee, had provided several
presentations on the decision tree to various
groups. The presentations were provided, Dr.
Payton explained, despite the fact that the
subcommittee had agreed that the decision tree
was not yet ready for public comment. Dr. Payton
stated that, after Mr. Martin's term as co-DFO of
the subcommittee had ended, Mr. Martin had
5-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
initiated a cooperative agreement with ICMA under
which ICMA was to provide assistance in the
further development of the framework.
Of primary importance, Dr. Payton pointed out,
was the fact that she had not been aware of the
presentations Mr. Martin had provided, nor had
she been aware of the cooperative agreement Mr.
Martin had established with ICMA, until November
2000. At that time, Dr. Payton continued, Ms.
Washington had asked Dr. Payton to participate in
the conference call scheduled for December 8.
Dr. Payton stated that she had been "shocked" to
discover during the conference call that Mr. Martin
was working with ICMA on the decision tree. She
added that ORD and the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), EPA previously
had provided resources to the subcommittee to be
used in the development of the decision tree. The
funding, Dr. Payton said, had helped to cover the
costs of several meetings, including a meeting of
the subcommittee and its Work Group on
Community Environmental Health Assessment
held in Chicago in September 1999. Turning her
attention to the current status of the development
of the decision tree, Dr. Payton requested that Ms.
Pat Elliott, ICMA, explain to members of the
subcommittee the nature of ICMA's involvement in
the project.
Ms. Elliott explained that she was relatively new to
the project and that she had begun working on it in
late May 2000. She explained that Mr. Martin had
provided a presentation to ICMA's Risk Work
Group, which includes officials who represent local
governments and universities. After Mr. Martin's
presentation, Ms. Elliott explained, members of the
ICMA Risk Work Group commented that, as
presented, the decision tree framework was "not
usable by anyone below the Ph.D. level." She
explained that ICMA had been serving primarily as
a "sounding board" on the usability of the
framework, as well as on issues related to
community involvement during both development
and use of the framework.
Dr. Payton explained that no one currently was
working on developing the framework, adding that
the subcommittee's Work Group on Community
Environmental Health Assessment had been
instrumental in contributing to the design of the
framework and would continue to work on it. "The
plan," she said, "is to identify the appropriate
people to work on the decision tree."
Several members of the subcommittee expressed
concern, stating that they were confused about the
series of events that Dr. Payton and Ms. Elliott had
described. Of particular concern, they noted, was
the amount of effort that members of the
subcommittee had put into the development of the
framework and the possibility that the project was
being taken over by others. Ms. Augustine
expressed her dismay, saying, "I feel like I've been
had, like I've been used." She pointed out that she
had taken time off work without pay to volunteer
her time to the project. Mr. Lawrence Dark,
Columbia Willamette Area Health Education
Center, expressed similar concern. He
commented that "the subcommittee thought it was
working on something with [EPA]; then an [EPA]
employee took it and sold it to somebody else."
Ms. Washington informed the members of the
subcommittee that Mr. Martin was on a sabbatical
leave from EPA for one year and that he was not
working on the decision tree. She also reported
that EPA intended to identify an office in ORD, as
well as a senior scientist, to work with the NEJAC
on the development of the framework. Ms.
Washington stated further that, "as far as ORD is
concerned, the decision tree is a NEJAC action
item." She stated that ORD's goal was to work
with the NEJAC.
Ms. Brockett added that OPPTS also supported
development of the decision tree. She added that
she also had been "shocked to find that [a staff
member of] ORD had someone else working on
the project." As a co-sponsor of the project,
OPPTS had not been aware of the arrangement
between Mr. Martin and ICMA, Ms. Brockett said.
The participants in the meeting then engaged in a
lengthy discussion of the events that led to the
arrangement between Mr. Martin and ICMA and
whether individuals outside the subcommittee were
attempting to become involved in the development
of the framework without the subcommittee's
knowledge. After the discussion, Ms. Jane Stahl,
Assistant Commissioner, Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection, suggested, and
members of the subcommittee agreed, that the
subcommittee should forward to the Executive
Council of the NEJAC a letter requesting that EPA
(1) explain its agreement with ICMA related to the
decision tree, (2) explain who authorized the
agreement, (3) provide the subcommittee with a
report of activities conducted under the agreement,
and (4) submit copies of all reports developed
under the agreement. In addition, the members of
the subcommittee agreed that the letter should
request that EPA provide assurances to the
NEJAC that, in the future, ideas and products
developed by members of the NEJAC and its
subcommittees will not be plagiarized.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
5-3
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
2.2 Subcommittee Working Session
After hearing from representatives of various
Federal agencies (see Section 3.0 of this chapter
for a summary of those presentations), the
members of the subcommittee discussed the
necessity of identifying (1) whether environmental
justice is incorporated in principle into the missions
of each agency and, if not, why; (2) to what extent
Federal agencies address issues of environmental
justice; and, (3) in cases in which agencies have
worked successfully together, the specific factors
that contributed to success. In addition, the
members of the subcommittee wanted to know, in
cases in which no progress had occurred, how
Federal agencies were planning to incorporate the
principles of environmental justice into their
missions and day-to-day activities.
The members of the subcommittee also discussed
the lack of focus on and attention to issues of
environmental justice throughout all levels in
Federal agencies. The members of the
subcommittee agreed, therefore, to request
through the Executive Council of the NEJAC that a
program be initiated to train "middle management"
staff of Federal agencies in how to incorporate the
principles of environmental justice into their day-to-
day work. It was suggested that the program
include the provision of such training to staff in the
Senior Executive Service to increase their
awareness of issues related to environmental
justice. The members agreed that such an
educational component is needed because, even
though senior staff may not be responsible for
carrying out day-to-day activities, to effectively
facilitate change throughout each agency, they
must understand what environmental justice is
before they can be expected to view it as a priority.
Another principal topic of discussion was how
Federal agencies can collaborate, specifically in
the provision of health-based services to low-
income and minority communities. Through that
discussion, the numbers of the subcommittee
agreed that agencies must look beyond the
limitations and restrictions of their mandates and
consider ways to share resources so that health
problems that should be addressed in
communities can be addressed. For example, an
agency that does not have in its mandate a clause
that specifically allows the direct provision of health
care may be able to share funds or other
resources with an agency that has as part of its
mission the provision of health care.
In addition, the members of the subcommittee
agreed that many topics discussed during the
December 2000 meeting had been related to
topics discussed during the May 2000 meeting of
the subcommittee and included in the
subcommittee's subsequent report on health
issues. Therefore, the members of the
subcommittee agreed, it was important to review
that report in light of the December 2000 meeting
and determine how it should be amended to
incorporate specific topics and suggestions that
had arisen during the December 2000 meeting.
3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and reports submitted to the Health and Research
Subcommittee by representatives of various
Federal agencies. Dr. Payton asked each of the
agency representatives to discuss specifically the
involvement of their agencies in (1) building
healthy communities and (2) working in
collaborative partnerships with other agencies to
integrate environmental justice principles into all
programs of Federal agencies.
3.1 Activities of the U.S. Department of
T ransportation
Mr. Marc Brenman, Senior Policy Advisor,
Departmental Office of Civil Rights, Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), and Mr. David Kuehn, Community Planner,
Metropolitan Planning Division, Federal Highway
Administration, DOT, presented information about
the environmental justice activities of DOT. Mr.
Brennan stated that the mission of DOT is to
regulate "everything that flies moves, and floats in
the United States." From an environmental
perspective, he continued, this mission extends to
regulating the transportation of hazardous
materials, the training of first responders to
incidents involving hazardous materials, and
monitoring air pollution along major traffic
corridors, among other activities. Mr. Brenman
explained that DOT regards health as a safety
issue, he said.
Mr. Kuehn added that assessing the potential
number of lives saved in urban and rural areas in
which people use pedestrian traffic networks, such
as sidewalks and paths, is one way to view the
effect of the physical environment on human
health. Mr. Brenman pointed out that, as part of
the agency's environmental justice activities, DOT
examines ways to make transportation available
for communities of color and low-income
communities. He explained that residents of such
5-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
communities rely heavily on public transportation
to travel from where they live to their jobs and
other places.
Ms. Peggy Shepard, West Harlem Environmental
Action and vice-chair of the Executive Council of
the NEJAC, commented that the creation of
healthy communities can be viewed as one that
has grown out of the smart growth initiative.
Charging that this initiative is leaving out
environmental justice communities, Ms. Shepard
asked how Federal agencies will develop initiatives
around rebuilding such communities while
maintaining places to live for people already living
in those communities.
Mr. Kuehn responded that DOT also had been
conducting research on the interaction between
transportation and land use, as well as their effects
on communities. He reported that his office
focuses on "smart growth" under which it is
examining environmental justice issues,
community access to services, the location of
employment, and the effects of transportation
networks on housing costs in low-income and
minority communities. His office is trying to
provide leadership on DOT's internal research
agenda and, in turn, provide that information to its
partners, such as states and other grantees, he
continued.
Continuing, Mr. Brenman and Mr. Kuehn provided
a brief update on ongoing activities of DOT that
are focused on low-income, minority, and tribal
communities, including:
• A disadvantaged business enterprise program
for minorities and entrepreneurs
• Participation on an interagency children's
health task force to address children's health
issues, such as the increase in cases of
asthma among African American and Hispanic
children in urban areas
• Participation on a steering committee, led by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) to eliminate health disparities
among various racial and ethnic groups
• Activities designed to benefit native American
lands, including a roads program for Indian
reservations
• Joint efforts with the National Urban League to
examine, among other things, ways to address
the higher percentages of disabilities among
minorities and low-income residents
• A vehicle-miles-traveled program to monitor
and address air pollution
• Collaborative efforts with minority institutions
and historically black colleges and universities,
including a $1.2 million internship program
• Conduct of a one-day workshop on the
application of environmental justice throughout
the planning and decision-making processes
of transportation projects (the training was
conducted for field personnel and was
delivered in 35 states and Puerto Rico)
• Coordination of an environmental justice
summit, held during summer 2000, attended
by approximately 100 participants representing
government and community organizations (Mr.
Kuehn pointed out that, since that event, two
other agencies had held regional and local
summits of a similar nature)
Continuing, Mr. Kuehn stated that DOT is working
to apply the principles of environmental justice in
three principal areas: research, training and
outreach, and program oversight. Mr. Kuehn
explained that DOT was conducting an analysis of
public perceptions of the effects - and burdens -
of transportation on communities and that DOT
was concerned in particular about the interests of
specific communities, such as those in which low-
income and minority residents live.
The Department also has a particular interest in
public participation, Mr. Brenman and Mr. Kuehn
said, and would like the NEJAC to exert more
pressure on metropolitan planning organizations to
more actively encourage and facilitate public
participation. Mr. Brenman explained that the
regional offices of DOT are responsible for public
participation during the development of regional
transportation plans. However, improvement is
needed in that area, he acknowledged, particularly
because the time horizon for a typical
transportation project averages 20 years. Mr.
Brenman added that DOT certifies planning
organizations every three years. He then stated
that, in future years, the certification process would
include examination of issues specific to
environmental justice. "Part of the problem," he
said, "is almost no one knows how to do an equity
analysis" to determine the benefits and burdens on
communities of planning and transportation
projects.
After the presentation, Ms. Pam Kingfisher,
Executive Director, Indigenous Women's Network,
commented that she was "scared" by such issues
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
5-5
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
as the transportation of high-level radioactive
waste. In particular, she asserted that "corporate
contamination of highways" occurs when "waste
dribbles out" while being transported by trucks.
Ms. Kingfisher also said that compliance with
waste-hauling and permitting regulations is poor,
partly because of inadequate inspections. She
asked why sovereign nations, such as Indian
tribes, can not stop the transportation of such
wastes across their lands.
Ms. Augustine expressed concern that highways
often transect communities of color and low-
income communities. She explained that
population growth and the expansion of highway
systems reduce the amount of land available to
such communities. The issue is one that DOT
must address, Ms. Augustine urged, as are other
issues related to noise, dust, and the spraying of
pesticides near communities. Continuing, Ms.
Augustine said that she did not understand why
DOT did not "look at all of these issues in a holistic
manner," particularly when all those issues affect
only "certain" communities.
In response to Ms. Augustine's comments about
the need to address issues holistically, Mr. Kuehn
stated that it is important to view issues as matters
to be addressed by all agencies involved, rather
than to place responsibility on a single agency.
Mr. Don Aragon, Wind River Environmental Quality
Commission, Shoshone and Northern Arapaho
Tribes, commented that agency officials and
department heads often sign documents such as
memoranda of understanding; however, "there is
no trickle-down effect to regions and field offices"
in terms of implementation and follow-through. He
stated further that some of the worst roads in the
country are located on Indian reservations, many
of which are two-lane highways with heavy truck
traffic. This is a major disparity, he continued,
stating that "super highways are built to do away
with environmental justice communities." Mr.
Aragon asked how and when can communities
participate in decision making.
Responding to concerns expressed by Ms.
Augustine and Mr. Aragon about the historical
siting of transportation networks, Mr. Kuehn stated
that some current problems are the result of
damage done 30 or 40 years earlier, when certain
highways were constructed. Since that time, he
explained, laws and regulations that govern the
construction and operation of transportation
systems have changed. Mr. Kuehn stated that
DOT is attempting to learn lessons by examining
historical highway expansion programs. He also
pointed out that the agency is working to develop a
"range of techniques" for interacting and
communicating with communities, beyond the
usual method of inviting residents to attend
meetings. Some of the methods that DOT is
considering, he continued, include (1) going out
into communities and in people's homes, rather
than asking people to travel to DOT meetings, and
(2) communicating electronically with local
residents.
Mr. Philip Lewis, Rohm and Haas Company,
suggested that agencies investigate the possibility
of providing funding for public participation,
specifically for such items as travel expenses, to
allow residents to participate fully and
collaboratively when issues are being discussed.
Citing the success of the U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD) in promoting the participation of
individuals to attend meetings as a "matter of
public duty", Ms. Stahl commented that commonly
used terminology should be replaced by
terminology that more accurately reflects the
nature of the effort needed. She suggested, for
example, that the phrase "community
collaboration" be used instead of "community
participation."
3.2 Activities of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development
Mr. Robert McAlpine, Special Assistant to the
Assistant Secretary, and Ms. Antoinette Sebastian,
Senior Environmental Policy Analyst, provided an
update on the efforts of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to
improve the health of low-income and minority
populations. Both pointed out that, although
HUD's mission does not include explicitly stated
principles of environmental justice, HUD is
involved actively in addressing issues related to
lead-based paint, building healthy communities,
and other initiatives to improve conditions in low-
income and minority communities.
Mr. McAlpine informed members of the
subcommittee that he was a member of a coalition
that had lobbied members of Congress to pass
legislation on environmental justice. He explained
that after attempts to persuade Congress to enact
such legislation proved unsuccessful, the coalition
negotiated with the Clinton administration to
develop an Executive order "to do what the intent
of the proposed legislation would have
accomplished." Continuing, Mr. McAlpine
explained that although an Executive order on
environmental justice had been issued, funding
never had been provided to allow Federal
5-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
agencies to "undertake a serious effort to build
capacity at a headquarters level and throughout
the regions" to carry out the intent of the order. Mr.
McAlpine added that a number of crucial questions
must be discussed, including:
• Whose responsibility is it to meet the
provisions of the Executive order?
• How can Federal agencies build the capacity
to ensure that the Executive order "has teeth?"
• What steps can be taken to ensure that
environmental justice is a high priority issue in
all Federal agencies?
• What are the intents of Federal agencies in
terms of carrying out the Executive order, and
what limitations and barriers exist that might
prevent agencies from accomplishing that
end?
Mr. McAlpine stated further that Federal agencies
had been experiencing a period of devolution and
had been returning responsibilities to the states.
Responsibilities cannot be assigned to Federal
agencies, he said, unless corresponding
appropriations are provided to meet those
responsibilities. Mr. McAlpine explained that the
"Federal government does not have a mandate
from Congress for public participation." However,
HUD requires grantees under the Community
Development Block Grant Program to conduct
public participation activities, he continued. Mr.
McAlpine then explained that, because Congress
"will not be prescriptive and will not tell local
governments what to do," citizens often have little
leverage in efforts to persuade the Federal
government to be responsive to their concerns.
He cautioned members of the subcommittee to be
careful when making comments about the
perceived amount of latitude that Federal agencies
have in the area of public participation. Federal
agencies in fact are limited in terms of their ability
to "hold others accountable" for public
participation, he pointed out.
Adding to Mr. McAlpine's remarks, Ms. Sebastian
explained that, although HUD's mission statement
does not include an express statement about
environmental justice, HUD had developed a
strategy on environmental justice that includes the
following three basic principles:
• HUD will promote sound environmental
considerations in community development and
housing policies that simultaneously preserve
the affordability of housing and encourage
economic growth and private investment.
• HUD will promote the environmental quality of
public housing, Federally-assisted rental
housing, and home ownership programs to
ensure that low-income and minority residents
have a safe and healthy start to greater self
sufficiency.
• HUD will promote the principles of
environmental justice and will "rethink" and
"redesign" ways to deliver HUD's programs
and services in a way that will create
opportunities for people to take action to
improve their own lives.
Ms. Sebastian distributed to the members of the
subcommittee a handout that provided a summary
of steps that HUD had taken to incorporate
environmental justice into its programs, policies,
and activities. Among the items listed were (1) a
draft guide HUD developed for investigating
complaints related to environmental justice, (2) the
conduct of four environmental justice training
sessions for approximately 160 HUD compliance
investigators who are responsible for enforcing
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (3) the
incorporation of environmental justice into the
Notice of Funding Availability under HUD's
Brownfields economic development initiative, and
(4) a regulation promulgated in September 2000
that governs the control of lead-based paint
hazards in housing occupied by residents who
receive federal assistance and in federally-owned
housing that is being sold. Ms. Sebastian
emphasized that lead remains one of the greatest
environmental threats to the health of the nation's
children.
Turning her attention to HUD's role in building
healthy communities, Ms. Sebastian outlined a
number of activities in which HUD is involved,
including activities conducted in partnership with
other agencies. Those activities include:
• Water and sewer infrastructure projects
designed to provide housing that meets
established standards throughout colonias,
rural communities and neighborhoods located
within 150 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border that
lack adequate infrastructure and, frequently,
also lack other basic services
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
5-7
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• Empowerment zone and enterprise community
initiatives intended to improve economic and
living conditions in low-income areas
• Efforts to fight and eliminate lead-based paint
poisoning and related health threats to children
• Guidance for choosing "environmentally safe
sites" for development of housing
• A joint project of HUD and EPA that involves
the creation of "E-Maps," and an electronic
geographic information system that contains
spatial data
Ms. Sebastian urged the members of the
subcommittee to remember that decisions about
land use are made at the local level. It is at that
level, she asserted, "where citizen input has the
greatest impact." Explaining that "city
governments exist because states allow them to,"
she explained that there are important differences
between the type of citizen involvement that occurs
when local decisions are being made and the type
of citizen involvement that occurs in decisions
made at the Federal state level. Ms. Sebastian
pointed out that citizen involvement is much more
effective at the local level and that Federal
agencies typically are much more responsive to
Congress than to local citizens. Ms. Sebastian
suggested that members of the subcommittee visit
HUD's web site at: to obtain more
information about HUD's initiatives.
Ms. Augustine expressed concern about the
authority that Federal agencies have delegated to
states because, she explained, historically there
has been "a lack of follow-through." She added
that communities are not involved during the
development of consent decrees and that such
decrees often include legal language that
members of communities do not understand.
Turning her attention to a specific example, Ms.
Augustine mentioned a case in Tucson, Arizona in
which a consent decree allegedly was violated.
The local community complained and notified the
administrator of EPA Region 9, but received no
response from EPA, she explained. Ms. Augustine
suggested that grants be made available to
communities for hiring consultants to assist
communities in understanding the terms and
conditions of consent decrees.
When asked what progress HUD had achieved in
developing a plan of action to provide health care
to communities, Ms. Sebastian described several
ways communities can bring their plight to the
attention of the agency. One way, she explained,
is for communities to file a lawsuit to force political
appointees and staff to reexamine issues in a way
they would not otherwise. Under that kind of
pressure, agencies often will begin to examine
problems they had not earlier viewed as
problematic, she continued.
In response to other comments about the lack of
participation by states in efforts to achieve
environmental justice, Ms. Sebastian noted that
the private sector also should be included in efforts
to achieve environmental justice. She said that
many corporations, such as General Motors
Corporation and Microsoft Corporation, "really
want to be good corporate citizens;" they often
have charitable foundations that may be able to
provide assistance. She added that academic
institutions also should be included in efforts to
collaborate to achieve environmental justice.
3.3 Activities of the U.S. Department of Justice
Mr. Quentin Pair, Trial Attorney, Environment and
Natural Resources Division, provided an update on
the activities of the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ). Mr. Pair began his remarks by pointing out
that the Federal Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice (IWG) had compiled a
directory of environmental justice points of contact
that, he said, was the beginning of an attempt to
identify individuals within Federal agencies so that
communities could determine whom to call when
questions or issues arise. Mr. Pair also described
several general programs, including a lead-based
paint initiative implemented jointly by DOJ, HUD,
and EPA; DOJ's Weed and Seed Program
designed to improve conditions in low-income and
minority areas; and a demonstration project in
South Carolina under which HUD is working with
the United States Attorneys' Offices (USAO) to
augment services being provided under the
project. Mr. Pair referred the members of the
subcommittee to the DOJ web site,
, for more information about
DOJ's environmental justice activities.
Commenting that he frequently hears from Federal
agencies that they do not have a "pot of money to
address environmental justice," Mr. Pair explained
to the members of the subcommittee that funding
for agencies is not the issue. Rather, leadership
and training are the issues that must be
addressed, he said. Mr. Pair stated that, when the
IWG was formed, a "flurry of activities" took place;
however, he pointed out, the level of activity later
slowed. He also commented that an Executive
order on environmental justice "may be better than
legislation" because it offers flexibility. Continuing,
5-8
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
Mr. Pair explained that agencies can and should
explore creative ways to assist each other with
funding. Restrictions and "boundaries" do exist, he
said, with respect to how agencies allocate and
use funds; however, the IWG is examining steps
agencies can take to use their funding creatively.
Mr. Pair noted that "progress [in achieving
environmental justice] is being made, but it takes
time."
Mr. Pair commented that for those individuals who
have been involved for some time in the "struggle
for environmental justice," it is important to
recognize that some employees within Federal
agencies experience similar frustrations. While
the perception may be that Federal agencies may
not "be doing much" for environmental justice,
there are individuals within those agencies who are
making an effort, he said.
Mr. Pair commended Mr. Charles Lee, Associate
Director, Policy and Interagency Liaison, Office of
Environmental Justice, EPA, and others who had
worked on the Integrated Federal Interagency
Environmental Justice Action Agenda, recently
signed by senior executives of various Federal
agencies. The President's Management Council
also has accepted the agenda, Mr. Pair said.
Continuing, Mr. Pair stated that the Executive
order on environmental justice requires that
Federal agencies develop environmental justice
strategies and prepare reports on their progress in
implementing those strategies. Mr. Pair urged the
members of the subcommittee to use the Federal
interagency directory of points of contact to
request copies of the environmental justice
strategies of the various agencies, as well as
copies of their reports on the status of
implementation efforts.
Ms. Stahl commented that the subcommittee could
"argue about resources all day long." She
suggested, however, that instead of discussing the
budgets of Federal agencies or the lack thereof,
the members of the subcommittee would be better
served by hearing about and discussing (1) how
the agencies are integrating the concept of
environmental justice into their activities, with or
without resources, and (2) how agencies are
addressing health effects arising from
environmental hazards. Ms. Stahl pointed out that
such a focus was necessary if the subcommittee
was to be able to make recommendations.
Expressing his frustration that much of the
emphasis of the discussion was being placed on
issues related to funding and the missions of
Federal agencies, Mr. Carlos Porras, Communities
for a Better Environment, commented that such
questions as "how to get justice out of DOJ and
equity out of HUD" should be addressed. Mr.
Porras stated further that, if agencies "truly were
fulfilling their responsibilities," there would be no
environmental justice issues. Continuing, Mr.
Porras remarked that agencies must begin to
conduct business in ways that are equitable to
communities, as, he pointed out, they are
supposed to do. That issue, he declared, should
be the focal point of the discussion, rather than
quibbling about sources of funding. Mr. Porras
then expressed his frustration that for years
Federal agencies have pledged to resolve inequity
issues; but when he returns to the community,
these same agencies remain "part of the problem,
not the solution," he said. To now hear Federal
agencies claiming that funds are insufficient is
especially frustration, he emphasized.
3.4 Activities of the EPA Offices of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics and Research and
Development
Dr. William Sanders, Director, OPPT, and Dr.
Harold Zenick, Acting Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Science, ORD, provided an
update of the activities carried out by OPPT and
ORD.
Dr. Sanders explained that various efforts were
underway in OPPT, including:
• Ongoing efforts to translate various OPPT
announcements and documents into Spanish
and to make those materials available to non-
English-speaking populations
• Development of a standard rule on lead to
address lead contamination in soil, paint, and
dust
• An initiative to address specifically biological
and toxic chemical contamination
Dr. Sanders pointed out that the lead rule was on
schedule for release by December 22, 2000 and
that an effort had been made to address
comments received from the Executive Council of
the NEJAC and members of the health and
research subcommittee. Additional efforts,
descriptions of which, Dr. Sanders said, were to be
posted on EPA's web site.
Joking that if cloning technology was available
today, he would clone Mr. Pair because of his
understanding of issues related to environmental
justice, Dr. Sanders described the difficulties
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
5-9
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Federal agencies have encountered in developing
among their staffs an understanding of
environmental justice issues. He explained that
the problem exists because "not everyone
understands what his or her job is and not
everyone understands the issues." In addition, Dr.
Sanders said, Federal agencies should increase
their outreach to state and local agencies in an
effort to better engage those agencies in issues of
environmental justice. He pointed out that "there
are still people who don't think that environmental
justice is real . . . there are scientific types who
don't see environmental justice as part of their
jobs." Dr. Sanders suggested that a great effort
should be done to educate executive-level staff of
the various agencies about environmental justice
issues. He suggested that a two-pronged
approach was necessary to (1) educate senior-
level agency executives and raise their awareness
of environmental justice issues and (2) teach those
responsible for implementing programs and
policies how to incorporate the principles of
environmental justice into their day-to-day work.
Dr. Zenick began his remarks by expressing
disappointment that no representatives of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDCP) or the National Institute for Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS) were present. He then
outlined various activities that feature interagency
components that had been initiated primarily
during 2000:
• Establishment of a National Health Tracking
System, under a program that had been
developed for implementation by States to
increase the capability of states to monitor
health crises
• Preparation of a Government Accounting
Office report entitled "Toxic Chemicals: Long-
term Coordinated Strategy Needed to Measure
Exposure in Humans," which recommends the
integration of the activities of various Federal
agencies to address human health issues;
EPA and NIEHS are to form a task force on
the issue and develop a human exposure
"report card" designed to provide data on the
effects of 25 chemicals on human health
• Establishment of a Council for State and
Territorial Epidemiologists, including several
work groups to address issues related to
human health
• Establishment of CDCP's Environmental
Public Health Indicators Project, which was
inspired by the efforts of one work group and
which focuses on indicators that provide
information about the status of certain health
conditions
• A focused federal effort to develop guidance
on the conduct of environmental health
assessments and to expand the integration of
environmental health into health-care
education and medical practice
• A protocol, developed by the National
Association of City/County Health
Organizations, for assessing community
excellence in environmental health
During the discussion that followed Dr. Sanders'
comments, members of the subcommittee agreed
to request that the Executive Council of the NEJAC
recommend that a program be initiated to train
"middle management" staff of Federal agencies in
how to incorporate the principles of environmental
justice into their day-to-day work. The members of
the subcommittee also agreed that the program
should include a component for educating staff in
the Senior Executive Service because those key
staff must understand what environmental justice
is, even though they may not be responsible for
carrying out day-to-day program activities. The
members of the subcommittee agreed that, to
effectively facilitate change throughout each
agency, senior mangers in Federal agencies must
view environmental justice as a priority.
3.5 Activities of the Health Resources and
Services Administration
Mr. Hubert Avent, Director, Urban Health, Health
Resources Services Administration (HRSA),
provided an update on the activities of the agency.
Mr. Avent informed members of the subcommittee
that progress had been made in the area of
environmental health, although he characterized
that progress as slow. He also identified a need
for a strategy for integrating environmental
requirements and community development with
primary health care.
Mr. Avent informed the members of the
subcommittee that, in 1998, HRSA and the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) had entered into an agreement to
discuss ways to "build capacity to support
environmental health medicine" in HRSA agencies,
including methods of training medical clinicians,
such as nurses. Mr. Avent added that two training
5-10
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
sessions recently had been held and that the
agreement between HRSA and ATSDR is being
used as an opportunity for the agencies to discuss
general issues related to environmental health.
In addition to working with ATSDR, Mr. Avent
explained, HRSA is working with HUD to integrate
environmental health into HUD's empowerment
zone and enterprise community initiatives. He
added that HRSA intends to begin working with
academic health centers that provide training for
health professionals to explore ways to achieve
positive results in improving health in affected
communities.
Mr. Avent pointed out that "the challenge is to look
at the assets, not just the needs, that exist within
communities." He explained that HRSA is
beginning to look at the existing infrastructure in
communities, such as primary care facilities.
Continuing, Mr. Avent stated that HRSA is
exploring ways to encourage existing primary care
facilities to include components addressing
environmental health medicine into their policies.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Avent stated his
willingness to work with the members of the
subcommittee, and he agreed to provide the
subcommittee with information about the ongoing
efforts of HRSA.
3.6 Activities of the Indian Health Services
Agency
Mr. Eric Broderick, Deputy Director, Office of
Public Health, Indian Health Services, DHHS,
provided an update of the activities of that agency.
Mr. Broderick explained that the mission of IHS is
to "raise the health status of Native Americans and
tribes." He pointed out that the reason the health
needs of Native Americans and tribes are served
by the IHS is "rooted" in the treaties made with
Indian tribes over the past 150 years. Mr.
Broderick explained that IHS had been created
under the former U.S. Department of War to
protect soldiers from infectious disease. The
mission of the agency has evolved and today, the
agency currently provides health care to more than
500 tribes living in geographically remote and
isolated areas, he said.
Continuing, Mr. Broderick explained that the
delivery of potable water and the disposal of
wastewater are two primary concerns of his
agency. Pointing to the seriousness of those
issues to Native Americans and tribes, Mr.
Broderick stated that deaths caused by
gastrointestinal and infectious diseases are a
major concern. He added that while one percent
or less of homes in the United States do not have
safe drinking water, a significantly higher
percentage of homes in Indian country lack safe
drinking water. In addition, Mr. Broderick said,
deaths among people between the ages of 1 and
44 are "a big problem" among Native Americans
and tribes.
As an example of interagency efforts to address
problems specific to Native Americans and tribes,
Mr. Broderick continued, IHS has entered into an
agreement with HUD to deliver safe drinking water
on Indian reservations on which Superfund sites
are located. He added that HHS is required to
involve tribes in decision-making processes. Mr.
Broderick pointed out that, lacking "proper"
involvement of communities in decision-making
processes, it is difficult to "get past the mere
discussion and acknowledgment of problems and
complaints." He added that IHS acknowledges
that with such communities, consultation must be
conducted during the planning stages of programs
and projects to achieve effective outcomes that are
acceptable to communities.
3.7 Activities of the U.S. Department of
Education
Mr. Thomas Mela, U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Civil Rights, provided an update on the
activities of that department. Mr. Mela informed
members of the subcommittee that the
Department of Education initially had not been
listed in the Executive Order on environmental
justice, noting that he did not know the reason for
the department's omission. He then provided an
overview of the activities related to civil rights and
disabilities issues that the department conducts.
Mr. Mela remarked that two of the three laws for
which it is responsible to enforce provisions have a
direct bearing on environmental justice. He
informed the members of the subcommittee that
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
department has jurisdiction over schools and
colleges that receive federal funds. He pointed out
that, as a condition of the receipt of such funds,
those institutions cannot discriminate on the basis
of race or national origin. In addition, Mr. Mela
continued, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 requires that educational institutions that
receive federal funds must not discriminate against
individuals who are disabled. He noted that issues
related to disabilities can be linked to
environmental justice because such chronic
illnesses as asthma, which occurs at
disproportionate rates among minority and low-
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
5-11
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
income populations, can be classified as
disabilities. In addition, Mr. Mela explained that,
such circumstances as the need to renovate
school buildings and the occurrence of indoor air
pollution, can affect the health of students in a way
that can be classified as an "environmental
disability." Mr. Mela then stated that school
districts have an obligation to both students and
employees who are disabled.
Turning his attention to specific types of
complaints to which his office responds to, Mr.
Mela informed members of the subcommittee that,
before the Clinton administration had taken office,
his office had responded almost exclusively to
complaints related to disabilities, which were
lodged almost exclusively by residents of suburban
areas. He then stated that during the Clinton
administration, staff of the department's Office of
Civil Rights had expended almost half of their time
on matters he described as "proactive." Clarifying
the importance of that approach to the
environmental justice movement, Mr. Mela
explained that his office receives few complaints
from parents of children who attend inner-city
schools. Therefore, he said, the extent to which
environmental justice issues are addressed by the
department may become an increasingly
significant issue after President Clinton has left
office, particularly because, he suggested, the
department's Office of Civil Rights then may return
to the "reactive mode" of simply responding to
complaints.
Continuing, Mr. Mela stated that he was unsure
whether the department's Office of Civil Rights had
legal authority to address issues related to the
siting of schools on contaminated federal property.
He also informed the members of the
subcommittee that he was not aware of any
formally coordinated efforts by his office to address
issues of environmental justice with other Federal
agencies. Mr. Mela pointed out, however, that he
personally has developed contacts with his
counterparts at EPA.
Members of the subcommittee asked whether the
U.S. Department of Education would be added to
the list of Federal agencies identified in Executive
Order 12898 on Environmental Justice. Mr. Mela
responded that he was unsure whether the agency
"officially" would be added to the list. He noted,
however, he had been made aware that other
agencies had volunteered to be included on the
list.
3.8 Activities of the U.S. Department of Energy
Ms. Heather Stockwell, Director for Science, Office
of Health Studies, U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), provided and briefly reviewed a handout
that summarized an agenda for conducting, in
partnership with HHS, public health activities at
DOE sites. DOE developed the agenda in
partnership with HHS, ATSDR, CDCP, the
National Center for Environmental Health, and the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, she explained, adding that the agenda had
been released for public comment and that DOE
had received approximately 40 to 50 comments to
it. Ms. Stockwell reported that the agenda
included a plan outlining public health activities to
address contamination at various sites and the
resultant health effects on nearby residents. She
noted that those sites include:
• Brookhaven National Laboratory Site, Upton,
New York
• Santa Susana Field Laboratory Energy
Technology Engineering Center, Simi Valley,
California
• Fernald Environmental Management Project,
Fernald, Ohio
• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, California
• Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
New Mexico
• Monticello Mill Tailings Site, Monticello, Utah
• Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada
• Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee
• Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah,
Kentucky
• Rocky Flats Plant, Golden, Colorado
• Salmon Test Site, Lamar County, Mississippi
• Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina
Ms. Stockwell acknowledged that, although DOE
had established an office of environmental justice
and some progress had been made toward
achieving environmental justice, more remains to
be done. She also urged the members of the
subcommittee to visit DOE's web site
to obtain additional information
about DOE's activities.
Ms. Stahl asked at what point DOE solicits the
involvement of ATSDR or CDCP at a particular
site. In response, Ms. Stockwell stated that
involving ATSDR or CDCP in activities at a site
was a routine part of the process of addressing
contamination, rather than a step reserved for sites
about which complaints have been filed. She
added that ATSDR and CDCP are involved at all
5-12
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
DOE facilities, from "start to close." Ms. Stockwell
then stated that, although ATSDR and CDCP
conduct assessments of conditions at each DOE
facility, health studies are not necessarily
conducted for each facility because those
agencies sometimes decide that a study is not
warranted.
Mr. Aragon asked about the effects on tribes of
projects under which uranium mill tailings are
being cleaned up. He cited the case of one site for
which DOE had signed a cooperative agreement,
but the tribal attorneys were having difficulty
deciphering the agreement. Ms. Stockwell replied
that she did not know the specifics of the case to
which Mr. Aragon had referred and suggested that
he write a letter to the Secretary of Energy. Ms.
Stockwell also suggested that Mr. Aragon contact
ATSDR, noting that the agency conducts
assessments if so requested by citizens.
3.9 Activities of the U.S. Department of
Defense
Ms. Patricia Reyes, Director, Outreach, U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD), explained that
although DoD does not have an office of
environmental justice, it has assigned and
authorized one person to spend about 25 percent
of his time on environmental justice issues. In
addition, individual DoD staff around the country
are "doing the right thing," Ms. Reyes stated. She
also informed the members of the subcommittee
that DoD had conducted activities "indirectly" to
assist in improving the health of communities
located near DoD facilities. She cited the
contribution of resources for use in health clinics
as an example of such indirect activities.
Ms. Reyes explained that DoD and other agencies
often may react to situations from the perspective
that the matter is not within the jurisdiction of the
agency; however, she suggested, if agencies can
look beyond that perspective, they often can be of
assistance to communities. As an example, Ms.
Reyes explained that DoD recently had been
asked to build a health clinic in Memphis,
Tennessee. The agency's initial response, she
continued, was that building health clinics was not
a part of DoD's mission. She said that DoD
instead was working to assist others in building the
health clinic, by providing trailers and office
equipment and offering other support. She
explained that after construction the trailers are to
be converted into small clinics.
Continuing, Ms. Reyes informed the members of
the subcommittee that ATSDR conducts all of
DoD's health studies. She pointed out, however,
that DoD was "having problems" with ATSDR and
was working to improve its relationship with
ATSDR or to devise a better approach to the
conduct of health studies.
In addition, Ms. Reyes stated, DoD had asked Mr.
Timothy Fields, Jr., Assistant Administrator, EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
to assign two EPA staff to assist DoD in
implementing environmental justice. She
explained that field staff of DoD projects lack
training in the area of environmental justice.
After Ms. Reyes concluded her remarks, the
members of the subcommittee and the
representatives of the agencies discussed the
need for coordination among agencies to address
infrastructure issues, as well as to actually provide
health care. Ms. Reyes responded that DoD had
been able to provide infrastructure assistance,
although the agency does not provide direct health
care. Dr. Zenick stated that, unless HRSA and
other agencies are involved, there is no means of
actually providing the health care, even when the
infrastructure exists. Ms. Kingfisher noted that the
Indigenous Women's Network had trained many
doctors and that community groups could conduct
internship programs to provide opportunities for
medical interns to learn while providing assistance
at clinics.
Mr. Philip Lewis, thanked Ms. Reyes for her candor
and suggested that DoD examine creative ways,
such as training or recruitment initiatives, to
provide assistance to communities. Mr. Lewis
added that EPA should request that DoD revise its
mission statement to include the provision of
assistance to communities through such training
and recruitment initiatives. That is, he explained,
DoD would not necessarily directly provide health
care at clinics, but the agency could provide to
clinic workers training on such topics as
environmental health effects, and the agency could
put forth an effort to recruit staff skilled in such
areas.
4.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC DIALOGUE
Dr. Payton, chair of the subcommittee, opened the
floor to public dialogue. Three members of
communities made presentations.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
5-13
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
4.1 Ms. Charlotte Keys, Jesus People Against
Pollution
Ms. Keys informed the members of the
subcommittee about an environmental justice
summit meeting scheduled for April 2001. She
invited the members of the subcommittee to attend
the event.
4.2 Ms. Patty Lovera, Center for Health,
Environment, and Justice
Ms. Lovera spoke about schools located on
contaminated property, particularly contaminated
property owned by Federal agencies. She
explained that, when schools are located on
contaminated property, children who attend those
schools are exposed to health risks. The problem,
said Ms. Lovera, is particularly prevalent in low-
income communities and communities of color.
4.3 Ms. Yvonne McSwain Powell, People
Effective Against Chemical Eugenics
Organization
Ms. Powell expressed concern about the health
risks posed by contaminated drinking water. She
specifically expressed concern about
contaminated drinking water in Richton,
Mississippi and the negative health effects that
contamination has had on local residents.
5.0 ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the action items adopted
by the subcommittee.
/ Recommend that the Executive Council of the
NEJAC request that the EPA Administrator
initiate a program to train "middle
management" staff of Federal agencies in how
to incorporate the principles of environmental
justice into their day-to-day work. "Middle
management" is defined as those responsible
for carrying out policies and programs that
have an effect on communities. Also
suggested that the recommendation include a
component for educating staff of the Senior
Executive Service to increase their level of
awareness of environmental justice issues.
/ Forward a recommendation to the Executive
Council of the NEJAC to request that the EPA
Administrator request that DoD make a
commitment to establishing an environmental
justice office, as an indication of DoD's
commitment to fulfilling the requirements of
Executive Order 12898 on Environmental
Justice and as a step toward achieving the
intent of the order.
/ Members of the subcommittee agreed to
review the subcommittee's report on health
issues that was developed after the May 2000
meeting of the subcommittee and identify
areas in the report that are linked directly to
discussions held during the December 2000
meeting. The subcommittee then will prepare
an addendum to the report that highlights the
issues discussed during the December 2000
meeting.
/ Forward a recommendation to the Executive
Council of the NEJAC to request that the EPA
Administrator solicit documentation of how
Federal agencies can collaborate in providing
health services to low-income and minority
communities. The documentation should
highlight success stories.
/ Members of the subcommittee agreed that
they should obtain copies of the strategic
plans, goals, and objectives of Federal
agencies and review them to determine
whether those documents include
environmental justice and, specifically,
whether they include any language about the
provision of health care to communities.
Subsequently, the subcommittee should
identify agencies that do not include such
provisions in their plans and request that the
Executive Council of the NEJAC recommend
that the IWG request that those agencies take
action to incorporate environmental justice and
provision of health care communities into their
strategic plans.
/ Forward a recommendation to the Executive
Council of the NEJAC to request that Federal
agencies establish "collaborative funds" to
address the health needs of communities.
(Collaborative funds were deemed especially
important in the context of the reality that funds
are "earmarked" and the lack of flexibility in
how agencies can spend funds.)
/ Forward to the Executive Council of the
NEJAC a recommendation to request that the
U.S. Department of Education be added to the
IWG.
5-14
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
/ Members of the subcommittee agreed to (1)
identify agencies such as the U.S. Department
of Education, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, and U.S. Department of State
that are not included among agencies listed in
Executive Order 12898 on Environmental
Justice and (2) forward a recommendation to
the Executive Council of the NEJAC to request
that EPA urge Federal agencies that are not
listed to subscribe voluntarily to the intent of
the order.
/ Recommended that the subcommittee write
and forward to the Executive Council of the
NEJAC, a letter requesting that EPA (1)
discuss its agreement with the International
City/County Management Association
pertaining to the decision tree framework for
community health assessment; (2) reference
who approved the agreement; (3) provide the
subcommittee with a report of activities
conducted under the agreement; and (4)
provide copies of all reports developed under
the agreement.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
5-15
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 13, 2000
Arlington, Virginia
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Daniel Gogal Jennifer Hill-Kelley
Co-Designated Federal Official Acting Chair
Office of Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Smith
Alternate Designated Federal Official
American Indian Environmental Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
CHAPTER SIX
MEETING OF THE
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee of the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) conducted a one-day meeting on
Wednesday, December 13, 2000, during a four-
day meeting of the NEJAC in Arlington, Virginia.
Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental
Network, continues to serve as chair of the
subcommittee. Mr. Daniel Gogal, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of
Environmental Justice (OEJ), continues to serve
as the Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the
subcommittee. Exhibit 6-1 presents a list of the
members who attended the meeting and identifies
those members who were unable to attend.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee, is organized in five sections,
including this Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks,
summarizes the opening remarks of the chair and
the DFO. Section 3.0, Focused Federal Agency
Presentations, summarizes discussions provided
by representatives of Federal agencies about how
those agencies are integrating environmental
justice into their policies, programs, and activities
that affect tribes and Alaskan Native villages.
Section 4.0, Presentations and Reports, presents
an overview of other presentations and reports
received by the subcommittee, as well as
summaries of the questions and comments on the
part of the members of the subcommittee that
those presentations and reports prompted.
Section 5.0, Draft Recommendations, summarizes
the draft recommendations and action items
adopted by the subcommittee.
2.0 REMARKS
Mr. Goldtooth, opened the subcommittee meeting
by welcoming the members present and Mr.
Gogal. In his review of the guidelines of the
NEJAC to remind the members and observers of
the protocol to be followed, Mr. Gogal stated that
the meeting was conducted for the members of the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee. The
comments of observers, rather than open
discussion, would be welcome, he explained.
Exhibit 6-1
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 13,2000
Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Chair
Ms. Jennifer Hill-Kelly, Vice Chair
Mr. Daniel Gogal, DFO
Mr. Bob Smith, Alternate DFO
Mr. Brad Hamilton
Mr. Moses Squeochs
Mr. Dean B. Suagee
Ms. Jana L. Walker
List of Members
Who Were Unable To Attend
Ms. Sarah James
Mr. Charles Miller
Mr. Goldtooth requested Mr. Moses Squeochs,
Yakama Nation Environmental Program,
Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakama Nation
and member of the subcommittee, lead the
subcommittee in invocation in the "manner of his
people." Mr. Squeochs first led the invocation
through a song-prayer and then interpreted the
meaning of the song to the audience.
Mr. Goldtooth added that because it is difficult to
compartmentalize environmental protection
because "everything is intertwined," this is why
such an invocation is used to open meetings of the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee. It is one way
in which tribal elders teach Native peoples to
always respect Mother Earth, he explained. He
stated that starting with an invocation also serves
to remind non-Native Americans of native peoples'
connection with Mother Earth.
Remarking that this meeting would be his last as
chair of the subcommittee and as a member of
NEJAC, he stated that one of his constant
missions is to educate representatives of Federal
agencies on the traditional values of his people in
protecting the environment of Mother Earth. Mr.
Goldtooth added that he feels he has
accomplished his objectives as chair.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
6-1
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
3.0 FOCUSED FEDERAL AGENCY
PRESENTATIONS
Mr. Goldtooth explained that the purpose of
today's meeting is to discuss how considerations
of environmental justice are being integrated into
the policies of Federal agencies. For a discussion
of issues affecting tribes, it is important to bring
together representatives of Federal agencies
responsible for the trust relationship, he said.
Indians are different than the general public
because of the legal and political relationship
between tribes and the Federal government, he
reminded the audience. He asked the presenters
to provide a "snapshot" of how agencies are
integrating environmental justice into their policies,
programs, and activities affecting Tribes and
Alaskan Native villages.
3.1 AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND
DISEASE REGISTRY
Mr. Francisco Tomei-Torres, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR),
announced that Mr. Dean Seneca recently had
been appointed Director, ATSDR Office of Tribal
Affairs. The office, established in response to
tribal requests, will assist with tribal-specific
environmental health needs resulting from
exposure to hazardous waste sites and pollution,
he explained.
Mr. Tomei-Torres described ATSDR as an agency
that can not promulgate regulations or authorize
permits, nor does it possess enforcement power.
Continuing, he described ATSDR as an agency
created under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) to ascertain the effects on public health
of Superfund sites. Noting that one provision of
the Executive order on environmental justice calls
for agencies to assess disproportionately high
health effects resulting from the activities of
Federal agencies, he stated that ATSDR, as a
"site-oriented agency," must be petitioned by an
outside source to conduct site-specific health
studies. ATSDR provides written or oral
responses to address specific requests for
information about health risks related to a
particular site, chemical release, or hazardous
material, he explained. These consultations, he
continued, are intended to evaluate exposures and
recommend specific actions, such as restricting
use of or replacing water supplies, reducing site
access, or removing contaminated material.
Pointing to a second provision of the Executive
order to promote public participation, Mr. Tomei-
Torres stated that ATSDR has been promoting
public comment on community health studies. He
then discussed the Board of Scientific Counselors,
a Federal advisory committee that has established
a standing subcommittee to address tribal issues.
The board, comprised of scientists, provides
advice to the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) and ATSDR, on the
adequacy of science in ATSDR-supported
research and emerging problems that require
scientific investigation, he said. ATSDR also has
established an Office of Urban Affairs to address
issues related to minority health, brownfields
redevelopment, and environmental justice, he said,
commenting that oversight of tribal affairs falls
under ATSDR's Division of Health Assessment
and Consultation. The agency has created a
Community Involvement branch within the division
with the function of researching community needs
that can be addressed by ATSDR, he said. Mr.
Tomei-Torres stated that ATSDR also has
championed two brownfields redevelopment
proposals submitted by tribes which have been
approved for funding. He then re-emphasized that
most contract funding comes from the Division of
Health Assessment and Consultation.
He continued that ATSDR is one of the few
Federal agencies to have prepared a written
strategy on environmental justice. The strategy,
currently under revision, focuses on community
participation. Mr. Tomei-Torres stated that the
strategy is designed not to designate a site as an
environmental justice site simply because an
affected community is an environmental justice
population. Rather, he continued, ATSDR
designates a site as an environmental justice site
when ATSDR has not addressed a site with known
environmental injustice. Currently, ATSDR has
designated six sites as environmental justice sites,
none of which are located on tribal lands, he said,
adding that all but one site is located in EPA
Region 4 and involves African-American
communities.
Mr. Tomei-Torres then reported that ATSDR
executes demographic studies to assess
community needs by: (1) developing a geographic
information system (GIS) map; (2) including
diverse segments of the population in clinical
studies; and (3) conducting investigations of cases
of both multiple and cumulative exposure.
Currently, he stated, no such studies had been
undertaken on tribal lands; however, Congress
recently had appropriated $500,000 in funding for
studies of fish consumption among Alaskan
6-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
Natives, he added. Mr. Tomei-Torres then
expressed his belief that it is important to note that,
before beginning the studies, representatives of
the ATSDR had traveled to Alaska to meet with
members of communities.
Mr. Tomei-Torres turned the focus of his
presentation to the members of the subcommittee
by asking for their views about the issues of
sovereignty and "urban Indians." Addressing the
concept of sovereignty, he stated that Federal
agencies are instructed to work with tribes on a
government-to-government basis. However, he
continued, he would like further guidance for
pursuing such an approach with Alaskan Native
tribes, who, he said, are not considered sovereign
entities because they have not entered into a treaty
with the United States government. Turning to the
subject of "urban Indians," or Indians who live
outside the boundaries of a reservation typically in
urban communities, Mr. Tomei-Torres requested
direction on the issue of responsibility for the
health of such individuals. He added that staff of
his agency are in need of training in addressing the
needs of Alaskan Native villages and urban
Indians.
Mr. Tomei-Torres then suggested that ATSDR
could transfer its function to tribes through
cooperative agreements. The process, he
continued, would be the same as that by which
ATSDR currently delegates authority to state
health departments. In sum, the delegation of the
function of ATSDR to tribes would best meet the
need to work with tribes on a government-to
government basis, he concluded.
In response to Mr. Tomei-Torres' comments about
tribal sovereignty, Mr. Squeochs stated that, if
Federal agencies are to best fulfill their charge to
work with tribes on a government-to-government
basis, each agency must understand its specific
role in relation to those of other Federal agencies
in how it addresses the needs of tribes and
Alaskan Natives. Continuing, Mr. Squeochs stated
that treaties had set aside lands upon which Native
people could live and sustain their culture. Agency
delegation of the functions of Federal agencies to
tribes, he declared, would act as an impetus for
acculturation and assimilation of Native people into
the culture outside the reservation.
Mr. Dean Suagee, First Nations Environmental
Program, Vermont Law School and member of the
subcommittee, stated that he had been disturbed
to hear Mr. Tomei-Torres inquire whether all tribes
are sovereign. Mr. Suagee pointed out that the
sovereignty of tribes and Alaskan Natives is a right
guaranteed not solely under the provisions of a
treaty. Noting that having a treaty with the United
States is not prerequisite for tribal sovereignty, Mr.
Suagee said that he understood the inquiry to have
referred only to Alaskan Native villages. Mr.
Suagee then said that, in Alaska v. Native Village
of Venetie Tribal Government, in which the U.S.
Supreme Court had ruled that lands owned by the
Tribe were not "Indian country" and that therefore
the Tribe did not have authority to impose a tax,
the Court quoted with approval language from a
concurring opinion in the 9th Circuit, saying that the
intent of Congress in the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act was to preserve Indian tribes as
"sovereign entities for some purposes, but as
sovereigns without territorial reach." Thus, the
Court recognizes that Alaska tribes are sovereign,
he said.
Mr. Squeochs then stated that the charge of
ATSDR, while limited, is key. ATSDR has the
capability to assess health risks to Indian
communities by conducting studies of communities
in which subsistence life styles prevail, he said.
Continuing, he stated that ATSDR is a sister
agency to the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDCP), all three of which are agencies under the
banner of HHS. Those agencies can work more
efficiently together and achieve greater
effectiveness, especially within the realm of health
risks arising from the pursuit of subsistence life
styles, said Mr. Squeochs. The trust responsibility
is key, he emphasized, if agencies are to execute
their mandate properly on tribal and Alaskan
Native lands.
Mr. Brad Hamilton, State of Kansas Native
American Affairs Office and member of the
subcommittee, then expanded upon Mr. Squeoch's
comment, stating that IHS currently restricts the
services it provides to communities that are
located in areas removed from urban centers. If
IHS is to fulfill its mandate to provide health care to
tribes and Alaskan Natives, he said, the agency
must expand its service area to include less rural
areas.
Mr. Goldtooth stated that a primary mission of
environmental justice is to ensure that Federal
agencies effectively provide community outreach
to alleviate disproportionate adverse health or
environmental effects on low-income or minority
communities. The consensus developed over the
years, he continued, is that many segments of
minority population, including Native Americans,
have been left unprotected by Federal agencies.
In the case of "urban Indians," he continued, the
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
6-3
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Federal government still has a responsibility to
provide services, especially because, during the
1950s, it was Federal policy to relocate many tribal
peoples to urban areas.
ATSDR, Mr. Goldtooth continued, has an
obligation to serve urban populations of tribal
members while the issue is under debate, rather
than deny service until a decision has been made.
He then stated that, not withstanding the debate
about responsibility, it remains the responsibility of
Federal agencies to work on a government-to-
government basis with tribes and Alaskan Native
villages. He then observed that working with all
tribes and Alaskan Native villages appears to be
an unmanageable task for by Federal agencies. A
major issue for all tribes and Alaskan Natives, he
continued, is whether their populations are affected
by the processes of bioaccumulation and
biomigration of toxic substances. Mr. Goldtooth
then stated that ATSDR is responsible for
determining whether tribes and Alaskan Natives
indeed are affected by those processes. It seems,
however, he observed, budget constraints always
preclude research in that area.
Mr. Tomei-Torres responded that other Federal
agencies, such as IHS, can provide more
meaningful services than ATSDR is capable of
offering. IHS, he continued, has a large
environmental justice grant program for community
outreach and has just announced the availability of
grant funds totaling $1.5 million for Native
American Research Centers for Health. Mr.
Tomei-Torres then invited the members of the
subcommittee to forward their comments to his
office. He emphasized that his office champions
research and is involved actively in establishing a
national coordinated research agenda.
In response to Mr. Tomei-Torres' reference to the
establishment of a national coordinated research
agenda, Ms. Jana Walker, Law Offices of Jana
Walker and member of the subcommittee, called
the attention of the participants to a document
prepared by the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee titled Recommendations on
Environmental Health Needs Within Indian Country
and Alaska Native Villages (November 2000). The
document presents recommendations on
infrastructure, research needs, and collaboration
among tribes, as well as recommendations for
actions to be taken by various Federal agencies,
she said. She then added that the document is
available to the general public, as well as
representatives of Federal agencies that have an
interest in Native American health needs and
research.
3.2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Len Richeson, American Indian and Alaskan
Native Liaison, Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security,
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), began his
presentation by emphasizing that DoD has a trust
responsibility to tribes that was included as part of
the United States' obligations under its original
treaties with Indian tribes. To fulfill that trust
responsibility, he said, DoD's first responsibility is
to address adverse environmental and health
effects on or near tribal and Alaskan Native lands
that result from DoD activities and operations.
Risks can originate with such operations as the
storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous
waste, he noted, while unexploded ordnance
(UXO) and unsafe buildings and debris also can
present problems. A preliminary assessment of
the potential effects of DoD activities on Indian
lands had indicated nearly a $300 million inventory
of projects. Currently, he added, DoD is currently
working with more than 150 tribes that suffer from
adverse environmental effects.
Mr. Richeson then reviewed the objectives of DoD
with regard to its relations with tribes. First, he
stated, the Department is making every effort to
comply with Executive Order 12898, as well as the
Presidential memorandum on the conduct of
government-to-government relations with Native
American Tribal Governments. Second, he
continued, DoD now is implementing a policy on
consulting with American Indian and Alaskan
Natives that had been developed through a
process that included, he added, direct
consultation with tribes, the Congress of the United
States, and the National Tribal Environmental
Council (NTEC). The policy, he added, is available
to the public on the Internet at:
< www. denix. osd. mil/denix/public. html>. Mr.
Richeson stated that it is important to DoD that its
employees know and understand the principles
outlined in the document.
Mr. Richeson then stated that DoD was working to
implement congressional direction to provide
funding for addressing the effects of DoD activities
on tribal lands. Further, Congress had charged
DoD with developing a database to better track
and understand those effects, he said.
Mr. Richeson then discussed DoD's
accomplishments in the effort to address the
adverse environmental effects of its activities on
Indian lands. He first described the Native
American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program
(NALEMP), which provides funding to mitigate
6-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
environmental effects on Indian lands from past
military activities. Second, he continued, DoD was
developing the Native American Environmental
Tracking System (NAETS) to define environmental
priorities among projects to address environmental
effects of DoD activities on Indian lands. He
added that many Alaskan Natives have charged
that DoD impacts in Alaska are under-represented
in the data because the populations affected are
small and live in rural areas. Continuing, he
explained that Alaskan Natives maintain that the
relative risk models do not consider adverse
effects related to the subsistence lifestyles of many
Alaskan Natives. The NAETS, he suggested, will
help DoD better assess the effects of its activities
on such populations. Finally, Mr. Richeson
discussed the NALEMP report to Congress for the
year 2000, which described DoD's efficiency and
effectiveness in using the funds allotted to mitigate
adverse environmental effects on tribal lands.
Mr. Richeson stated that the NALEMP budget is
$10 million under the Defense Appropriations Act
of 2001. He explained that the funds were to be
used to mitigate adverse environmental effects on
lands of Federally recognized tribes and land
conveyed under the Alaskan Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA). Specifically, he
continued, the funding is to be used to address
problems that are not addressed under DoD's
traditional environmental programs. Under
NALEMP, he explained, DoD is able to use an
unconventional assessment of risk that is better
suited to the needs of tribes and Alaskan Natives
than more traditional methods of risk assessment.
Further, NALEMP is "a tool for maximizing the
leverage of tribal environmental resources" and
creating foundations for tribes to build upon, said
Mr. Richeson. NAETS provides accountability to
the NALEMP by setting funding priorities in an
Internet-based user system and tracking adverse
environmental effects, mitigation activities, and
resolutions adopted by DoD and tribes. NAETS
can be accessed at:
< www. denix. osd. mil/denix/public. html>.
Mr. Richeson then described DoD initiatives for
2001. Those initiatives include execution of
NALEMP funds, sensitivity training for both military
and civilian personnel of DoD, the gathering of
additional data on the effects of DoD's activities on
Indian lands, and implementation of the Executive
Order 13084 on consultation and coordination with
Indian tribal governments, he said. Tribal
consultation, he continued, includes contacting
tribes and Alaskan Native villages before DoD
undertakes a project. Such consultation will occur
early in the decision-making process, and often as
that process goes forward, he continued. Mr.
Richeson then stated that training is of paramount
importance, and open to employees of all Federal
agencies. Well-trained personnel can implement
the program more effectively than those who lack
training, he pointed out. One result is
improvement in the quality of the data gathered, he
added. Such improved data, he emphasized, will
provide greater leverage to the effort to obtain
funding to address environmental issues on tribal
lands.
3.3 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ms. V. Heather Sibbison, Counsel to the Assistant
Attorney General, Indian Resource Section, U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ), first stated that her
office is housed in the Agency's Environmental and
Natural Resources Division. She then stated that
although DOJ does not have an environmental
justice policy, it promotes environmental justice
through its litigation. The primary method by which
her office can advance the principles of
environmental justice for Native Americans, she
continued, is through enforcement of existing laws
that protect Indian people. She then described two
initiatives undertaken by DOJ, one she
characterized as internal and the other external.
DOJ's internal initiative, Ms. Sibbison said, is the
promotion of communication and cooperation
between the Agency's Indian Resources Section
and the Environmental Enforcement Section. The
purpose of the initiative is to share knowledge
about issues of concern to tribes that is available in
the agency's Indian Resources Section with
personnel of the Environmental Enforcement
Section who are unfamiliar with the process of
consultation with tribal governments. She then
stated that the initiative had been effective in
conveying the cultural sensitivity required for
effective tribal consultation and coordination. In
addition, representatives of her office attend public
meetings to improve the office's performance in
the area of public outreach, she said. Further,
legal issues that usually are not considered in an
enforcement action and that stem from treaty
rights and trust responsibility are being addressed
more effectively, she said. Continuing, she stated
that cases that her office undertakes are flagged
immediately if they involve potential effects on
Indian lands.
Ms. Sibbison then discussed DOJ's Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) initiative that
was created to promote community policing and
add 100,000 "community policing officers" to
communities. Under the Tribal Resources Grant
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
6-5
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Program portion of the program, funds are
provided to Indian tribes to enhance their law
enforcement infrastructure and increase
community policing efforts; a substantial amount of
money is earmarked for training for tribal law
enforcement personnel and for enforcement, Ms.
Sibbison continued. Tribal law enforcement
personnel can be trained to identify and investigate
environmental crimes, she said. Tribal
enforcement of tribal environmental programs, she
added, often is more effective than enforcement by
nontribal entities. Currently, DOJ's Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services is
integrating environmental enforcement into the
standard tribal law enforcement training, she
continued. Further, the office is developing
specific training in tribal environmental law
enforcement, she added, crediting Mr. Gogal for
his efforts to develop that training curriculum.
Finally, Ms. Sibbison stated that the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) have entered into a partnership
with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), an agency of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), to
support a community outreach program that will
provide training related to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The agencies
are interested in integrating environmental
enforcement into their training programs, as well,
she reported.
Ms. Walker inquired whether COPS funding could
be extended to support tribal environmental courts
that would have jurisdiction over tribal matters.
Ms. Sibbison responded that the issue had yet to
be brought to her attention; however, she said, she
would raise the issue at the next meeting of the
work group. Mr. Suagee added that, in Indian
country, civil penalties work much better than
criminal action. Continuing, he stated that using
the funding available to build an administrative
infrastructure to support environmental
enforcement might be more effective than focusing
exclusively on courts. Further, he stated, if the
enforcement infrastructure were built first, the
burden on tribal courts could be reduced because
the court could limit its review to the administrative
record when an enforcement action comes before
it. Mr. Suagee then expressed a desire to further
discuss the development of the tribal
environmental enforcement training curriculum.
3.4 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
Ms. Valerie Hauser, Coordinator, Native American
Program, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP), began by stating that ACHP
had been created as an independent Federal
agency under the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (NHPA) to provide a forum for
influencing Federal activities, programs, and
policies as they affect historic resources.
Continuing, she stated that ACHP is responsible
for administering Federal historic preservation
programs and advising the President and the
Congress about matters pertaining to historic
preservation. Further, the agency is responsible
for educating both government employees and the
general public about the regulations that govern
historic preservation. However, she continued,
most of the work of the agency involves oversight
of the effort the agency refers to as the "NHPA
Section 106 process." Ms. Hauser explained that
Section 106 of NHPA requires that Federal
agencies consider the effects of their actions on
historic properties, provide the council an
opportunity to comment on Federal projects before
they are implemented, and ensure that Federal
agencies consider historic preservation in planning
and decisionmaking. Ms. Hauser emphasized that
any property to which an Indian tribe ascribes
significant religious or cultural value is an historic
property.
Ms. Hauser then described the 1992 amendments
to the NHPA, which expanded responsibility under
the act to include direct consultation with Indian
tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations during
the process of identifying historic properties. She
added that Federal agencies must show a
reasonable and good-faith effort to identify
appropriate tribes and Native Hawaiians to consult,
be respectful of tribal sovereignty, and recognize
the unique government-to-government relationship
between the parties.
Ms. Hauser stated that ACHP had launched a
number of training courses that are open to both
Federal agencies and tribes. However, ACHP
focuses on providing outreach by training tribes
about their rights related to historic preservation,
she pointed out. She stated that training tribes and
Native Hawaiians is a more effective means of
ensuring enforcement of those rights and
protecting their role in the consultation process
than relying on the actions of Federal agencies.
Further, ACHP works to facilitate the efforts of
tribes to develop their own historic preservation
programs, she said.
Ms. Hauser stated that she is the sole staff of
ACHP's Native American Office. She added that
the council has a staff of 32 and a small budget,
some $3 million per year. Most of the council's
funding, she continued, is used to facilitate
6-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
participation by tribes in the consultation process.
Ms. Hauser stated that she maintains a database
of almost 800 tribal points of contact, through
which she can disseminate information about
initiatives and historic preservation.
The ACHP does assist Federal agencies in historic
preservation planning by helping integrate tribal
consultation into agency policy, continued Ms.
Hauser. She stated that ACHP had worked with
the Department of the Army in developing its Tribal
Consultation Guideline and had facilitated
consultation with tribes and Native Hawaiians
when the Army had developed its policy on historic
preservation. Further, she said, her office had
coordinated a day-long tribal consultation training
session for the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and representatives of the
wireless communication industry. The training
session, she explained, was conducted with the
assistance of five tribes and the National
Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
(NATHPO). ACHP held the session to provide
representatives of the FCC the opportunity to
develop the capability to conduct consultation with
tribes with regard to the construction of cell towers.
The effort, she noted, had facilitated the
development of wireless communication in Indian
Country while avoiding adverse effects on cultural
resources.
Ms. Hauser concluded her presentation by stating
that the NHPA requires the President to appoint a
Tribal Native or Hawaiian representative as a
member of the Council. In addition, the ACHP
offers NATHPO a nonvoting seat on the council, to
serve in an advisory capacity at the policy level for
members of the council, and at the program and
policy level for ACHP staff.
Ms. Jennifer Hill-Kelly asked Ms. Hauser at what
point does tribal consultation begin during the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) general permit process conducted in
EPA Region 5. Ms. Hauser replied that tribal
consultation must begin in the initial stages of
permit evaluation. Generally, she added, the
Section 106 process follows the procedure
prescribed in NEPA. When Mr. Suagee observed
that EPA has a poor record of compliance with
Section 106 of the NHPA, Ms. Hauser agreed and
extended that observation to include many other
Federal agencies, as well. Unfortunately, she
continued, most agencies consider the Section
106 process a last-minute step; therefore, the
ability of tribes to discuss alternatives in the
planning stages is "limited," she added. The
ACHP wishes to see Federal projects permitted in
a way that does no irreparable damage to cultural
resources, she said.
Mr. Suagee then stated that the Section 106
process is intended to protect properties that either
qualify for or are listed in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). Many Native American
sites are not listed on the NRHP, he pointed out,
because tribes have kept information about sacred
sites confidential. Agencies often do not consider
historic properties in the initial project planning
stages because the property is not listed in the
NRHP, and they do not put enough effort into
identifying potentially eligible sites, only to find later
that the affected properties include significant
cultural resources, he explained. Once a project
nears the implementation phase, he declared, it
may be impossible to conduct meaningful
consultation with tribes.
3.5 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Elizabeth Bell, Counsel to the Assistant
Secretary, BIA, U.S. Department of the Interior,
began her presentation by informing the
subcommittee that the Assistant Secretary of the
Interior was scheduled to sign BIA's Consultation
Policy pursuant to the Executive Order on
consultation and coordination with Indian tribal
governments. She noted that the signing
ceremony at which the Assistant Secretary, Tribal
leaders, members of Congress, and staff of the
White House are expected to attend, would be
held in Seattle, Washington at the same time the
NEJAC would be meeting in Seattle, she said.
The policy, she said represents one and one-half
years of work on the part of tribal leaders and a
task force of the agency.
Ms. Bell stated that BIA's consultation policy
focuses on principles very similar to those set forth
in the recommendations included in the
subcommittee's consultation guide. First and
foremost, she said, the BIA consultation policy
recognizes the unique legal relationship between
tribes and the Federal government, including the
concepts of self-government, tribal sovereignty,
self-determination, treaty rights, and the trust and
the government-to-government responsibilities of
the U.S. government. Consultation, as it relates to
the unique legal relationship between tribes and
the Federal government should be conducted as a
next step, she continued. Further, the agency
should favor maximum participation of tribes
through deference to tribal laws and policy, she
said. Ms. Bell stated further that the agency
should maximize the use of technology for the
dissemination of information necessary for
meaningful consultation.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
6-7
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Continuing, Ms. Bell stated that BIA's policy
establishes a preference for tribal laws and policy
when setting rules and regulations for negotiated
rule-making with tribal governments. BIA also
endorses the use of a task force of tribal leaders to
work in partnership with BIA in the development of
policy. She said that the method had been very
successful thus far and had been applied during
the development of the agency's new trust
regulations, which she added, were expected to be
in place by year's end. The primary focus of the
policy, she continued, is true two-way
communication between tribes and Federal
decision makers. She then stated that the BIA
recognizes that agreement will not always be
reached. However, when agreement is achieved,
the BIA is responsible for identifying the various
positions and record why decisions were made,
she added. Ms. Bell then stated that the BIA is
accountable for documenting the outcomes of
consultation through quarterly and annual reports.
Further, the BIA requires that all agency staff
receive training in Indian law, policy, protocol, and
procedures every two years.
Ms. Bell stated that the BIA does not have a
specific environmental justice policy; rather, she
said, the BIA uses its Indian Affairs Manual (1AM),
a collection of all the BIA's guidance documents,
through which it encourages and fosters the goals
of environmental justice. She explained that the
1AM includes three environmental policies: a
general environmental protection policy, a policy
that outlines the specific responsibilities of various
representatives of the BIA, and a policy on
compliance with NEPA. She then stated that each
of the policies refers specifically to Executive
Order 12898 and environmental justice and
describes how BIA will integrate environmental
justice into its environmental policies. She then
stated that the BIA wishes to develop a more
formal environmental justice policy.
Ms. Bell next stated that the BIA does not conduct
specific studies to address the unique human
health and environmental hazards in Indian
country. Rather, she explained, the agency
contracts with other Federal agencies to conduct
specialized studies. Further, the BIA provides
funding for ATSDR to undertake elaborate studies
when health crises arise, she said. She added that
the BIA had done much work under Natural
Resource Damage Assessment and Recovery
actions to quantify the value of natural resources to
Indian communities. The challenge to the agency,
she said, is to derive a dollar value for a traditional
natural resource that has significant subsistence
and cultural value. She then stated that, for
Superfund assessments and remedial actions that
are conducted in Indian country, the agency also
accounts for the significance of the unique
subsistence and cultural values of natural
resources. She described natural resource
damage assessments and recovery actions, which
provide supplemental funds under CERCLA to
agencies that have trust responsibilities in
common, and the integrated resource
management planning program which funds
"holistic" natural resource planning projects in
Indian country.
Ms. Bell then stated that the primary hindrances to
the BIA's environmental program are insufficient
funding and staff. BIA's environmental and natural
resource management program receives almost
$14 million annually, she reported, with $2 million
allocated for staff. The agency therefore receives
$12 million annually to remediate an identified
$365 million in environmental liability in Indian
country, she pointed. She also stated that the BIA
is subject to an Executive order to undergo an
environmental audit of all BIA facilities, which, she
speculated, probably would reveal even greater
liability.
Continuing, Ms. Bell stated that priorities set by
tribal leaders "drive the allocation of budget within
BIA." She stated that programs essential to basic
survival "naturally remain at the top of the priority
list while the environment hovers around the sixth
or seventh spot." For example, she added, the
agency as a whole had received a large increase
in funding, but funding for the environmental
program had increased only slightly because of the
number of programs having priority over it.
Ms. Bell then stated that BIA is committed to
interagency collaboration. As an example of such
collaboration, she identified DOJ's COPS program.
Under that program, she suggested, it may be
possible to obtain additional funding for tribal law
enforcement, an area in which there are severe
inadequacies. Further, the COPS program might
provide funding for training judges in tribal
environmental law, she said.
Ms. Bell then described a new interagency
memorandum of understanding (MOU) that
focuses on the environment, public health, and
natural and cultural resources. The MOU, she
said, is primarily an administrative efficiency
document. Presentations on the MOU, she
continued, had been made at both EPA's annual
environmental management conference and the
annual meeting of the NTEC. NTEC also had
made the document available for public comment
6-8
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
on its Internet web site, she added. The MOU, she
continued, establishes a steering committee
comprised of senior managers of all Federal
agencies except the U.S. Department of the
Treasury, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The
document is expected to be presented to the
White House's Domestic Policy Council for final
interagency review before the end of the year, she
said, adding that the BIA is working to have the
document signed before the end of the Clinton
administration. Once signed, the document would
supercede the MOU of 1991 between the BIA, the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), IHS, and EPA, except in
areas in which the new MOU does not duplicate
IHS guidance, she said. Under the provisions
outlined in the MOU, an overall domestic policy
work group would replace the environmental
justice subgroup of the interagency work group on
the environment and natural resources, she
added.
Ms. Bell then outlined the next steps the BIA would
take. She stated the first step is to encourage
tribal leaders to make the environment a priority.
Next, she stated, strengthening the NEPA process
can be an effective means of ensuring progress
toward fulfillment of the goals of public
participation. She stated that the NEPA process
must be conducted at the tribal level so that tribes
can take action to make holistic natural resource
management planning decisions. Further, she
stated, the BIA must strengthen all tribal
environmental programs. A great deal of
economic development is taking place in Indian
country, she pointed out, and states have
attempted to assert regulatory jurisdiction. It is
imperative, she declared, that tribes establish tribal
environmental programs, including standards and
codes specific to the individual tribe, rather than
adopt state environmental standards.
Ms. Bell then reported that the state of Maine had
applied for delegation to the state of NPDES
permitting authority and had included Indian
country in that application. The state had used
freedom of information laws to obtain tribal records
that tribal leaders had refused to release, she said.
The tribal leaders consider the documents
government records that are not subject to the
jurisdiction of the state, she continued. The state,
however, has held the tribal leaders in contempt of
court and threatened to jail them. BIA had been
unable to negotiate the matter with the state, and
Federal courts had been unwilling to intervene, she
added. Ms. Bell then stated that the repercussions
of the decisions made in the case will be limited
primarily to Maine, but suggested that other states
might consider taking similar actions.
Ms. Bell then described the development of the
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
There is disagreement, she said, about whether
governments can use the word "peoples" in the
implication of self-determination and collective
rights. The BIA was developing a unified United
States position on the issue and hopes to have
completed a resolution before the end of the
current administration, she reported. She then
stated that most of the countries which formerly
opposed the declaration currently were coming to
recognize the self-determination of indigenous
peoples as a collective right to be exercised within
the nation-state, to an extent short of
independence.
Ms. Hill-Kelly asked Ms. Bell how EPA works with
Tribes to implement Federal environmental laws in
Indian country in cases in which states pressure
tribes to adopt state environmental standards. Ms.
Bell responded that EPA was developing core
water quality standards under the Clean Water
Act, but noted that the agency's efforts had met
with resistance on the part of some tribes because
of a perceived threat to tribal sovereignty, she said.
Tribes could use such standards as a stop-gap
measure when a state claims jurisdiction, she
suggested. The challenge facing the new
administration would be to persuade tribal peoples
that Federal stop-gap measures do not threaten
tribal sovereignty; rather, their use frees tribes to
develop their own programs, she added. Mr.
Suagee observed that threats to tribal sovereignty
are real and that those who challenge tribal
sovereignty draw support from a number of
decisions in the field of Indian law by the U.S.
Supreme Court over the last quarter century,
decisions that should be acknowledged as judicial
activism. He suggested that tribes should endorse
the core water quality standards, as the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee had a year earlier,
because this proposal helps to shield tribes from
challenges to their sovereign authority. Ms. Bell
stated her belief that the problem is lack of quality
communication with tribes, adding however, that
BIA does not have the resources "to go from tribe
to tribe.'
Ms. Hill-Kelly then asked Ms. Bell how effective the
effort to instill the concept of environmental justice
among staff of the BIA had been in fostering
change at the BIA. Ms. Bell responded that the
effort had been more successful at EPA than at
the BIA because the BIA has no office specifically
responsible for environmental justice. Further, she
stated, it has been difficult to obtain recognition of
environmental justice as a priority of the BIA.
Although there is agreement among staff of the
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
6-9
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
BIA that Indian populations are disproportionately
affected by environmental issues, she stated,
choices must be made, for example, between
education and the environment. Ms. Bell then
stated that, when the tribes themselves give
greater emphasis to environmental justice, the
concept will be given higher priority by the BIA.
The structure of BIA gives deference to tribal
priorities, she pointed out; therefore, the priorities
of the BIA change as tribal priorities change.
Mr. Goldtooth then raised the issue of improving
the NEPA process in Indian country. He stated
that one issue that arises repeatedly is whether
BIA reservation superintendents can fulfill the
obligation of ensuring compliance with
requirements under NEPA for consultation when
BIA is ultimately responsible for ensuring the
NEPA process is fulfilled. Mr. Goldtooth asked
Ms. Bell what the BIA was doing to ensure that
superintendents fulfill that obligation. Ms. Bell
stated that the BIA had identified 3,000 agency
staff and 2,000 tribal staff who need training; the
agency, she added, estimates that it can train
approximately 500 people each year. She then
stated that resources for training are limited.
Therefore, she said, the challenge is to establish a
higher priority for NEPA training than for training in
other areas.
Mr. Suagee then asked where specifically the
environmental liability, estimated by BIA to be $360
million, is found. Ms. Bell responded that the BIA
had taken a very liberal approach to the
development of inventory of such liabilities. The
agency considers any land or facility within the
responsibility of BIA that is affected by
environmental damage to be a liability. She stated
that the facility management division of the BIA
maintains a database that contains information
about facilities in Indian country. When estimating
environmental liability, the agency had searched
the database and sent staff to agency offices to
assess known environmental problems, she
reported. She added that the agency was looking
forward to the environmental audit as an
opportunity to develop a more realistic figure. She
then stated that the inventory had not been
distributed.
Mr. Suagee then suggested that NEPA training
should focus on the decision-making process,
rather than treating NEPA as just a compliance
requirement. NEPA, he continued, is designed to
be a decision-making process through which
adverse effects on the environment can be
avoided. He observed that simply focusing on
compliance excludes the fundamentals of public
participation and development of alternatives.
Unless alternatives are developed early in the
NEPA process, he said, the focus becomes
mitigation, rather than avoidance of such effects.
Ms. Bell added that, in Indian country, the greatest
pressure originates with business councils, which
in turn are under pressure from investors to
comply with regulations rapidly; such
circumstances, she pointed out, inhibit meaningful
consultation.
3.6 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. James Floyd, Office of Public and Indian
Housing, HUD, began his presentation by stating
that HUD is one Federal agency that fights for
social and economic justice. The major issue
HUD faces in that effort, he said, is enlisting the
cooperation of tribes and other Federal agencies.
Pointing to programs that support social and
economic justice within Indian Country, he noted
that HUD developed the Native American Housing
and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) in 1996,
which reorganizes the system of Federal housing
assistance to Native Americans by eliminating
several separate programs of assistance and
replacing them with a single block grant program.
In conjunction with the IHS and the BIA,
NAHASDA had been intended to give tribes more
sovereignty in making housing decisions and to
empower tribes to make their own environmental
"clearances," he said. Although many tribes do
consider NAHASDA as an exertion of tribal
sovereignty, he pointed out, some tribes consider
NAHASDA a threat to sovereignty because it holds
tribes accountable for any consequences that
might arise from their decisions or environmental
clearances.
Continuing, Mr. Floyd stated that the problem most
likely is a result of poor communication between
the agency and tribes. He then observed that
Federal agencies are eager and quick to take
action to address perceived problems with tribes,
but are slow to listen carefully and accurately
define the problems that tribes identify. He then
stated that the opposite holds true for discussions
between agencies; agencies are quick to listen, but
slow to take action, he stated. A task force on
interdepartmental agreements is preparing a
collaborative interdepartmental agreement to
better coordinate Federal programs in American
Indian and Alaskan Native communities, he added.
Mr. Floyd then reported that the task force had
identified what he called "the platinum rule: "Do
unto others as they would have you do unto them."
Mr. Goldtooth then asked Mr. Floyd whether HUD
6-10
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
has, on staff at the headquarter level, a tribal
environmental expert or advisor designated
specifically for the environmental clearances
prescribed under NAHSDA. Mr. Floyd answered
that HUD offers training through its Chicago and
San Francisco offices.
Mr. Suagee stated that, to his knowledge, HUD is
the only Federal agency that has the authority to
allow a non-Federal entity to certify compliance
with environmental laws. Tribes can certify
environmental compliance through NAHASDA, he
continued, but must waive sovereign immunity,
thereby opening themselves to liability in Federal
courts. Therefore, he said, tribes or HUD must
certify compliance and accept accountability. A
third option under the regulations, he added, is for
the tribe to prepare the environmental
assessments with HUD preparing the Finding of
No Significant Impact. Mr. Suagee noted that he
was unaware of the extent to which that option has
been exercised. Further, he said, he had
discovered that any discussion of the third option
had been omitted from a NAHASDA training
manual.
3.7 U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Ms. Dorothy FireCloud, Tribal Government
Program Manager, Cooperative and Internal
Forestry, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USDA, first
stated that the environmental justice policies of the
USFS include an agency directive on
environmental justice issued in December 1997
and a guidance on environmental justice, and an
interim strategic outreach plan for ensuring the
participation of minority and Indian communities in
all activities of USFS. Further, she reported, the
agency had sponsored environmental justice
training in Alaska and co-sponsored a roundtable
meeting held in Albuquerque, New Mexico. USFS
also had provided environmental justice training
through the Southwest Strategies Tribal-Federal
Subcommittee, she continued; Southwest
Strategies is a group of 13 Federal agencies. In
addition, USFS was co-sponsoring the Forum on
the Environment to be held in Alaska in February
2001, she said.
Ms. FireCloud then described the tribal relations
task force that prepared a report outlining specific
issues confronting USFS. To address the issues
set forth in the report, she reported, USFS had
established an implementation team that includes
10 subgroups focusing on the following areas:
• Consultation
• Tribal Relations Directive
• Training
• Contracts, Grants, and Agreements
• Availability of Forest Products for Traditional
Cultural Uses
• Forest Products Programs
• Occupancy and Use of National Forest System
Lands
• Infrastructure of Tribal Relations Program
• Monitoring of Tribal Relations Program
• Evaluation of Tribal Relations Program
The agency plans to establish another subgroup to
focus entirely on implementation of environmental
justice within the agency, Ms. FireCloud said,
adding that the agency currently is awaiting
comments from tribes on the umbrella consultation
document the agency had created in response to
the Executive order on consultation. However, she
added, the time line established in the Executive
order had placed constraints on the agency's
ability to address public comments.
Mr. Robert Ragos, Office of Civil Rights, USFS
began his presentation by first stating that USFS,
the largest organization in USDA, has just begun
making progress in identifying environmental
justice issues related to its activities. Continuing,
he stated that USFS understands that
environmental justice is pervasive in all its
programs. USFS had taken the position that all
problems resulting from agency activities that
affect communities are environmental justice
issues, he explained.
Mr. Ragos then reported that a primary focus of
the agency is its public outreach strategy. The
agency, he said, believes that for environmental
justice to be successful requires collaborative
interagency engagement and stewardship of
communities. Further, the strategy calls for the
development of infrastructure, systems and
processes, and a database that will provide staff
with the resources needed to engage the
appropriate communities when making decisions.
Mr. Ragos next stated that the agency had begun
to establish a dialogue with individuals at all levels
who play a role in environmental justice, including
representatives of academia, minority populations,
and Federal agencies. The dialogue in turn is
used to provide focus in development of the
environmental justice program, he continued. The
agency, said Mr. Ragos, was implementing the
principles of environmental justice in its projects.
He then described the project known as the Forest
for the People and People for the Forest Forum.
The project, he explained, has three phases:
preparation of materials, development of
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
6-11
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
partnerships, and action activities undertaken in
response to issues identified through the public
dialogue. The agency plans to begin the project
on the west coast and expand to other geographic
locations to initiate public dialogue on USFS
activities around the nation, he stated. Mr. Ragos
then introduced Mr. Jeff Romm, College of Natural
Resources, University of California at Berkeley, to
discuss the partnership development phase of the
project.
Mr. Romm began by stating that environmental
justice problems related to forestry issues result
from the inequitable distribution of opportunity and
influence and the consequential decline of forests.
The environmental justice movement is giving
voice to those excluded from or under-represented
in such claims, he pointed out. Through its Forest
for the People and People for the Forest Forum
project, USFS works with communities to define
the relationship those communities would like to
build and maintain with USFS. Mr. Romm then
stated that more than 350,000 Native Americans
live in California, but only 10,000 live on
reservations. Native populations living in urban
areas have no engagement in the activities of
USFS, he pointed out. Another under-represented
voice, he said, is the labor force, made up primarily
of people of color, working in forests. USFS had
begun to consider the implications for program
activities should these groups be given voice, he
said. A final element of the project, continued Mr.
Romm, is collaborative stewardship and
opportunities for tribal reservation foresters and
national foresters to develop practicable
management programs. He then stated that a
symposium will be held at the conclusion of the
project to provide people an opportunity to speak
openly about their needs.
In response to a question posed by Ms. Hill-Kelly,
Mr. Ragos stated that all line staff of USFS are
responsible for ensuring that activities of the
agency have no disproportionate effects on
communities. Ms. FireCloud then announced that
USFS planned to hold a training session in Palm
Springs, California, for all agency officers; she
suggested that an hour of the training could be
devoted to a presentation on environmental justice
by a member of the NEJAC subcommittee.
Mr. Goldtooth stated that the subcommittee would
follow up on Ms. FireCloud's request. He then
asked how many Native Americans are members
of the staff of USFS. Ms. FireCloud responded
that there are few Native Americans on the staff;
however, she added, USFS had established the
American Indian Advisory Council to ensure that
more Native Americans are brought into the
agency. Mr. Ragos added that Native Americans
currently make up less than two percent of the
agency's workforce. Mr. Goldtooth then asked at
what level in the agency Native Americans
generally are employed. Ms. FireCloud responded
that Native Americans are employed primarily at
the technical level, but one Native American is a
district ranger. Mr. Goldtooth then reminded Ms.
FireCloud and Mr. Ragos that under-
representation of Native Americans in the USFS
workforce is considered an environmental justice
issue.
3.8 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Derrick Watchman, Director of Indian Affairs,
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), opened his
presentation by stating that the primary mission of
DOE is the maintenance, research, and
development of nuclear weaponry and energy
resources. He then stated that his primary
function is that of tribal facilitator. DOE, he
continued, had been slow to recognize the special
relationship between tribes and Alaskan Natives
and Federal agencies. He reported that he had
been discussing policy with appropriate
representatives of DOE, but acknowledged that he
had found it difficult to make progress.
Mr. Watchman then stated that many DOE
properties are located on or near Tribal lands.
Turnover of staff at such properties had made it
difficult to achieve sustained success in
addressing environmental problems affecting the
properties, he added. Currently, he continued,
only one percent of DOE employees are Native
American. Therefore, he stated, DOE works to
help tribes develop their own environmental
management programs. Further, he stated, there
is "a major electrical supply divide" in Indian
country. DOE is attempting to provide electricity
generated by Federal generating facilities to tribes,
he continued. In addition, DOE is developing
renewable resources, he said.
Mr. Watchman stated that DOE facilities had
exercised protocols for consultation with tribes
improperly. The facilities had assumed that direct
communication with states constitutes consultation
with tribal stakeholders, he explained. Continuing,
DOE is emphasizing that only direct
communication with tribal leaders and
representatives fulfills requirements for
consultation with tribes. Further, he said, DOE is
establishing the role of Native American liaison to
facilitate better communication with tribal
communities. DOE also is ensuring that all
6-12
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
appropriate tribal leaders and representatives are
included on master lists of points of contact, he
added. Mr. Smith asked how DOE ensures that
staff members are indeed true Native Americans.
Mr. Watchman responded that DOE had solicited
suggestions from members of tribal communities
about how to address that issue.
Mr. Squeochs then asked Mr. Watchman how
activities related to the sampling and monitoring of
air and groundwater in the vicinity of Los Alamos,
New Mexico, had affected subsistence activities of
the pueblo communities. Mr. Watchman
responded that DOE had recommended areas
tribal people should and should not enter, but had
left all the lands open. He then stated that the
Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico has an
environmental department that performs the
necessary monitoring and testing. However, he
added, the pueblo currently must send the data to
DOE for validation; the pueblo however, would
prefer to have trained staff members who could
interpret the data. In addition, the pueblo would
like tribal members to have access to education
and training that will qualify them to work for DOE,
said Mr. Watchman.
Mr. Suagee then turned to renewable energy
sources. He called the attention of the members
of the subcommittee to a pamphlet developed in
1994 under a joint cooperative project between
HUD and DOE that discusses energy efficiency
and solar energy design in housing. He stated that
the pamphlet had been sent to all the tribes in a
single mass mailing, but that had been the extent
of the effort to disseminate the information.
However, he emphasized, the principles of energy
efficiency and renewable energy sources
discussed in the document are keys to sustainable
development in Indian country. Mr. Suagee then
stated that Mr. Watchman had failed to mention
the energy efficiency technical assistance
programs funded by DOE. Continuing, Mr. Suagee
stated that those programs are a classic example
of how Federal assistance programs administered
by states fail to reach Indian communities
because, unless states take responsibility or have
a statutory set-aside, tribes receive no technical
assistance from the states.
Further, said Mr. Suagee, NAHASDA expresses a
policy of supporting access to the standard
mortgage market for Federally insured mortgages.
However, he stated, to qualify for Federally insured
mortgages, houses must comply with the model
energy code. DOE and HUD provide assistance to
state governments in upgrading their building
codes to incorporate the model energy codes, he
explained. However, DOE has never considered
tribal governments a part of its mission for this
assistance program because the relevant federal
statute does not mention tribes and because the
people in this part of DOE apparently do not realize
that state building codes are not applicable on
tribal lands, he continued. He then stated that,
until a procedure for providing technical assistance
to tribes in incorporating energy efficiency into their
building codes has been put in place, tribal
housing would continue to be second- and third-
rate. Therefore, he declared, Indian families will
continue to bear much higher energy costs than
necessary.
Agreeing with Mr. Suagee, Mr. Watchman stated
that tribal appropriations in DOE had been "hit or
miss" over the past few years. For example, he
said, Congress had passed the National Energy
Policy Act which included Title 26 that called for
the development of energy resources in Indian
country. However, DOE had never embraced the
provision because of lack of funding from
Congress, said Mr. Watchman. He emphasized
that the National Energy Policy Act would become
a major issue, but stated that he was unsure what
priority rank Indian country would be given at the
national level. He then stated he was "positive"
that renewable energy is becoming a greater
priority and will be required in the very near future.
For example, he pointed out, DOE currently
recommends that by 2010, 10 percent of all energy
be obtained from renewable sources. Further,
considering the remoteness of many tribal and
Alaskan Native lands, renewable energy sources
are the only feasible means of providing electricity
to such lands.
Mr. Watchman then stated that DOE, EPA, DOI,
and DOJ had hosted an American Indian and
Alaskan Native environmental justice roundtable
meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to bring
stakeholders together to define responsibilities. A
primary theme of discussions held during the
meeting, he continued, was that Federal agencies
must take a "holistic approach" when implementing
policy in Indian country. Federal agencies also
must follow the lead of tribal governments and take
tribal culture and values into consideration when
formulating policy that will affect tribal lands, he
said.
Noting that DOE had funded the development of a
tribal risk assessment policy by a university, Mr.
Goldtooth asked to be provided a copy of the
document if indeed it had been completed. Part of
the initiative for the development of the tribal risk
assessment policy had been to give direction to
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
6-13
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
DOE in addressing contaminated sites in Indian
country, continued Mr. Goldtooth. Further, it had
been hoped the initiative would better define "how
clean is clean" in Indian country. Mr. Watchman
responded that he would have a member of DOE's
environmental management staff contact Mr.
Goldtooth about the matter. He also stated that
there is an on-going debate about "how clean is
clean." He then reminded the members of the
subcommittee that the State Tribal Working Group
meets quarterly to discuss relationship of tribes
with DOE.
3.9 EPA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE TRAINING
COLLABORATIVE
Ms. Deldi Reyes, EPA Region 8, first explained
that she was representing the EPA's
Environmental Justice Training Collaborative
(EJTC), a network of EPA staff who are pooling
their resources and attracting support from outside
EPA, including the support of states, community-
based groups, and academia. EJCT promotes
environmental training that complements existing
environmental justice training programs provided
by Federal agencies, she said. Ms. Reyes
announced that EJCT had initiated several
initiatives, including:
• Creating a workshop on fundamentals that
encourages trainers to modify educational
content to meet the specific learning needs of
participants in a particular workshop and
establish a baseline for the development of
which more advanced workshops can be
developed.
• Developing a methodology and materials
essential to the training of environmental
justice trainers.
• Establishing an annual environmental justice
training institute to provide a forum for
continuing development and refinement of
training materials, improve the skills of the
National Environmental Justice Training Team,
and trainers in techniques of evaluation and
needs assessment.
In developing the training curriculum, EJTC was
seeking the views and support of all stakeholders,
said Ms. Reyes. She then stated that the
collaborative particularly was soliciting advice into
the identification of environmental justice training
issues within natural and cultural resources,
NEPA, and in public participation. In addition, she
stated that the EJTC would welcome the views of
the members of the subcommittee to assist EJTC
in defining learning objectives related to
environmental justice in Indian country. She then
requested that a member of the subcommittee
attend one of the EJTC's pilot training courses.
3.10 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Ms. Karen Suagee, Office of Education Research
and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education,
began her presentation by telling the members of
the subcommittee that she had been working
actively with Executive Order 13096 on American
Indian and Alaskan Native Education that had
been signed in August 1998. An interagency task
force of 14 Federal agencies and EPA is guiding
work under the Executive order, she said. The
priorities established under the Executive Order
are to develop a research agenda, to develop
education resource guidance, and to develop a
policy on Federal collaboration and cooperation,
she continued. In addition, the task force is
creating a Federal database that identifies sources
of Federal data, she said.
The task force holds community forums at which
Tribal leaders, educators, researchers,
practitioners, and policymakers come together to
facilitate the provision of support and advice to the
task force, continued Ms. Suagee. She added that
the dialogue engaged in during the forums reflects
many of the themes expressed during the current
subcommittee meeting. The areas of interest
communicated to the task force, she said, include
community wellness, enhancement of tribal
traditions, revitalization of Native languages,
documenting authentic Indian history,
environmental education, and adult education. Ms.
Suagee then stated that education in Indian
country is "very fragmented." Thus far, the task
force had coordinated its activities with more than
560 tribes, concentrating on kindergarten through
grade 12. Approximately, 90 percent of Indian
children attend non-Indian schools, and there is a
tremendous amount of mobility among them, she
added. Ms. Suagee then discussed a recent
mandate of the state of Montana that requires that
all school districts in which a certain number of
Indian children are enrolled adopt curriculum that
is reflective of tribal history and traditions. She
emphasized that the mandate is the first of such
educational mandates to require tribal consultation.
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and reports submitted to the Indigenous People
Subcommittee.
6-14
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
4.1 MR. SCOTT JONES, LOWER BRULE SIOUX
TRIBE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. Scott Jones, Public Relations Director, Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, began his
presentation by thanking the members of the
subcommittee for their hard work. He then turned
to the subject of the Indian General Assistance
Program (GAP). Federal agencies, he stated,
were seeking the views of tribes about, as well as
their involvement in the development of, numerous
environmental impact statements (EIS),
environmental assessments (EA), and
environmental management plans. However, he
continued, he has been informed that GAP funds
cannot be expended to assist tribes in
implementing the NEPA process. Specifically, he
said, he had been told that GAP funds cannot be
used for activities conducted in response to
requirements set forth under NEPA, or for the
examination of the various types of government
documents that propose action alternatives,
policies, or principles of management. Mr. Jones
stated that, absent financial support, tribes find it
difficult to deal with the enormous tasks of
providing meaningful comment on the
development of these documents and supporting
involvement in their development.
Mr. Jones then discussed grievances related to the
failure of the Omaha District of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to comply with
Federal law. He stated that the Omaha District
had constructed a series of six earthen dams on
the Missouri River; the project, he continued,
constituted the taking of tribal trust lands. He then
stated that the taking of tribal trust lands requires
an Act of Congress. No such legislation had been
enacted, said Mr. Jones, nor had the appropriate
Federal action been taken before the project went
forward. Therefore, he pointed out, the
construction of the dams had been a clear violation
of existing Federal law, including the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA), the NHPA, NEPA, the American Indian
Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution, various Executive
orders, and various internal regulations of USACE.
Further, the wave action of the dam water is
undercutting riverbanks where ancestral burial
sites are located, thereby exposing graves,
destroying sites that are listed on the NRHP, and
eroding land along the boundary of the Lower
Brule Reservation, which includes 80 miles of
riverbank of the Missouri River that falls within both
Federal land to which the tribe retains certain
rights and Tribal Trust lands. The tribe affected by
the dams retains haying and grazing rights, as well
as subsurface mineral rights, he added.
Mr. Jones stated that the tribe had received the
EIS prepared for the dam project, which he
described as enormous, on the closing date for
public comment on the permit. USACE had
granted an extension, he continued, but the closing
date of the extension falls on the closing date for
comments on another EIS. Therefore, he said,
information for both EIS' must be reviewed at the
same time despite the tribe's limited resources.
Mr. Jones then stated that the tribe had estimated
conservatively that 110 acres of tribal land is lost
each year because of the projects. Considering
that the taking of tribal trust land requires
congressional action and that USACE had taken
no repertory action, he declared, his office could
only conclude that USACE had been given official
latitude to violate existing Federal laws.
Mr. Jones then suggested that representatives of
Federal agencies should travel to Indian country to
see firsthand the problems confronting tribes on
Indian lands. Doing so would help Federal officials
to develop a better understanding of the effects of
their actions and decisions on tribes in Indian
country, he suggested. In addition, those
representatives could hear directly from tribes how
policies and activities work "at the ground level."
Mr. Jones then stated his belief that it also is
important that representatives of Federal agencies
come to Indian lands and hear directly from the
tribes because, just as with the Lower Brule
Lakota, tribal culture is an oral one and the tribal
elders still communicate through traditional oral
presentation techniques.
Mr. Jones then thanked the members of the
subcommittee for their work on the two documents
the subcommittee had prepared, the Guide on
Consultation and Collaboration with Indian Tribal
Governments and the Public Participation of
Indigenous Groups and Tribal Members in
Environmental Decision Making. He stated his
hope that the documents would evolve into a
Federal requirement that would guarantee tribal
participation in Federal activities that affect tribal
lands, as well as effective tribal consultation.
Mr. Jones then discussed the overall inability of
prominent tribal representatives to participate in
the consultation process to facilitate the protection
of sacred sites. Continuing, he stated that such
areas as Yellowstone, the Missouri River, the
Black Hills of South Dakota, Pipestone Quarry in
southwest Minnesota, Slim Buttes/Cave Hills
Formations in South Dakota, Devil's Tower
National Monument in Wyoming, Scottsbluff in
Nebraska, the Little Big Horn in Wyoming, the
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
6-15
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Badlands in south west South Dakota, and the Fort
Pierre National Grasslands are managed by the
National Park Service, USFS, the Bureau of Land
Management, or USACE. He stated that the
agencies are holding the tribal sacred sites
"hostage" under the guise of management for a
public that has no concept of, or insight into, the
central importance of those sacred places to the
continued existence of the Lakota people. The
adverse environmental effects on these sacred
sites result from the degradation of the quality of
air and water in the vicinity of those sites, and
increases in noise levels, the influx of tourists, and
the development of facilities to accommodate
tourism. Mr. Jones then stated that tribes need the
help of the Indigenous Peoples subcommittee in
bringing their concerns to the attention of the
Federal government. Exhibit 6-2 provides a list of
projects to protect sacred Indian sites.
Exhibit 6-2
LIST OF PROJECTS TO PROTECT SACRED
INDIAN SITES
The following individuals are working to preserve sites
deemed sacred by the Lakota Sioux tribe:
• Elaine and Charley Quiver, Chief Johnson Holy
Rock, and Chief Oliver Red Cloud have been
working to preserve areas of the Black Hills, South
Dakota; and Mato Tipila at Devil's Tower in
Wyoming.
• Arvol Looking Horse and Alan Hare (Keeper of the
Sacred Pipe) have been working to preserve the
Lakota sacred Pipestone Quarry in Minnesota and
areas of the Black Hills in South Dakota.
• Tim Mentz and the Standing Rock Lakota have
been working to preserve and protect the Slim
Butte/Cave Hills formations and areas of the Black
Hills, both in South Dakota.
• Terry Gray and Freemont Fallis have been working
to preserve the Front Range area of Colorado
• Francis Brown and the Medicine Wheel Coalition
have been working for the protection of the
centuries old Medicine Wheel site in northern
Wyoming.
Mr. Smith suggested that Mr. Jones contact Ms.
Tanya Fish, EPA American Indian Environmental
Office at (202) 260-7939, to obtain more
information about the purposes and activities for
which funds available under GAP can be used, as
well as guidance related to allowable uses of such
funds. Mr. Smith then described the new
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) Program,
under which tribes can streamline the effort to
meet reporting requirements by providing the
required information for as many as 17 grants in a
single report. The matching requirement under the
PPG program currently is 5 percent for the first 2
years, he continued; however, he added, that
requirement might be increased to 10 percent,
depending upon the social or economic status of
the tribe. The high matching percentages required
under a number of Federal grant programs default
to 5 or 10 percent when such grants are
incorporated into the PPG program, continued Mr.
Smith. Mr. Williams then added that tribes can
obtain additional funding for work under NEPA
through the BIA. Mr. Williams then stated the
White House Council for Environmental Quality
(CEQ) also offers NEPA training for at least two
Tribal members a year; CEQ covers the costs of
air travel, lodging, and the course itself, he added.
Mr. Suagee then repeated Ms. Bell's earlier
comment that environmental programs have little
priority at the BIA; they therefore are least likely to
be funded by that agency, he pointed out. Mr.
Suagee then observed that there appears to be
more activity on Lower Brule Lakota lands than
can be managed with the current tribal resources.
Mr. Goldtooth added that he had encountered a
similar problem - too much work for the available
environmental staff to accomplish - when he was
an environmental director in Minnesota. Referring
to Ms. Bell's earlier statement that BIA funds are
allocated on the basis of priorities set by the tribes,
he suggested that tribal leaders begin to give
higher priority to environmental concerns in Indian
country.
Ms. Hill-Kelly stated that the USACE permit for the
dams must be certified and that, under the
certification process, the effects of the undertaking
on the tribe must be considered. Such
consideration, she continued, would include the
effect of the project on cultural resources. Mr.
Jones responded that EPA Region 5 had coined
new language that states that the impact on
cultural resources is an interrelated environmental
impact. Mr. Jones then stated that the tribe had
conducted independent research to assess the
adverse effects on the sacred sites of the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the
dams. That research, he charged, had been
ignored. In the eyes of the tribe, he continued,
USACE wanted the project to go forward and was
"willing to push the project through at any cost."
6-16
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
Mr. Goldtooth responded that the issues faced by
the Lower Brule Tribe provide a prime example
behind the purpose of the NEJAC. Continuing, he
stated that many individuals who could provide
help and guidance to Mr. Jones were present at
the current meeting of the NEJAC.
4.2 INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL ON UTILITY
POLICY
Mr. Robert Gough, Secretary, Inter-Tribal Council
on Utility Policy (COUP), first stated that six dams
operated by the USACE are located on the upper
Missouri River. He then stated that tribes soon
would be able to buy hydroelectric power from the
series of six dams, which have a direct effect on
tribal land. While researching how to best supply
the power from the dams to the tribal lands, he
continued, COUP had discovered a huge wind
resource. Mr. Gough stated that, under the 1944
Amendments to the Rural Electrification Act,
surplus power from reservoir projects was to be
provided to the Secretary of the Interior to be
transmitted for use at the "lowest possible rates."
Under the Act, he explained, tribes, which are not
utilities, are entitled to preference in energy
sources. Paradoxically, because of their
relationship to DOI and consistent with the Act's
original mission to provide inexpensive power to
rural and underdeveloped regions, tribes are
entitled to "cheap power," but the Federal
government cannot sell power to tribes because
they are not considered utilities, he pointed out.
The tribes along the upper Missouri successfully
lobbied for a waiver from the Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA) that allowed tribes to
purchase power, said Mr. Gough. The waiver
established a precedent for all other areas
regulated by WAPA, he observed. He then stated
that he had mentioned the current events because
it marked the start to ending injustice to tribes.
Previously, he pointed out, the Federal
government had used tribal lands and water to
generate a $1.5 billion energy economy of which
tribes received almost nothing.
Mr. Gough then stated that, while engaging in the
10-year negotiations about providing hydroelectric
power to tribes, his organization was involved in
integrated resource planning (IRP), he continued.
Specifically, COUP is exploring ways to
incorporate renewable energy sources into the IRP
process. His organization, he said, had discovered
that wind, a renewable energy resource, could
provide more energy than hydroelectric plants. He
stated that South Dakota has the best wind in the
Nation for use in generating power because the
wind speed is particularly constant, blowing at
approximately 17 to 20 miles per hour. Mr. Gough
then stated that more than 250 gigawatts of wind
power could be generated on tribal lands alone,
while hydroelectric plants can generate only 2
gigawatts of power along the Missouri River.
Mr. Gough then stated that he had served as chair
of the Climate Change Workshop held in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, two years earlier. The
primary concerns expressed at that workshop
related to carbon dioxide. At that event, he
continued, tribes agreed to take a lead in
promoting renewable energy for "the sake of the
planet, the nation, and the local economy." The
potential wind energy on the tribal lands in South
Dakota far exceeds the needs of the reservations,
he pointed out. Therefore, said Mr. Gough, tribes
could provide power thereby decreasing reliance
on nonrenewable sources of energy, such as coal,
and curtailing the need for USACE to draw down
the Missouri River.
Mr. Gough then described the Green Tag Program
proposed by COUP, under which tribes could
transfer the energy generated by tribal wind farms
onto the Federal grid. Further, the Federal
government could "green tag" that energy and
buyers could be certified as users of "green
power," he suggested. In addition, he continued,
Federal installations could use the power. The
tribe would be able to sell power economically;
serve the tribes' treaty partner, the Federal
government; and develop the local economy. He
then stated that tribes simply need the authority to
sell electric power. Mr. Gough stated that the
authority to sell renewable energy would help fulfill
the tribal entitlement to preference in energy
sources and help meet tribal environmental and
economic needs, as well.
A member of the audience asked about the effect
of transferring the authority of the Federal power
grids to private industry. Mr. Gough responded
that the Federal government would retain certain
controls over industry. Most important, he said,
the Federal government could give preference to
companies that use green power generated on
tribal lands. Further, he continued, if a Federal
agency enters into a power marketing contract with
tribes under which it agrees to buy a certain
percentage of power, tribes can use that contract
as security when applying to banks for economic
development loans.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
6-17
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
4.3 UPDATE ON MEDICINE LAKE HIGHLANDS
Mr. Gogal provided an update about the
environmental justice issues and status of
proposed power plant projects at Medicine Lake
Highlands. He stated that, after months of
discussions between the Pit River Tribe, EPA, and
the Native Coalition, USFS and BLM disapproved
one of the two proposed power plants. The record
of decision could serve as a model for Federal
decisions that affect cultural resources, he said.
The outcome was the result of very skillful and
persistent work by the tribe and the Native
Coalition, Mr. Gogal pointed out. Continuing, he
said that the second power plant proposal had
been approved and currently was under appeal
brought by the Tribe and the Native Coalition. He
stated that EPA was continuing to provide review
and assistance to the tribe, including:
• Evaluation of possible problems related to air
permits associated with the facility
• Provision of financial assistance to the tribe
through the GAP program
• Assignment of staff to monitor the proposed
development and provide assistance
5.0 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Goldtooth opened the subcommittee's
discussions of the development of draft
recommendations of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee to be forwarded to the Executive
Council of the NEJAC. In addition, Mr. Goldtooth
asked Mr. Williams to offer ideas and suggestions
for making environmental justice sustainable in
Indian country.
The member of the subcommittee were asked to
consider the following question in its efforts to
identify specific recommendations: "How do
Federal agencies integrate the principles of
environmental justice principles into their policies,
programs, and activities that affect tribes and
Alaskan Native villages?" After some deliberation,
the members offered the following
recommendations:
• Financial and technical resources and training
for tribes and Federal agencies should be
provided to enhance awareness and
understanding of laws, regulations, and polices
that affect Indian country.
• Each Federal agency should develop a
system, such as DoD's NAETS program, to
"track" complaints related to environmental
justice that are levied by tribes, so that the
agency can be held accountable for
responding equitably to tribal concerns and
needs; transparency is important.
• When Federal agencies coordinate their
activities, ACHP should be included as early
as possible in the planning stage.
• Interagency coordination should be enhanced
to effectively protect the environment and
public health, provide sustainable development
to leverage inadequate Federal funding, and
overcome the limits of each agency's mission
to deliver services to tribes (such as BIA
funding for environmental liabilities).
• The long-range environmental planning of EPA
and other Federal agencies should include
environmental liability; information in the
possession of the BIA should be made
available to other Federal agencies and to
tribes.
• The recommendations generated at the
environmental justice roundtable meeting of
Federal agencies and tribes held in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, should be reviewed
thoroughly and implemented after additional
comment has been obtained from tribes and
tribal organizations.
• Partnerships between EPA, other Federal
agencies, and tribal colleges and the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC)
should be strengthened to assist tribes in
building environmental, natural resource
management, and sustainable development
capacity.
• Effort should be made to ensure that Federal
agencies are fully aware of the Executive
Order on tribal colleges, which can help bring
support to those institutions.
• Demographic information about the academic
disciplines studied by Native American
students and the placement of such students
in different types of institutions of higher
education should be collected to determine
how much tribal community resources
potentially are available for capacity-building.
6-18
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
• Federal agencies should solicit information
from each tribe about what that tribe needs,
and the Federal agencies should seek support
from Congress to meet those needs, such as
reprogramming funds, or redirecting staff.
• The Federal government and the Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice
should create a document that identifies
resources available to assist tribes in
protecting the environment and public health,
and promoting economic development.
• Develop lists of contacts at Federal agencies,
including at the local and regional levels; such
lists should be distributed to tribes so tribes
can encourage or lead interagency
coordination.
• Federal agencies should pool resources and
create shared environmental justice programs
to address tribal issues.
• Develop non-Federal sources of funding for
projects and programs (such as renewable
energy).
Mr. Williams then offered several suggestions for
making environmental justice sustainable in Indian
country. Identifying cultural sustainability as the
goal of any such effort, Mr. Williams outlined the
following recommendations to be implemented by
Federal agencies and tribes.
• Define for agencies what constitutes
coordination and collaboration.
• Define for agencies what is required to foster
capacity-building within tribes.
• Identify what works best for tribes in working
with agencies. The NEPA model seems to
work best for tribes.
• Identify what Federal agencies should do to
fulfill their trust responsibility - agencies should
take responsibility for fulfilling this obligation or
tribes will be forced to seek redress for trust
mismanagement.
• Establish a NEPA process that will address
sustainability for Alaskan Natives and protect
their health; doing so will connect the people to
the land.
• Use the NEPA process to build a record of
their needs. Tribes should define the process
and use the interagency process to "deal" with
it.
• Demand "truth in advertising;" without an
accurate view of the history of Native
Americans included in the text books used in
public schools, the general public otherwise
will remain largely ignorant about Indian affairs
and will not support efforts to meet tribal needs
and goals.
• Include among the factors evaluated during
the NHPA Section 106 process an overview of
relevant historical information.
• Federal agencies and applicants that conduct
environmental assessments (EA) should, at
the beginning of the EA process, meet the
requirements set forth in Section 106 of
NHPA. The statement that tribes should be
consulted "early and often" should be replaced
with a statement that tribes should be
consulted according to "purpose and need."
• Enact a Tribal Environmental Policy Act
through which tribes can clearly explain their
use of their homelands and their objectives
and purposes in maintaining land uses.
• Evaluate environmental effects by drawing on
a tribe's traditional knowledge of its physical
environment, such as determining the loss of
species in cases in which loss of species
equals loss of culture.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
6-19
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 13, 2000
Arlington, Virginia
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Wendy Graham
Office of International Activities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Designated Federal Official
Alberto Saldamondo
Vice-Chair
-------
CHAPTER SEVEN
MEETING OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The International Subcommittee of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
conducted a one-day meeting on Wednesday,
December 13, 2000, during a four-day meeting of
the NEJAC in Arlington, Virginia. Because Mr.
Arnoldo Garcia, National Network for Immigrant
and Refugee Rights, who continues to serve as
chair of the subcommittee, was unable to attend
the meeting, Mr. Alberto Saldamondo, General
Counsel, International Indian Treaty Council and
vice-chair of the subcommittee, served as acting
chair. Ms. Wendy Graham, Office of International
Activities (OIA), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), continues to serve as the
Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the
subcommittee. Exhibit 7-1 presents a list of the
members who attended the meeting and identifies
those members who were unable to attend.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the International Subcommittee, is
organized in six sections, including this
Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks, summarizes
the opening remarks of the vice-chair and the
DFO. Section 3.0, Dialogue on Trade and the
Environment, summarizes the subcommittee
members' discussions about issues related to
trade and the environment and includes
summaries of presentations by representatives of
the United States Trade Representative (USTR)
and the U.S. Department of State (State
Department). Section 4.0, Presentations and
Reports presents an overview of each presentation
and report, as well as a summary of relevant
questions and comments from the subcommittee.
Section 5.0, Public Dialogue, summarizes the
discussions of the subcommittee related to public
comments referred to the subcommittee by the
Executive Council of the NEJAC. Section 6.0,
Action Items, summarizes the action items
considered and adopted by the subcommittee.
2.0 REMARKS
Mr. Saldamondo opened the subcommittee
meeting by welcoming the members present, Ms.
Graham, and Mr. Haywood Turrentine,
Birmingham (Alabama) Urban Impact Board and
chair of the NEJAC, whom Mr. Saldamondo said
he had asked to monitor the morning presentation
Exhibit 7-1
NAME OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 13, 2000
Mr. Alberto Saldamondo, Vice-Chair
Ms. Wendy Graham, DFO
Mr. Jose Bravo *
Ms. Beth Hailstock
Mr. Tseming Yang
Members
Who Were Unable To Attend
Mr. Albert Adams
Mr. Fernando Cuevas
Mr. Arnoldo Garcia, Chair
Mr. Robert Holmes
Ms. Caroline Hotaling
Ms. Maria del Carmen Libran
* Mr. Bravo served as proxy for Mr. Garcia
on trade and the environment. Mr. Saldamondo
explained that Mr. Turrentine's presence indicated
the interest the NEJAC had taken in issues related
to trade policy.
Mr. Saldamondo also expressed disappointment
that many members of the subcommittee had
been unable to attend the meeting. For that
reason, he noted, the meeting would focus on the
presentations to be offered and on concerns
related to the topics of those presentations, rather
than the activities and direction of the International
Subcommittee.
Ms. Graham commented that Mr. Garcia had
expressed regret that he had been unable to
attend the meeting, which would have been his last
as chair. Mr. Garcia served on the NEJAC for four
years and as the chair of the International
Subcommittee for the past two years, she said.
Ms. Graham added that Mr. Saldamondo was to
become the next chair.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-1
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
3.0 DIALOGUE ON TRADE AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Tseming Yang, Vermont Law School and
member of the International Subcommittee,
introduced the discussion of issues related to trade
and the environment by welcoming the
representatives of USTR and the State
Department. In August 1999, he then reported,
the NEJAC and EPA jointly sponsored the
Roundtable on Environmental Justice on the U.S.-
Mexico Border, held in National City, California. At
that meeting, environmental and public health
problems affecting communities were discussed,
said Mr. Yang. Participants involved in those
discussions acknowledged the causal relationships
between increased development, traffic, and
industrialization in the border region and
environmental and public health effects, he
explained. Since the roundtable meeting, EPA had
begun to address such issues in a serious manner,
said Mr. Yang, adding that many issues (such as
the development of infrastructure, rising population
growth in the border region, failure to enforce
existing laws, the effects of industrialization, and
exploitation of resources), however, have been
determined to be outside the scope of EPA. Mr.
Yang then declared his hope that the discussion to
be conducted during the current meeting would
prove mutually educational for both the members
of the USTR and the State Department and the
members of the International Subcommittee.
Mr. Turrentine added that, as moderator, his role
should be one that would facilitate the process,
rather than one in which he would take an active
part in the discussion. He then provided the
representatives of USTR and the State
Department with background information about the
framework and function of the NEJAC in general
and the International Subcommittee in particular.
Mr. Turrentine added that he would work with the
members of the International Subcommittee to
build an understanding of both the opportunities for
collaboration between the Executive Council of the
NEJAC and the USTR and State Department and
the limitations on such collaboration.
Dr. Alan Hecht, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, OIA, identified what he considered
four important areas to be addressed in
discussions of trade policy and the environment:
• The participation of all Federal agencies in
environmental justice issues
• A better understanding on the part of all
parties involved that the public can and should
provide input through a clearly defined process
• The overall process by which trade policy is
set
• Examination of issues in the border region and
review of the lessons learned through the
implementation of the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
3.1 Overview of the Functions of the United
States Trade Representative
Ms. Carmen Suro-Bredie, Office of the USTR,
began her presentation with a description of the
history of trade policymaking, citing the Boston Tea
Party and relating that event to the protests against
the World Trade Organization (WTO) that had
occurred earlier in the year in Seattle, Washington.
The results of the Boston Tea Party protests, she
explained, were "massive" trade sanctions against
England and the birth of the concept of "no
taxation without representation."
Today, trade policy is under the control of
Congress, she continued, explaining that the
power to create a trade tariff in the form of a tax on
imported goods falls to Congress. Under the Fast-
Track trade act, legislation that had expanded the
President's power to negotiate trade deals with
other nations, that authority is lent temporarily to
the Executive branch and only for a specific
purpose, she said. Ms. Suro-Bredie stated that,
during negotiations of trade agreements, the
Executive Branch often wants the authority to
negotiate with other countries terms beyond simple
increases or decreases in tariff levels. Simply
stated, she continued, under fast-tracking, which
Congress failed to renew in 1997, the Executive
Branch effectively is able to change law, because
the President is able to present to Congress
legislation approving and implementation trade
agreements on which Congress votes without
amendment and within a fixed period of time.
Those conditions are important because the other
country or countries involved in the negotiation
would be skeptical about changes in the
agreement made by Congress, she said. She
added that countries wish to have timely resolution
of the negotiation process.
The system works, she continued, although
difficulties arise when the system is forced to move
quickly. To try to alleviate the "push and pull," she
continued, USTR is attempting to give more
advance notice to the various trade subcommittees
of Congress of the issues and to allow more time
for negotiators to step back and think through the
effects of various stipulations on domestic
programs, industry, and policies. Exhibit 7-2
7-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
Exhibit 7-2
OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
In 1974, the United States Congress established the private-sector advisory committee system to ensure that U.S.
trade policy and the objectives of trade negotiations adequately reflect the commercial and economic interests of the
United States. In three subsequent trade acts, Congress expanded and enhanced the role of the system. The advisory
committees provide and advice about U.S. negotiating objectives and bargaining positions before the nations enter
into any trade agreements, about the operation of any trade agreements once entered into, and about other matters
relating to the development, implementation, and administration of U.S. trade policy. The system is arranged in three
tiers:
The system is structured in three tiers:
• The President's Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations (ACTPN), which is mandated by law,
considers issues related to trade policy in the context of the overall national interest. In the past, the membership
of the committee consisted primarily of representatives of business and labor; currently, the one third of the
members represent environmental, academic, or consumer concerns. The President appoints 45 members for
two-year terms. The 1974 Trade Act requires that the membership of the ACTPN broadly represent key
economic sectors affected by trade.
• Representatives to six policy advisory committees are appointed solely by the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) or in conjunction with other Cabinet officers. Those committees that are managed solely
by the USTR are the Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee and the Trade Advisory Committee on
Africa. Policy advisory committees managed jointly with the U.S. departments of Agriculture, Labor, and
Defense and EPA are, respectively, the Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee, the Labor Advisory
Committee, the Defense Policy Advisory Committee, and the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory
Committee. Each committee provides advice based on the perspective of its specific area.
• Twenty-six advisory committees, which are authorized by law, are organized in two areas: industry and
agriculture. Representatives are appointed jointly by the USTR and the secretaries of Commerce and
Agriculture. Each sectoral or technical advisory committee represents a specific sector or commodity group
(such as textiles or dairy products) and provides specific technical advice about the effect that trade policy
decisions may have on that sector. Four functional advisory committees provide cross-sectoral advice on
customs, standards, issues related to intellectual property, and electronic commerce. Previously, committees in
this tier had included representatives of business and industry; no environmental or labor interest groups were
represented. Currently, representatives of environmental organizations are assigned to each of the committees.
Such groups include the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and other groups that have exclusive environmental
focuses that may not include environmental justice.
provides an overview of the trade policy advisory
system the Congress established in 1974.
Ms. Suro-Bredie then introduced Mr. Dominic
Bianchi, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Public Liaison, USTR, who presented information
about the role of his office. He expressed his hope
that the role of the liaison office would be defined
more precisely during the upcoming Administration
than it had been previously. The USTR, he
continued, had been created by Congress, but its
negotiating capabilities had been "lent" to the
Executive Branch. Although the power of the
Executive Branch is limited - it does not have the
power to regulate commerce - Congress provides
authority to the Executive Branch within specified
parameters, he explained. Exhibit 7-3 presents
additional information about Executive Order
13141, which addresses the environmental review
of trade agreements.
Citing recent lawsuits and the protests against the
WTO that occurred in Seattle in May 2000, Mr.
Bianchi stated his personal belief that the system
of private-sector advisory committees does not
function as it should and that the USTR and the
new administration should engage Congress on
how to include stakeholders more effectively when
making trade policy. He also added that the USTR
and the new administration would need the help of
Congress to effectively address the public's
concerns about how the USTR receives advice
from all affected stakeholders. However, Mr.
Bianchi stated, Congress had been "shying away"
from re-examining process.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-3
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 7-3
GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13141:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF TRADE AGREEMENTS
On December 13, 2000, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the White House Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) released final guidelines for implementing the provisions of Executive Order 13141:
Environmental Review of Trade Agreements. The Executive order, signed by President Clinton in November 1999,
commits the United States to careful assessment and consideration of the environmental effects of future trade
agreements, including written reviews of certain major trade agreements.
Executive Order 13141 institutionalizes the use of the environmental review as an important policy tool for helping
to identify the potential environmental effects of trade agreements, both positive and negative, and for helping to
facilitate consideration of appropriate responses when such effects are identified. The order requires review of
certain major trade agreements: comprehensive multilateral trade rounds, multilateral or bilateral free-trade
agreements, and major new agreements affecting natural resource sectors. Environmental reviews also may be
warranted for other agreements on the basis of such factors as the significance of reasonably foreseeable
environmental effects, although the USTR anticipates that most sectoral liberalization agreements will not require
review.
In developing the environmental guidelines, the USTR and the CEQ sought to involve all interested stakeholders.
Draft guidelines implementing the Executive order were published in July. The views of the public, identified
through a series of public workshops, a public hearing, and public comment periods, played a significant role in
shaping the final product. The USTR and the CEQ also consulted closely with key members of Congress and the
various trade advisory committees, including the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee. Other federal
environmental, economic, and foreign affairs agencies also collaborated with the USTRs and the CEQ in developing
the guidelines.
The final guidelines provide for the integration of environmental considerations into the development of trade policy
objectives. They provide significant opportunities for public participation, including early public outreach and
consultations about what the U.S. objectives in trade agreements should be, an open and public process for
determining the scope of the review, and opportunities to comment on draft reviews. The guidelines have been
posted on the USTR Web site: .
Previously, the United States had conducted environmental reviews of several major trade agreements, including the
North American Free Trade Agreement in 1992 and 1993 and the Uruguay Round Agreements in 1994. In
November 1999, the United States prepared a study of the economic and environmental effects of the proposed
Accelerated Tariff Liberalization Initiative with respect to forest products.
The USTR is completing review of the Jordan Free Trade Agreement concluded in October and is conducting
environmental reviews of the Free Trade Area of the Americas and the Singapore and Chile free trade agreements
currently under negotiation.
The USTR, Mr. Bianchi continued, is attempting to
make the process by which trade rules and
standards as transparent as possible and to
establish a system that includes points of contact
are adopted who can provide information to the
public and conduct briefings throughout
negotiations. Transparency refers to the visibility
and clarity of the laws, regulations, and
procedures, he explained.
The USTR, Mr. Bianchi reminded the
subcommittee, is a small agency, composed of
180 employees with approximately 20 to 40
individuals on loan from other agencies. In
addition, he continued, the USTR is affected by the
decreases in the budgets of other Federal
agencies. Because of those budget cuts, he
explained, fewer individuals are loaned on "detail."
For example, he said, fewer people from EPA who
have expertise in trade and the environment are
available to the USTR when such expertise is
needed. Roughly 80 to 85 percent of the annual
budget of the USTR, or approximately $25 million,
is allocated for salary, with the remainder allocated
for travel, he pointed out. The USTR has three
offices, continued Mr. Bianchi, with the primary
office in Washington, D.C.; two employees in
Geneva, Switzerland; and one employee in
Brussels, Belgium.
7-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
Mr. Bianchi then described how trade policy had
changed in the 50 years since Congress created
the USTR. At that time, he explained, trade
accounted for less than 10 percent of the gross
national product (GNP) of the United States, and
only a few people were interested in trade policy.
That scenario changed over the decades, and
changed radically over the most recent decade, he
continued. He added that trade currently accounts
for almost one-third of the United States GNP.
The effects of trade, he explained, have become
magnified as trade has come to play an
increasingly significant role in the world economy.
To include public participation in the process, Mr.
Bianchi continued, the USTR had prepared an
Internet Web site that focuses on providing
information about trade to individuals who, in the
past, have expressed interest in trade issues. The
USTR also conducts briefings for the general
public at which information about priority issues is
disseminated, he said. The USTR also posts
notices in the Federal Register, he stated. In
response to Mr. Yang's question about the location
at which such briefings are held, Mr. Bianchi stated
that public hearings usually are held in
Washington, D.C.; however, during the months
leading to the WTO conference in Seattle, the
USTR held briefings in six locations around the
country to solicit advice in preparation for that
meeting, he said.
After Mr. Bianchi's presentation, Mr. Saldamondo
commented that he held a different view of the
USTR and that his view was similar to the view of
the Seattle protesters. Communities, he
explained, experience the negative effects of
trade. For example, he continued, people living in
maquiladoras, U.S. manufacturing plants, in
Mexico suffer from adverse health effects, and the
indigenous people of Chile are losing their land.
Mr. Saldamondo stated that he was pleased that
no one had claimed that higher wages will benefit
the very people who have become marginalized by
trade agreements. Trade agreements, he
declared, create more poverty, and that poverty
tends to affect racial minorities more than other
segments of society.
Mr. Saldamondo explained that words such as
"disproportionate" or "minority" used in the
environmental justice context are not appropriate
in the international context because indigenous
people may not be minorities within their native
countries. In international cases, he suggested,
the race of the polluter and the race of the victim
should be considered when defining environmental
racism. When those factors are examined, he
stated, one must recognize the reality of
environmental racism. In fairness to the USTR, he
added, USTR staff "do not intend to increase
cancer rates or increase the loss of species and
habitats ... To them business is business."
However, Mr. Salamondo added, the USTR must
be aware of the damage that it creates through
trade agreements. One-third of the United States'
GNP accounts for much prosperity, but that
prosperity is not shared and is gained at the
expense of others, he said. Citing the Metales y
Derivados site located in Tijuana, Mexico as an
example of this exploitation, he declared that the
economic trade model used by the USTR does not
serve communities nor does it take into
consideration the value of good health, a forest, or
a baby's life. Free trade has been a disaster, Mr.
Saldamondo exclaimed.
Mr. Jose Bravo, Just Transition Alliance, clarified
Mr. Saldamondo's comments about free trade
stating that the members of the International
Subcommittee do not oppose trade, but rather
support a just trade policy that considers people.
He added that he believes the USTR often uses
the Fast-Track process to circumvent opposing
views. Ms. Beth Hailstock, Director,
Environmental Justice Center, Cincinnati
Department of Health, commented that she had
been pleased to hear representatives of the USTR
acknowledge that simply publishing notices in the
Federal Register was not an effective means of
communicating with the public. She then
suggested that the USTR follow the guidelines
published in the NEJAC document on public
participation to increase community involvement in
the process.
Mr. John Audley, EPA, commented that he had
once been an active member of the Sierra Club
and had created that organization's trade
department. In his current position with EPA, he
continued, he endeavors to exert pressure on the
USTR to consider environmental consequences of
trade policy. However, he added, no focus on
stakeholders was included when the USTR was
created because, at that time, Congress was not
aware that such a focus was needed. Mr. Audley
pointed out that, because of the existence of
Haztraks, a program created jointly by the United
States and Mexico to track the movement of
hazardous waste between the United States and
Mexico, Congress has exercised increased
oversight of NAFTA, and more problems have
come to light. What the United States
subsequently has negotiated through its monitoring
process, he continued, overshadows the
implications of NAFTA. EPA is the only Federal
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-5
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
agency that has a trade policy, stated Mr. Audley,
and EPA continued to play an active role on ten
trade advisory subcommittees despite reductions
in EPA's budget. That level of participation
illustrates EPA's commitment to the issue, he
stated.
Mr. Yang commented that it is important to provide
comment on and substantive contributions to the
trade policy process. It is the responsibility of the
government to actively seek to identify and
consider outcomes of trade agreements, he
stated, rather than considering only the effects on
industry. In addition, said Mr. Yang, the United
States has a global responsibility to the extent that
it induces change through trade agreements.
In response to a comment made by Ms. Suro-
Bredie in which she recommended to the
members of the International Subcommittee how
to best influence the USTR as a "new interest
group," Mr. Bravo commented that the members of
the subcommittee are not a "new group" and that it
"irks" him that other interest groups have been
recognized while the interest groups that represent
the people most affected have not.
Mr. Hecht then commented that he believes that
the discussions had been beneficial and that the
issues are challenging. He then reminded the
participants that environmental review of trade
policy as a process is important because it targets
the societal impact on indigenous populations.
EPA had built enormous capacity to target trade
issues and currently was building an in-house staff
to help with community outreach programs and
dissemination of information. In 1989, Mr. Hecht
pointed out, it would have been difficult to find a
region more neglected than the U.S.-Mexico
border. NAFTA, he continued, put a spotlight on
the area, and the Border Environmental
Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North
American Development (NAD) Bank were created;
people have benefitted, he explained. Funds for
programs that train people for new jobs were
included in the NAFTA agreement. Under NAFTA,
a means of facilitating economic change and
preparing for change has never been easy, he
observed. Around the world, Mr. Hecht concluded,
environmental agencies are weak; the goal, he
declared, is to strengthen those agencies and
create a platform for discussion.
Mr. Bianchi pointed out that the majority of
members of Congress had not been present
during debates about the NAFTA; today, there is a
new Congress and a new administration. The best
means of exerting influence, he recommended, is
through Congress. Because of the change of
administration and the magnitude of the issues,
Mr. Bianchi predicted, such discussions would be a
multiyear debate.
Mr. Bianchi stated that industry that moves into
countries which environmental and enforcement
mechanisms lax may have a competitive
advantage. Often however, he stated, countries in
which laws are enforced poorly do not have
infrastructure sufficient to attract trade. Mr. Bravo
then stated that trade agreements, as they
currently stand, allow certain types of
contamination. For example, he explained, it is not
required that labels on containers identify the
contents as hazardous waste, but such labels
instead can indicate that the contents will be
reused or recycled. That problem in labeling, he
added, led to the contamination at the Alto Pacifico
and Metales y Derivados sites, where stockpiles of
hazardous waste accumulated and no one was
accountable because the contents had been
labeled for "reuse" or "recycling." There is no
language in the NAFTA agreement, he added, that
creates real enforcement mechanisms to prevent
such problems because laws are enforced poorly
and maintenance of records of the transportation
of materials across the border is a voluntary
activity. The laws themselves are not weak, but
enforcement is, Mr. Bravo declared. The
infrastructure that supports enforcement and
cleanup should be better funded, he stated.
The border area provides the clearest example of
the ways in which trade and environmental issues
come together, Mr. Bravo continued. During
NAFTA discussions before the act was enacted,
he explained, people believed that displacement at
the border would be minimal. However, he
continued, farm workers worried that the United
States would sell corn to Mexico, even though
Mexico grows enough grain to meet its needs.
Soon after NAFTA was enacted, he stated, the
U.S. sold corn to Mexico. In addition, the people
living in the maquiladora region have suffered
discrimination on the basis of gender and age, and
families have been uprooted and displaced. What
are the mechanisms for enforcing environmental
compliance in the region, who is responsible for a
polluting company located in Tijuana the profits of
which go to other countries, and what are the
incentives for compliance, Mr. Bravo asked.
Mr. Hecht responded that several problems affect
the border area. Repatriation of hazardous waste
is based in part on the agreement between the
United States and Mexico under NAFTA, and that
process will continue, he said. The accountability
7-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
of multinationals, in relation to the Mexican
government, should be explored in light of the new
border plan that will replace the Border XXI
Framework scheduled to expire in 2000. Most
multinational companies, Mr. Hecht continued, will
endeavor to operate at a world standard; however,
because many of these companies are located
farther away from the border region, they may be
"divorced" from the sensitivity of such issues.
Ms. Mary Lattimer, Trade Representative, U.S.
Department of Commerce, responded that she
believes that many of Mr. Bravo's concerns had
been addressed in the Jordan Free Trade
Agreement. She acknowledged that comments
received from members of the International
Subcommittee are representative of the concerns
the USTR must consider if change is to be
implemented. Sustainable development, she
continued, has three aspects:
• Economic effects
• Environmental protection
• Social development
The three aspects are of equal importance, and all
must be supported in trade policies, she stated.
The Jordan agreement, she added, had been the
first agreement written to support the WTO
provision for a transparent dispute resolution
process and to encourage discussion of
environmental issues with nongovernment
organizations. Included in the Jordan model, she
continued, were provisions for securing
commitments from countries that they would
enforce their own existing laws, provided those
laws were deemed adequate. Ms. Lattimer added
that she believed the obligation of each country to
enforce its own laws was being honored.
3.2 Overview of the Activities of the U.S.
Department of State
Mr. Michael Shelton, State Department, briefly
explained how international financial assistance
helps developing countries improve environmental
justice. He also described the role played in that
process by multilateral development banks (MDB)
and various bilateral programs and policies. The
MDBs include the World Bank; the Global
Environment Facility; and the five regional
development banks, the Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB), the African Development
Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and
the NAD Bank. In 1999, he continued, the MDBs
lent $65.2 billion to developing countries,
compared with $9.6 billion in assistance provided
by the United States in fiscal year 1999. However,
he added, all U.S. bilateral assistance is provided
on a grant basis.
Loans from MDBs help improve the environment in
developing countries in two ways, continued Mr.
Shelton, either by funding projects that directly
improve the environment or by funding institutions
that establish and enforce environmental
standards. One example of the first form of
assistance, he explained further, would be a recent
$130 million loan made by IDB to Brazil for the
expansion of the potable water supply, sanitary
sewerage and wastewater treatment facilities in
Brazil's Federal District. An example of the
second form of assistance, he said, is the
upcoming loan to Paraguay to establish a national
environmental system that will integrate public
agencies and private-sector organizations into a
single system under which implementing
environmental policies are to be implemented, he
said.
Mr. Shelton continued, explaining that MDBs
require that countries borrowing monies review the
effects of their projects on the environment.
Environmental impact assessments (EIA) are
required for all projects that have some effect on
the environment, he said, adding that countries
borrowing funds are obliged to describe in detail
what they will do to mitigate the negative effects of
proposed projects. Resettlement action plans also
are required for dams and highways and other
projects that displace people, Mr. Shelton stated.
He added that governments engaged in such
projects must specify the compensation and other
assistance that will be provided to those who are
displaced.
Mr. Shelton reported that the United States
opposes all MDB loans for projects that will have
substantial effects on humans if an EIA has not
been written and released to the public at least 120
days before the day the board of the lending bank
is scheduled to vote on that loan. The reason for
maintaining such a policy, he explained, is to help
ensure that persons affect by projects are aware of
the changes the project will bring about. Even
when an EIA, complete with mitigation measures,
has been prepared, the United States still may
vote against a loan if the United States determines
that the project will cause irreparable harm to the
environment, he stated. Mr. Shelton
acknowledged that a comment period of 120 days
does not provide adequate time for a thorough
public review of proposed projects.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-7
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
For example, Mr. Shelton continued, the United
States recently opposed loan to a government in
Asia for a highway because the United States
considered the threat to biodiversity by the
proposed highway to be too great. He stated that
opposition on the part of the United States alone
usually is not sufficient to block approval of a loan
because the weight of each member's vote is
determined by the amount of that member's
contribution to the paid-in capital of the fund.
However, in cases in which the environment was
quite severe, other donors had joined the United
States to block approval of a loan, he said.
Consequently, developing countries are learning
how to evaluate projects and developing an
understanding of what constitutes acceptable
international standards, Mr. Shelton said.
Mr. Shelton then described the activities of the
NAD Bank, the smallest MDB supported by the
United States. He remarked that the bank, created
in 1995 under the NAFTA agreement, lends funds
only for environmental projects along the U.S.-
Mexico border. Specifically, it provides loans to
communities to help finance water, wastewater
and solid waste projects, he explained. Mr.
Shelton acknowledged that, although the fund had
allocated $262 million in grants through the Border
Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), which is
funded by EPA, it had lent only $11 million. The
problem, he explained, is that, in the past, the NAD
Bank was lent funds only at commercial interest
rates and the small communities along the border
cannot afford to pay those rates. Recently, he
continued, the board of directors of the bank
agreed to allocate $50 million for loans at less than
market rate for infrastructure projects in water,
wastewater, and solid waste. They also agreed to
consider loans for other types of environmental
infrastructure projects.
Continuing, Mr. Shelton stated that the U.S.
Export-Import Bank evaluates the expected effects
on the environment of all capital projects before
the bank provides funding for those projects.
Currently, he added, the United states is
attempting to convince the other G-7 Countries
and the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) member countries to
impose similar requirements on their export credit
agencies and is requesting that each agree to use
similar qualitative and quantitative standards.
Mr. Shelton reported that the various bilateral
assistance programs sponsored by the United
states and administered by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (U.S. AID) also help
developing countries improve local environments.
He explained that U.S. AID seeks to protect the
environmental by working to achieve five broad
objectives: 1) reducing the threat of global climate
change; 2) conserving biological diversity; 3)
helping to manage urbanization, including
management of pollution; 4) promoting
environmentally sound energy services; and 5)
managing natural resources on a substantial basis.
He observed that, from the point of view of
environmental justice, one of the most interesting
U.S. AID programs is its work through regional
urban development organizations (RUDO). U.S.
AID, he continued, works through RUDOs in India,
Indonesia, South Africa, Guatemala, and Poland to
deliver environmental services and to create jobs
in 150 municipalities.
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and reports submitted to the International
Subcommittee. The International Subcommittee
heard presentations and reports on the following
topics: the United Nations (UN) World Conference
Against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance; the Border
XXI program, a program whose mission is to
identify and address environmental factors, in a
binational framework, that pose the highest risk to
human health so that exposure to such factors
may be reduced; pesticide training initiatives; tribal
community outreach programs, and pilot Internet
projects related to the global environment.
4.1 UN World Conference Against Racism,
Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and
Related Intolerance
Ms. Sharon Kotok, State Department and Agency
Representative, White House Interagency Task
Force on Racism, opened her presentation by
describing the preparation necessary for a UN
world conference. Such conferences, she began,
focus on a single issue or problem, with the
ultimate goal of identifying recommendations for
addressing that problem. The UN Conference
Against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, she
explained, scheduled to be held August 31 through
September 7, 2001 in South Africa, will focus on
five areas:
• Sources of racism
• Victims of racism
• Possible redress
• Measures for the prevention of racism
• Actions to overcome racism
7-8
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
The goals of the conference are to acknowledge
the progress made in addressing the issues of
concern and increasing awareness, examine the
obstacles that remain to be overcome, and
recommend specific actions, Ms. Kotok added.
The conference, organized by the UN High
Commissioner on Human Rights, would be
"forward-looking and action-oriented," she
explained. Representatives of governments and
NGOs are expected to work together to address
disparities related to such issues as environmental
benefits and burdens, health care, economic
status, and education. However, she added, it is
not the intention of the conference to single out
violators or to point an accusatory finger, but rather
to provide an opportunity for participants to
evaluate their own actions and policies.
Ms. Kotok noted that planners were modeling the
conference after the United Nations Fourth World
Conference on Women held in Beijing, People's
Republic of China, in 1995. Strong
recommendations, as well as new legislation and
legal measures, resulted from that conference, she
pointed out. She explained that the Beijing
Conference was "so successful" because of the
strong collaboration between participants in the
conference and NGOs. Representatives of NGOs
also had been included throughout the planning
process and assisted in writing the documents
generated as a result of the deliberations
conducted during the conference, she continued.
Ms. Kotok asked that the members of the
subcommittee provide comments on two
documents, Excerpted Material Developed by the
U.S. Interagency Task Force on the United
Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related
Intolerance (Draft) and the UN World Conference
Against Racism (WCAR) - The Environment
Position Paper (Draft), prepared by the White
House Interagency Task Force on Racism. Ms.
Mary O'Lone, EPA Office of General Counsel,
reiterated that the documents had been submitted
as placeholders and that the task force hoped to
receive comments on the documents before the
January 15 and 16, 2001 planning conference to
be held in Geneva, Switzerland. Ms. O'Lone
requested that comments or questions about the
documents be forwarded to her by electronic mail
(e-mail) at: olone.mary@epa.gov.
In response to Ms. O'Lone request for comments,
Mr. Saldamondo stated that the members of the
International Subcommittee would need time to
discuss the position of the subcommittee, but that
they did have an interest in the issue. He
observed further that recognition of incidents of
discrimination against "vulnerable groups" is
valuable. For example, he remarked, the
governments of Chile and Uruguay do not
recognize that indigenous populations live within
their borders. Those people are not recognized
legally by their own governments, he declared,
adding that such discrimination is particularly
evident in the cases of people of African descent
and indigenous peoples living in Central and South
America.
Mr. Saldamondo then described the inadequacies
of the domestic U.S. concept of environmental
justice when it is applied in an international
context. He stated that he believes the United
States should redefine the elements of racism in
an international context and revise language that is
"U.S.-centric". The term "racial minorities," he
explained, may not present an accurate picture of
the victims of racism, particularly in those countries
in which indigenous populations are in the majority
but lack control over their environment. What also
is lacking, he continued, is the participation of "civil
society" and those people who are the victims of
racism. There is a difference, he stated, between
civil society and stakeholders; stakeholders often
include groups, such as industry, that the civil
society would consider part of the problem.
Certainly, industry does have a role in the process,
but acknowledging and considering the concerns
of groups that are affected is crucial, he urged.
Ms. Mildred McClain, Citizens for Environmental
Justice, added that there is a need for a link
between "participating in" and "influencing"
decision-making. Efforts to increase participation
alone are not sufficient, she stated; language
should be developed that supports increases in
both the participation and influence of civil society
or the general public at the world conference, she
urged. The concept of environmental racism also
should be well defined before the conference is
convened, she advised. She added that she would
take the responsibility of circulating the two draft
documents in various environmental justice
communities to solicit their views. Ms. McClain
recommended that the White House task force
also seek the "buy-in" of NGOs for the two
documents.
Mr. Yang then pointed out that most documents
that address environmental issues on an
international level focus primarily on pollution.
Issues related to the marginalization of community
groups and the use of natural resources are not
addressed, he said. Environmental justice also
has economic implications, he continued, adding
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-9
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
that the flow of goods and benefits, and the
accompanying externalization of the burdens
related to environmental costs that tend to be
"inflicted" on developing countries, should be
addressed.
4.2 Update on U.S.-Mexico Cooperation and
the Border XXI Program
Dr. Hecht provided the members of the
International Subcommittee with an update on the
Border XXI Program and the new priorities
established by Mexico's Federal environmental
secretariat for the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC). He announced that Mr. Victor
Lichtenger recently had been named the Minister
of Mexico's newly renamed Secretaria de Medio
Ambiente Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT),
formerly known as the Secretaria de Medio
Ambiente Recursos Naturales y Pesca
(SEMARNAP). Mr. Lichtenger also was named
the first executive director of the CEC, he
continued. Dr. Hecht then reported that
SEMARNAT had announced a series of priorities
for the CEC, including:
• Develop, under articles 14 and 15 of the North
American Agreement on Environmental
Cooperation, procedures by which citizens can
submit to the CEC petitions about the failure of
the Mexican government to effectively enforce
environmental laws that are "expeditious,
open, and transparent."
• Strengthen the CEC's Joint Public Advisory
Committee (JPAC) to serve as a "true organ"
of public participation in the CEC's decision-
making process and to "democratize" the CEC
by giving JPAC a "real role" in the
development of the CEC's budget and work
program. In addition, a new position with
responsibility for the promotion of public
participation has been created in the CEC.
• Conclude negotiations on an "equitable"
agreement on Environmental Impact
Assessment in a Transboundary Context
which stipulates the obligations of parties to
assess the environmental impact of certain
activities at an early stage of planning.
Mr. Lichtenger had pledged to emphasize the
importance of maintaining the independence of the
CEC in processing petitions of private citizens to
addressed environmental problems, reported Mr.
Hecht. He commented that such a commitment is
"a good sign" because citizen redness has been a
source of friction among the United States,
Mexico, and Canada.
In a nod to the subcommittee's concerns about
trade and the environment, Mr. Lichtenger had
announced strong support for the CEC's
cooperative work program. He particularly had
emphasized its trade and environment program, in
light of the importance of the North American
experience, in the negotiation of a free trade
agreement of the americas, said Dr. Hecht.
Mr. Lichtenger was to meet with Mexico's new
"Border Czar", Mr. Ernesto Ruffo, to stake out a
strong, common Mexican position to confront what
he characterized as "lack of political will," said Dr.
Hecht.
Dr. Hecht then reported that the preparation of the
Border XXI Transition Paper and consultations
with states and regions was ongoing. States and
tribal communities were working together more
closely, he observed; a series of meetings had
produced recommendations for the new border
plan, he said. In addition, changes had been
made within lending institutions, including the NAD
Bank, the mandate of which had been, he
continued. He added that issues related to money
and funding are important in drafting the new
border plan.
Mr. Gregg Cooke, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 6, commented that, in 1999, he had
attended a meeting of the BECC in Monterrey,
Mexico. He stressed that the transparency
provisions of the BECC that mandate transparency
must be met. Issues that must be addressed
under the new border plan, he declared, include
strengthening of the role and participation of the
states in the process, creation of an exclusive
public participation process, and expansion of
infrastructure to support the effort deal with all
issues.
Mr. Saldamondo reminded those present that the
recommendations developed by participants in the
Roundtable on Environmental Justice on the U.S.-
Mexico Border, which had been sponsored jointly
by the NEJAC and EPA, had included calls for an
increase in the participation of indigenous
communities residing on the Mexican side of the
border and for enforcement of accountability on
the part of polluters.
Mr. Enrique Manzanilla, EPA Region 9,
commented briefly on the success of four pilot
projects that EPA had chosen because they
offered opportunities to explore domestic aspects
7-10
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
of environmental concerns. He explained that the
cities had been selected to address issues other
than that of transboundary waste.
Ms. Olivia Balandran, Environmental Justice
Coordinator, EPA Region 6, distributed to the
members of the International Subcommittee
information about projects that EPA Region 6 has
undertaken. She asked that the members of the
International Subcommittee provide their views on
the direction Region 6 has taken with those
projects.
4.3 Update on the Metales y Derivados Site
Mr. Bravo presented the written statement of Mr.
Cesar Luna, Environmental Health Coalition
(EHC), who had been unable to attend the
meeting. In his statement, Mr. Luna noted that in
October 1998, a petition to the CEC charged that
the Mexican government had failed to enforce
articles 134 and 170 of Mexico's general
environmental law. The petition, which EHC had
filed, cited Mexico's failure to pursue extradition of
the owner of the Metales y Derivados site who
currently resides in San Diego, California,
explained Mr. Luna. However, the CEC does not
have the authority to extradite the property owner,
he continued. Residents of the affected
community believe that the owner had "gotten
away free," said Mr. Luna.
In his statement, Mr. Luna expressed EHC's fear
that, with the change of administration in Mexico,
the case will be forgotten. He requested that the
International Subcommittee recommend that the
NEJAC urge EPA to:
• Oversee the release to the CEC of
documentation related to the case by entities
on both sides of the border
• Serve as a liaison with the State Department
and the U.S. Customs Service, U.S.
Department of the Treasury
• Establish the Metales y Derivados site as a
pilot project for a binational cleanup and
enforcement effort
Dr. Hecht remarked that Mexico had agreed to
allow the CEC, through a contractor, to conduct
sampling of contaminated surface soils at the
Metales y Derivados site characterizing that
decision as a good sign of cooperation on the part
of the Mexican government. Previous analysis had
shown that lead levels at the site, an abandoned
maquiladora owned by a U.S. citizen, were not as
high as those at locations in the city, he stated. In
June 2000, the case had been brought before the
CEC council on the grounds that the Mexican
government allegedly had failed to clean up the
site and determine which laws are applicable and
whether any laws had been broken, he continued.
Information still was being gathered, said Dr.
Hecht. He suggested that another month would
pass before the case is taken to the Council again.
Because of time constraints thoroughly, the
members of the subcommittee did not discuss the
case of the Metales y Derivados. The members
agreed to discuss the case during upcoming
conference calls of the subcommittee.
4.4 Update on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Pesticide Training
Initiatives
Ms. Delta Valente, Project Manager, Farm Worker
Health, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS), EPA, and Ms. Carol Parker,
OPPTS, EPA, provided the members of the
International Subcommittee with an update about
the activities of the EPA Pesticide Worker
Protection Branch. They distributed examples of
literature about pesticide training and awareness
that is available free through OPPTS's Web site:
. Previously,
pesticide training and awareness had focused on
occupational hazards, Ms. Parker explained,
adding that current programs also focus on issues
related to pesticide drift, contamination of well
water with pesticides, and the effects of pesticides
on children. One of the primary concerns of EPA's
Office of Pesticide Program's (OPP) is increased
protection of the public, especially children, she
continued. Children's health has high priority, she
explained, because children are more vulnerable
to pesticides than adults. Ms. Parker stated that,
to protect children from risk in the home and in the
workplace, OPP seeks to educate parents who are
exposed to pesticides in the workplace.
Ms. Parker also announced that, through a
collaboration among EPA, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services,
various states, farm workers, and farmers,
implementation and enforcement of the agricultural
worker protection program was to be reviewed and
programmatic improvements in the strategic plan
for worker protection was to be developed. A
series of workshops to be held in Sacramento,
California (December 2000); Orlando, Florida (May
2001); and Washington, D.C. (fall 2001) will
provide the basis for the collaborative effort, she
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-11
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
continued. Ms. Parker reported that the key
themes expressed at the Austin, Texas
stakeholder workshop held in June 2000 were
issues related to training, enforcement, complaint
and retaliation, communications, and children's
health. She recommended that the members of
the subcommittee obtain copies of the full report at
the OPP Web site:
< www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/workers/workers. h
tm>.
Ms. Parker reported that EPA, in a collaborative
effort with states and industry, had developed
basic pesticide safety materials, as well as
supported broad-scale training of farm workers in
pesticide safety. For example, she explained, the
National Farm Worker Environmental Education
Program, conducted by the Association of
Farmworker Opportunity Programs (AFOP) in
partnership with the AmeriCorps Community
Service Program, is the largest national pesticide
safety education program for farm workers in the
nation. AFOP has trained more than 250,000 farm
workers in the United States in pesticide safety,
she continued, noting that AFOP, a recipient of an
EPA grant, also had produced five novella-style
radio mini-dramas in Spanish.
Ms. Valente then described a training initiative
directed at children. The initiative is a weekend
program in which students from the University of
Texas at Brownsville teach children about the
harmful effects of pesticides, she said. Through
the program, children from farm worker families
also are flown to Washington, D.C. to learn how
the Federal government operates, she continued.
Ms. Valente, who displayed photographs of
children who have participated in the program,
commented that she hoped the program would
continue to grow and soon would include a
component that offers an internship in
Washington, D.C.
Ms. Valente also described EPA's Pesticides and
National Strategies for Health-Care Providers,
established 1996 to ensure that health-care
providers become better aware of and educated
and trained in the area of health problems related
to exposure to pesticides, particularly those
affecting child laborers in agriculture.
Mr. Bravo asked whether there were ways to train
farm workers before their arrival in the United
States about the dangers associated with
exposure to pesticides. He observed that any
worker who comes to the United States to work
should have the opportunity to be protected and to
make a decent wage. However, it is not unheard
of, he continued, for workers to be paid in alcohol
or marijuana instead of U.S. dollars. Mr. Bravo,
who stated that members of his family had
migrated to the United States to work on farms,
remarked that each of them had to complete the
U.S. Department of Labor's HZA agricultural guest
workers program in Ciudad, Juarez, Mexico.
Completion of the paperwork required from one to
two days to complete, he said. He then suggested
that the waiting period could provide an noting that
this time would be an excellent opportunity to
deliver training in pesticide safety.
Mr. Bravo reported on the work of the University of
California at Berkeley in training farm workers.
The training classes, he explained, now cover how
to read a material safety data sheet, understand a
map of risk analysis and exposure pathways, and
use appropriate personal protective equipment.
He and Mr. Saldamondo identified several
grassroots organizations that are active in training
farm workers, including Lideres Campesinos;
Indigenous People of Mexico; and the Pesticide
Action Network, which has produced several
Spanish-language videos that Mr. Saldamondo
described as "very informative." The videos
examine dangers that pesticides pose to
communities.
Mr. Saldamondo commented that he had been
disappointed that funding for pesticide training is
provided to individual states because many states
do not consider pesticide training to be a top
priority. In response, Ms. Valente stated that,
under the new border plan, pesticide awareness
could become a focus area. In September 2001,
OPP will have launch a web-based strategy aimed
at health-care providers that individuals in all
countries will have access to, she announced.
Mr. Saldamondo stated that he had found "a lot
wrong" with EPA's risk assessment model. He
suggested that the NEJAC should recommend that
the EPA administrator support the international
convention on the rights of migrants, which
currently had been signed by only 12 states.
Mr. Yang commented that, during the entire
discussion of environmental enforcement, no one
had raised the issue of suspension of state
programs for noncompliance. How much
consideration, he asked, had EPA given to the
registration status of "adverse effects" on the
environment. In addition, he asked Ms. Valente
and Ms. Parker to determine why the agency's
legal memorandum on statutory authorities to
implement environmental justice failed to include
7-12
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), although earlier drafts of
the memorandum had done so.
In response to the comments of Mr. Saldamondo
and Mr. Yang, Ms. Parker explained that EPA was
beginning to look at various risk assessment
models. She acknowledged that the current model
does not consider the cumulative effects of several
pathways, but stated that work to further refine the
model was ongoing. Ms. Valente added that each
state has a different definition of what constitutes
an inspection, adding that such issues are being
addressed during that ongoing conference calls
with states.
4.5 Overview of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Tribal Community
Outreach Programs
Mr. Alan Sielen, Deputy Assistant Administrator,
OIA, provided the members of the International
Subcommittee with an overview of the tribal
community outreach programs EPA recently had
implemented to improve integration of tribal views
into EPA decisions. The focus of the
communications, he continued, had been on tribes
living along the U.S.-Mexico border, the border
region between Canada and the Arctic, and other
regions of the globe, such as areas that are
affected by persistent organic pollutants, climate
change, and biodiversity issues.
Mr. Sielen described one outreach effort under
which EPA had initiated a series of telephone
conference calls designed to inform participants
about issues that affect them regionally and to
create a forum through which to solicit comments
in the early stages of the decision-making process.
The calls, he explained, which are open to anyone,
are informal and informational. The last an hour
and feature a subject-matter expert who provides a
briefing before the call is opened to comments and
questions, he continued. Each regional office
notifies individuals who have expressed an interest
in environmental issues when the calls are to be
conducted, he added.
Mr. Sielen reported that EPA had held two calls.
The first call focused on general environmental
issues, while the second call focused on mercury
contamination, he said. The second call, he
added, which focused on a single topic, will serve
as a model for future calls. The next call, her
continued, was scheduled for mid- to late-January
and was to focus on the effect on tribes of issues
trade on the environment, he announced.
Mr. Saldamondo commented that the members of
the International Subcommittee were interested in
the conference calls. He noted that the members
also were concerned about including tribal
members who live in Mexico. For example, in the
case of the Tohono O'odham tribe, a
"transboundary tribe" located in Arizona and
Mexico, it is difficult to secure the participation of
the Mexican members of the tribe. Mr. Sielen
agreed that it would be important to include in the
calls tribal members living in Mexico and
responded that he would explore mechanisms for
increasing their participation. However, he
remarked, their participation in the conference
calls might not be feasible.
Mr. Sielen then asked the members of the
International Subcommittee their views on ongoing
negotiations related to persistent organic pollutants
(POP). Mr. Saldamondo responded that, in his
experience once the State Department had
adopted a position, its representatives come to
meetings with instructions from which they rarely
deviate. With regard to POPs, he continued,
methylbromide will not be placed on the list of
substances to be banned from the United States
until another economically viable alternative has
been selected.
4.6 Update on the Activities of the South
African Work Group
Mr. Mark Kasman, Senior International Information
Officer, OIA, provided the members of the
International Subcommittee with an update about
the activities of the South Africa Work Group
carried out since the meeting of the NEJAC in
Atlanta, Georgia in May. He commented that the
meeting between the NEJAC and its South African
counterpart had created lasting relationships.
Since May, the South Africa Work Group had been
working together to increase media awareness of
environmental justice and publicize the issue within
South Africa, he reported. The publicity, added Mr.
Kasman, had gained more credibility and
legitimacy for environmental justice South Africa.
In addition, the work group had been assisted its
South African counterpart in its attempt to obtain
funding for its programs.
Mr. Kasman also announced that Ms. Elsie
Motubatse, Swarananag, a community group from
the northern provinces of South Africa, was named
the Committee Organizer of the Year, a high honor
in South Africa. President Nelson Mandela
personally presented the award to Ms. Motubatse,
he said.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-13
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
4.7 Overview of Internet Projects
Mr. Kasman and Mr. Lionel Brown, OIA, provided
the members of the International Subcommittee
with an overview of several new Internet projects
on which the OIA currently was working. They
reported that pilot projects include revision of
EnviroSense, a Web site at
that designed to provide links to information,
increase public participation, and provide
information about mechanisms for obtaining
funding for implementation of projects. Executed
in several different languages, the Web site
provides regional information to many countries in
eastern and central Europe, Asia, Africa, and the
Americas, they noted. Currently, OIA is working to
include regional information pertinent to South
Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda, they reported.
The goal of these Internet projects is to increase
public participation and access to information, Mr.
Brown stated.
Mr. Brown reported that, in response to complaints
by various African community groups that available
information about policy issues related to climate is
insufficient, OIA also is developing a proposal for a
climate network Web site. Initially, the project is to
collect information about three countries to be
used populate the database on the Web site, he
continued. Mr. Brown added that training in how to
use the information, as well as funding for Internet
access, will be provided. If the project is
successful in the three pilot countries, the model
will be extended to other countries throughout
Africa, he continued. EPA is to provide the seed
money for the project, he said, adding that OIA
anticipates a decision in January 2001. The funds
to expand the project beyond the three pilot
countries would come from outside the agency,
possibly, he suggested, from the U.S. AID.
Mr. Kasman added that OIA was pursuing an
Education Democracy Initiative in Africa to
encourage the attendance of girls in middle school,
and to promote education as a whole. He
remarked that the initiative might provide an
excellent opportunity to "spin" an environmental
justice focus into the program. Mr. Brown added
that companies such as Microsoft and Hewlett
Packard have been participating as partners in
these initiatives.
Mr. Brown also asked the members of the
International Subcommittee to provide their views
on the initiatives he had described. He then
offered to provide the subcommittee updates about
the initiatives.
5.0 PUBLIC DIALOGUE
This section summarizes the presentations offered
during a public comment period provided by the
subcommittee, as well as the discussion among
the subcommittee that those presentations
prompted.
5.1 Ms. Betsy Boatner, Amazon Alliance,
Washington, D.C.
Ms. Betsy Boatner, Amazon Alliance, requested
that the members of the International
Subcommittee help with the wording of her
recommendation to the EPA administrator about
Plan Columbia, a U.S.-backed plan to destroy drug
plants by deforesting parts of Columbia. Outlined
in her letter were specific questions about the
manner of application, the type of chemicals and
quantities that would be applied, and the aircraft
that would be used to spray them. The
information, once received, Ms. Boatner explained,
would be used by the World Wildlife Fund to
assess the true environmental and social effects
and any plans to monitor those effects. Chapter 2,
Public Comment Period, Section 2.2.x of this
report provides a summary of the comments Ms.
Boatner's made before the Executive Council of
the NEJAC on December 12, 2000.
Ms. Boatner also asked that the members of the
International Subcommittee submit her letter to the
Executive Council of the NEJAC. In her letter, she
asked that the NEJAC assist her organization in
obtaining information from the agency or agencies
that would be responsible for implementing Plan
Columbia, she explained.
5.2 Ms. Madeline Pepin, Our Lady of the Lake
University, San Antonio, Texas
In response to the recommendation of the
Executive Council of the NEJAC that the members
of the International Subcommittee address the
comments made by Ms. Madeline Pepin,
Professor of Philosophy, Our Lady of the Lake
University, before the Executive Council of the
NEJAC. Mr. Saldamondo suggested that Ms.
Pepin's comment would be addressed most
effectively by the Interagency Work Group (IWG)
on Environmental Justice. Ms. Pepin's public
comment, Mr. Saldamondo explained, focused on
what Ms. Pepin termed the failure of the U.S.
Department of Defense and the U.S. Department
of Energy to communicate with residents of the
community near Kelly Air Force Base, Texas,
whose first language is not English. Mr.
Saldamondo explained that the IWG could
7-14
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
address the issue and work directly with those
agencies to encourage the recognition of
languages other than English in agency outreach
and community relations programs. Chapter 2,
Public Comment Period, Section 2.2.x of this
report presents a summary of Ms. Pepin's
comments.
6.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the action items adopted
by the subcommittee. Ms. Yang also quickly
mentioned that the letter about the Committee on
the Elimination or All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (CERD) prepared by him would be
sent by email to the members of the International
Subcommittee for comment. A final draft of the
letter would be submitted to the NEJAC Executive
Council after comments are incorporated, he said.
The action items adopted include:
/ Requested that the International
Subcommittee of the NEJAC participate in
follow-up dialogues with the Department of
State and the USTR about issues related to
trade and the environment.
/ Suggested that the USTR invite and include
representatives of all stakeholders in
discussions of issues related to trade and the
environment to ensure representation of a
broad range of affected stakeholders, the
USTR should adopt the definition of
constituents set forth in the NEJAC Model for
Public Participation.
/ Requested that the International
Subcommittee distribute and review the
Excerpted Material Developed by the U.S.
Interagency Task Force on the United Nations
World Conference Against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related
Intolerance (Draft) and the UN World
Conference Against Racism (WCAR)/The
Environment Position Paper (Draft) and
provide comments on those documents to the
White House Interagency Task Force on
Racism. The comments should be submitted
before the next conference, scheduled to be
held in January 2001 in Geneva, Switzerland.
/ Requested that the International
Subcommittee review and provide comment
on the EPA draft document Addressing EJ
Issues on the U.S.-Mexico Border.
/ Agreed to review and provide comments on
the letter about the Committee on the
Elimination of all Forms of Racial
Discrimination (CERD); once changes have
been incorporated in response to the
comments of the International Subcommittee,
the letter is to be forwarded to the NEJAC
Executive Council for review.
/ Requested that EPA explain why the legal
memorandum on statutory authorities to
implement environmental justice did not
mention the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), although earlier
drafts had done so.
/ Requested that the NEJAC forward to the EPA
Administrator a request for EPA's assistance
in identifying specific details of the proposed
Plan Columbia project to destroy drug plants in
Columbia.
/ Requested that the NEJAC persuade EPA to
continue exploring cleanup options at the
Metales y Derivados site located near Tijuana,
Mexico.
/ Agreed to ask the NEJAC Executive Council to
forward to the IWG the request of Ms.
Madeline Pepin, Our Lady of the Lake
University, because her concerns focus on the
limited awareness and recognition by Federal
agencies of communities in which English is
not the primary language.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-15
-------
-------
CHAPTER EIGHT
SUMMARY OF THE
WASTE AND FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) conducted a one-day meeting on
Wednesday, December 13, 2000, during a four-
day meeting of the NEJAC at the Hyatt Regency
Crystal City Hotel in Arlington, Virginia. Ms.
Vernice Miller-Travis, the Ford Foundation,
continues to serve as chair of the subcommittee.
Mr. Kent Benjamin, Environmental Justice
Coordinator, Outreach/Special Projects Staff
(OSPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER), continues to serve as the
Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the
subcommittee. Exhibit 8-1 presents a list of the
members who attended the meeting and identifies
those members who were unable to attend.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee, is organized in six sections,
including this Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks,
summarizes the opening remarks of the chair and
the Assistant Administrator of OSWER. Section
3.0, Activities of the Subcommittee, summarizes
the discussions about the proposed work group on
land use planning. Section 4.0, Presentations and
Reports presents an overview of each presentation
and report, as well as summaries of relevant
questions posed and comments offered by the
subcommittee. Section 5.0, Summary of Public
Dialogue, summarizes discussions offered during
the public dialogue period provided by the
subcommittee. Section 6.0, Significant Action
Items, summarizes the action items adopted by the
subcommittee.
2.0 REMARKS
Ms. Miller-Travis opened the meeting of the
subcommittee by welcoming the members present
and Mr. Benjamin, as well as Mr. Timothy Fields,
Jr., Assistant Administrator, OSWER, and Mr.
Steve Luftig, Acting Deputy Assistant
Administrator, OSWER. At the conclusion of Ms.
Miller-Travis' welcoming remarks, Mr. Fields
greeted the members of the subcommittee and
thanked Ms. Miller-Travis for her words of praise
and her leadership of the subcommittee. He then
thanked specific members of the staff of OSWER,
Exhibit 8-1
WASTE AND FACILITY SITING
SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 13,2000
Ms. Vernice Miller-Travis, Chair
Ms. Veronica Eady, Vice-Chair
Mr. Kent Benjamin, DFO
Ms. Denise D. Feiber
Mr. Melvin Holden
Mr. Michael K. Holmes
Mr. Neftali Garcia-Martinez
Ms. Donna Gross McDaniel
Ms. Katherine B. McGloon
Mr. Harold Mitchell
Ms. Mary Nelson
Ms. Brenda Lee Richardson
Mr. Mervyn Tano
Mr. Michael Taylor
Ms. Patricia Wood
Members
Who Were Unable To Attend
Mr. David Moore
Mr. Johnny Wilson
including Mr. Benjamin and Ms. Linda Garczynski,
Director, OSPS. Referring to his impending
retirement, Mr. Fields then stated his belief that the
future of the subcommittee will be in "good hands"
with Mr. Michael Shapiro, Principal Deputy
Assistant Administrator, OSWER, and Mr. Luftig.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Fields outlined some
of the initiatives in which the subcommittee had
been involved. Those initiatives, he said, include,
but are not limited to, the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Guide for
Process of Sustainable Brownfields
Redevelopment; waste transfer stations, the
relocation of residents under Superfund,
Brownfields redevelopment, and EPA's Superfund
Redevelopment Initiative. It's been a great
partnership, he said. Mr. Fields then recognized
three departing subcommittee members: Mr.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2001
8-1
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Johnny Wilson, Clark Atlanta University; Mr.
Michael K. Holmes, Northside Education Center;
and Ms. Brenda Lee Richardson, Women Like Us.
Ms. Miller-Travis thanked Mr. Fields for the hard
work he had done in partnership with the
subcommittee and then spoke briefly about the
excellent relationship the subcommittee had had
with EPA OSWER. Ms. Miller-Travis also
commended Mr. Luftig's hard work on issues
related to the Superfund program. Mr. Luftig
commented that it is unfortunate that Mr. Fields is
retiring and stated his hope that the NEJAC and
the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee soon
would have the opportunity to meet with the new
Assistant Administrator of OSWER.
3.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
This section summarizes the discussions about
the activities of the proposed land use planning
work group of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee. Ms. Miller-Travis began the
discussion of local land use and zoning policies as
they pertain to the siting of waste management
facilities. She stated the objective of the
discussion was to brainstorm how to involve state
and local officials in the issue of locating waste
facilities in communities of color or low-income
communities. Ms. Miller-Travis stated that the
purpose of the discussion was to synchronize the
efforts of the various work groups of the Waste
and Facility Siting Subcommittee under a single
theme of land use. One of the goals of the
discussion, she continued, was to prepare a work
plan for helping EPA develop guidance for local
governments on how to actively address and
identify environmental justice issues when
planning for land use and making zoning
decisions. Such guidance, she noted, should
recognize that EPA has only limited authority in the
matter.
Ms. Veronica Eady, Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and member of the subcommittee,
reported that the various work groups of the
subcommittee share several common traits,
including:
• Bolstering public participation in local decision
making about land use.
• Developing an environmental justice paradigm
for land use planning.
• Preparing case studies of how communities
respond to threats posed by local
development.
• Examining public health impacts of land use
decisions related to the siting of waste
management facilities.
• Examining the relationship between public
participation and decision making related to
land use.
According to Ms. Eady, guidance regarding land
use planning would be extremely helpful to
communities because members of communities
often are not aware of the involvement of state and
local authorities in land use planning and zoning
decisions.
After identifying the common traits, Ms. Eady
solicited the recommendations of the members of
the subcommittee. Specifically, Ms. Eady asked
what should be included in the work plan under
development. Mr. Fields clarified Ms. Eady's
request, stating that it had been requested that
EPA develop guidance on land use and zoning, as
well as for EPA to provide information about land
use planning and facility siting. He then stated that
he believed a manual on best management
practices (BMP) should be developed.
Ms. Patricia Wood, Georgia-Pacific Corporation
and member of the subcommittee, responded by
stating her hesitation about the use of the word
"guidance." She said that she was not convinced
that industry is interested in an EPA guidance
document on the subject. Ms. Miller-Travis then
stated her belief that the involvement of EPA is
necessary. She agreed, however, that the word
"guidance" should not be used. Ms. Miller-Travis
offered the "smart growth" policy adopted by
Prince George's County, Maryland as an example
of how smart growth, as a local land use planning
tool, fails to consider environmental justice
concerns. Mr. Melvin Holden, Louisiana
Legislature and member of the subcommittee,
then stated that he believed direction from EPA is
essential to help differentiate between rural versus
urban zoning.
Mr. Michael Taylor, Vita Nuova and member of the
subcommittee, referred to a document, Land Use
in the Remedy Selection Process, signed by
former OSWER Assistant Administrator Elliot
Laws. The document, he said, stipulates that site
assessment is governed by anticipated future use
of the site. However, he stated the articulation of
current and future land use has not been
8-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
adequate. Further, he stated, people need access
to employment opportunities if they are to escape
the unhealthy environment in which they live and
work. He questioned whether "real community
planning" could be done.
Ms. Eady then endorsed Mr. Fields' suggestion
that a BMP manual be developed. She asked the
members of the subcommittee to consider how
effective such a document might be, especially in
communities affected by decisions of land use and
zoning made without input, as if slipped through
the "back door." Echoing Ms. Eady's support for a
BMP manual, Ms. Mary Nelson, Bethel New Life,
Inc. and a member of the subcommittee,
suggested that EPA develop a "how-to" document.
She also stated that organizations representing
local associations should be involved in the
development of the document. "Getting the
document in the right hands" would be the most
effective use of it, she added. Ms. Nelson also
proposed focusing such a document toward
industry and local governments that promotes a
"win-win" scenario. In that regard, Mr. Mosi
Kitwana, International City/County Management
Association (ICMA), added that it is important to
engage local government associations, such as
ICMA, to participate in such a dialogue. He urged
the subcommittee to support the work EPA had
undertaken in Clearwater, Florida to develop a
land use plan that emphasizes environmental
justice. The work in Clearwater is an example of a
"win-win" scenario, he pointed out.
Ms. Miller-Travis commented that she envisioned
the new work group to be modeled after the
subcommittee's Waste Transfer Station Work
Group. Its membership should reflect the diversity
of the stakeholders affected by these issues, she
said.
Topics that the members of the subcommittee
recommended the proposed land use work group
should address include:
• Creating a Superfund team that focuses on
Superfund, brownfields redevelopment, and
land use.
• Examining the effects of gentrification under
"smart growth" programs on communities
concerned with environmental justice issues.
• Conducting a literature review of EPA and
NEJAC materials and reports related to land
use.
• Providing guidance to local communities, state
and local governments, and business and
industry, on the environmental justice
implications of land use decision making
related to the siting of waste management
facilities.
• Examining how local politics affects local land
use decisionmaking.
• Developing a clearer articulation of land use
considerations in site assessments and
determinations of future land use.
The members of the subcommittee agreed that it
is imperative to ensure the broad dissemination to
trade and other constituent-based associations
that could be natural allies in addressing such
issues related to local land use of any resulting
document. Mr. Holmes observed that, in St. Louis,
Missouri, small developers are not interested in
such a land use document. Rather, they are
interested more in economic development, he
added, noting as well that developers "are not sure
what community involvement is." In response, Mr.
Taylor reminded the members of the
subcommittee to keep their expectations realistic.
The document, he suggested, should emphasize
the positive results that can be realized when
developers involve communities in decisions.
Perhaps use of BMP is a good way to encourage
community involvement in the development
process, he noted. Mr. Kitwana stated that most
communities already have a process in place. The
problem, he pointed out, is educating community
members about that process.
Mr. Neftali Garcia-Martinez, Scientific and
Technical Services and a member of the
subcommittee, stated that there are external
issues related to land use, as well. Land use is
related to price, incentives, and the quality of
various environmental media (air, water, and other
media), he continued. In Puerto Rico, he said, a
regional and municipal approach is taken to land
use planning. Ms. Eady added that the document
should acknowledge various types of land use.
Ms. Denise Feiber suggested that the
subcommittee focus on mechanisms for promoting
dialogue among various stakeholders. After
discussing the issue, the members of the
subcommittee then identified the following
mechanisms:
• Prepare a resource inventory of existing
communications guidances.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2001
8-3
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• Identify existing trade association resources
that address local land use issues.
• Invite local governments to join the
subcommittee in the deliberative process.
Ms. Nelson suggested that the subcommittee also
focus on identifying content areas for the
document. After discussing the issue, the
members of the subcommittee agreed that a BMP
manual should:
• Include "win-win" language that highlights
benefits to stakeholders.
• Identify "input points" for local government.
• Provide a list of incentives for developers.
• Provide information and guidance about
sources of additional information about land
use.
• Identify a list of related initiatives and topics,
such as Smart Growth, to which land use can
be linked.
Mr. Taylor recommended that the document also
focus on the lack of open space in urban areas.
He stated that the new Land Use Work Group
should focus on existing unsustainable local land
uses, such as parking lots and new roads. Ms.
Miller-Travis added that the language of the
document should be "community-friendly" and able
to define from an environmental perspective
development that is sustainable.
Ms. Eady concluded the discussion by stating that
the members had agreed that the new work group
would focus on developing a BMP manual; identify
a set of implementation issues associated with
land use; and prepare, as an addendum to the
manual, a resource guide on land use planning
instruments. Ms. Eady stated further that she
planned to develop a work plan for the conference
call of the subcommittee scheduled for January
2001.
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and reports submitted to the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC.
4.1 Status of Environmental Protection
Agency's Brownfields Redevelopment
Initiative
Ms. Linda Garczynski, Director, OSPS, provided
an update to the recommendations outlined in the
NEJAC report Environmental Justice, Urban
Revitaiization, and Brownfields: The Search for
Authentic Signs of Hope published by the NEJAC
in 1996. The report, a summary of the issues and
concerns expressed by communities during a
series of public dialogue meetings, examined and
offered suggestions for addressing environmental
justice concerns within the context of urban
revitaiization and the redevelopment of brownfields
sites. Ms. Garczynski commented that the report,
known as the "Public Dialogues Report" brought to
the attention of EPA, a number of timely issues.
The Agency's Brownfields initiative has evolved to
include themes and issues identified in the public
dialogues report. She then cited specific examples
of actions EPA had taken that address
recommendations made by the NEJAC.
Ms. Garczynski pointed out that one key
recommendation of the report called for EPA to
create opportunities for outreach and bring
together various stakeholders to exchange
information and create opportunities for
communities to be influential in decisions about
redevelopment. She stated that in the four years
since the report was published, EPA has held an
annual conference on brownfields redevelopment,
each of which featured a community caucus
session in which the views and concerns of
community-based groups were shared directly with
EPA senior management. The next national
brownfields conference is scheduled for
September 24 through 26, 2001, she announced.
Other examples of EPA actions, continued Ms.
Garczynski, are the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)-Brownfields Prevention
Initiative, which links Brownfields redevelopment to
current RCRA reforms that emphasize "results
over process," as well as greater community
involvement. Ms. Garczynski announced that EPA
anticipates that in 2001, the Agency will fund up to
6 pilot demonstration projects, up to 20 regional
projects, training, and outreach activities. Exhibit
8-2 presents background information about the
initiative. EPA also has funded the Brownfields
Job Training and Development Demonstration
Pilot projects, she said, which are designed to
prepare trainees for employment in the
environmental field, while facilitating the cleanup of
Brownfields sites and providing trainees with
"sustainable careers." Currently, 36 job training
8-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Exhibit 8-2
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT BROWNFIELDS
PREVENTION INITIATIVE
Under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Brownfields Economic Redevelopment
Initiative, EPA has created a work group to resolve at
brownfields properties challenges related to
provisions of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The goals of the work group
are:
• Identify and advertise good work that already is
being done in the EPA regions and states.
• Focus on several important efforts, including
training, outreach, and the conduct of monthly
information-sharing meetings.
• Coordinate issues related to the RCRA
Brownfields Prevention Initiative and develop
tools, issue papers, and guidance for the
consideration of EPA decision makers.
EPA will announce four pilot projects to "showcase"
flexibility under RCRA and to help model future
innovations in cleanup and redevelopment at sites
regulated under RCRA.
pilot projects are underway, with 8 to 10 more to
be added in the future, she reported. EPA has
funded 363 Brownfields site characterization and
assessment projects and anticipated adding 50
additional cities, she continued. In addition, due to
the success of the 16 showcase communities, 12
new showcase communities recently were
announced, she added.
Ms. Garczynski acknowledged that the NEJAC
concern for the need to define the role and
participation of youth has been only partially
addressed by EPA. Pointing to a lack of funding
for a formal outreach program to youth, she stated
that young adults have been and continue to be
reached through the job training pilots. Other ways
in which youth have been involved in Brownfields
activities are summer internships in EPA's
Brownfields program and other outreach to
colleges, Ms. Garczynski added.
Turning to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Ms. Garczynski stated that in 1999, EPA had
conducted a series of case studies examining the
effects on the Brownfields redevelopment process
of EPA's interim guidance on addressing Title VI
complaints. Noting that the NEJAC's public
dialogues report had called for a similar effort, she
reported that the level of on-going community
involvement and the types of reuses at the sites
studied had mitigated the need for filing Title VI
complaints related to the permitting process.
Discussing the Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act of 2000 (S.2700),
Ms. Garczynski stated the bill currently before the
United States Senate had a strong chance of
passage because of strong bi-partisan support.
Commenting that the bill had been introduced in
the Senate during the preceeding term and had
attracted 67 supporters, she stated that if passed,
it could potentially double funding for brownfields
redevelopment and related state response
programs. However, Ms. Garczynski labeled the
bill a "mixed blessing," stating that passage of the
bill would not only result in increased funding, but
effectively "institutionalizes" the brownfields
program.
Ms. Garczynski agreed to provide the members of
the subcommittee with copies of the proposed
Brownfields legislation.
Ms. Garczynski concluded her presentation by
urging the members of the subcommittee to
provide input about existing projects and identify
new projects for consideration by the Agency.
4.2 Presentation on the Responsible Care®
Initiative
Ms. Katherine McGloon, American Chemistry
Council and member of the subcommittee,
introduced Mr. Louis H. Kistner, Millennium
Chemicals, Inc., who discussed Responsible
Care®, an initiative of chemical industries around
the world. The Responsible Care® initiative is a
commitment to continuous improvement of
environmental health and safety performance, he
explained, adding that the initiative also describes
a "path for gaining or regaining public respect by
demonstrating responsible and safe management
of chemicals." Exhibit 8-3 provides an overview of
the Responsible Care® initiative implemented by
the American Chemistry Council, formerly the
Chemical Manufacturers Association.
Mr. Kistner then focused his presentation on how
Millennium Chemicals, Inc. had adopted the
guiding principles of the Responsible Care®
program. He stated that community awareness is
one of the seven global codes of management
practice adopted by his company. He commented
that Millennium Chemical, Inc. has identified
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2001
8-5
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 8-3
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL RESPONSIBLE CARE® INITIATIVE
In 1988, the American Chemistry Council, formerly the Chemical Manufacturers Association, launched its
Responsible Care® initiative to respond to public concerns about the manufacture and use of chemicals. The
Responsible Care® program is comprised of ten elements, including guiding principles, codes of management
practices, self-evaluations, measures of performance, performance goals, and management systems verification.
The six codes of management practices focus on:
• Community awareness and Emergency Response - promotes emergency response planning and calls for
ongoing dialogue with local communities.
• Pollution Prevention - commits industry to the safe management and reduction of wastes.
• Process Safety - designed to prevent fires, explosions, and accidental releases of chemicals.
• Distribution - reducing risks from the shipment of chemicals, including transportation, storage, handling
transfer, and repackaging of chemicals.
• Employee Health and Safety - protects employees and visitors to sites.
• Product Stewardship - makes safety and environmental protection an integral part of designing, manufacturing,
marketing, distributing, using, and recycling and disposing of products.
several key performance indicators by which it will
measure progress toward achieving success under
that code. Noting that the "value" to a community
of a company or plant essentially is determined by
the community itself, Mr. Kistner stated that the
indicators measure the reduction or elimination of
environmental reportable incidents; the number of
complaints of local residents; the positive survey
responses of employees and community
members; and the reduction or elimination of
negative media coverage. He also added that his
company has adopted a policy that requires its
plants to establish functioning community advisory
panels and appoint a community liaison officer.
4.3 Presentation on Supplemental
Environmental Projects
Ms. Melissa Raack and Ms. Beth Cavalier,
Multimedia Enforcement Division, EPA Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA),
provided an overview of EPA's supplemental
environmental projects (SEP) program. Ms.
Raack stated that the goals of SEPs are to
promote EPA's goals of protecting and enhancing
public health and the environment and providing
environmental protection that might not occur
otherwise. Ms. Cavalier stated that SEPs can be
defined as a multimedia compliance program.
Further, she said, SEPs are environmentally
beneficial projects that are not otherwise required
by law but included in the settlement of an
enforcement action. There are some constraints
on SEPs, she noted. For example, she said, EPA
may not manage or control SEP funds, and a SEP
cannot be designed to satisfy EPA's obligation to
perform an activity. In addition, there must be a
relationship between the violation and the project,
she continued, saying that a SEP can not be
inconsistent with statutes.
The presenters identified the various issues
addressed by SEPs such as public health,
pollution prevention, pollution reduction,
environmental restoration and protection,
environmental assessments and audits, promotion
of environmental compliance, and emergency
planning and preparedness. They also identified
several types of SEPs not allowed, including those
projects focusing on general public education,
activities required by state or local government,
"outright donations," studies without commitment,
projects funded by low-interest Federal loans or
grants, and projects unrelated to environmental
protection.
Ms. Eady asked whether SEPs are designed to
provide the opportunity for public participation. Ms.
Raack replied that EPA wants to include
communities in the selection and implementation
of SEPs. Ms. Raack added that communities will
not be involved in the development or assessment
8-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
of a SEP. The design, and implementation of a
SEP does not follow a "cookie-cutter" approach,
she acknowledged.
Mr. Holden asked whether EPA exercises
oversight to determine whether states are taking
parallel action. There is no process in place for
reviewing actions taken by states, Ms. Raack
replied. She then added that additional information
on SEPs can be found online at
< www. epa.gov/oeca/sep>.
4.4 Update on the Anniston, Alabama,
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Superfund Site
Mr. Brian Holtzclaw, Environmental Justice
Coordinator, Waste Management Division, EPA
Region 4, updated the subcommittee on activities
currently underway at the Anniston, Alabama
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Superfund Site.
Currently, he reported, EPA has established an
Anniston Work Group, a cross-divisional group
examining all environmental issues in Anniston.
The current emphasis is on examining potentially
funding a water and air toxics evaluation for the
city. EPA also plans to perform an independent
evaluation of the west and south landfills and to
evaluate the site to determine whether the site
qualifies for listing on the National Priorities List
(NPL) of sites most in need of cleanup, he
continued. Sampling for lead in soil also was
being conducted, said Mr. Holtzclaw. If necessary,
EPA will perform removal actions for properties
contaminated with lead. EPA also currently is
conducting an investigation of potentially
responsible parties, he added.
In response to questions about the time table for
additional testing and sampling, Mr. Holtzclaw
reported that under the provisions of an
Administrative Order on Consent agreement,
Solutia, Inc. is required to conduct composite
surface soil sampling for lead and PCBs. EPA will
provide heavy oversight of those activities, he
assured the members of the subcommittee.
Ms. Donna Gross McDaniel, Laborers-AGC
Education and Training Fund and a member of the
subcommittee, inquired about the initial health
screening of residents of the area. Mr. Holtzclaw
replied that a community group had conducted
testing in 1995. Mr. Grover Hankins, Tulane
University Law School and legal representative for
the Sweet Valley/Cobbtown Environmental Justice,
added that in 1995, the Alabama Department of
Public Health also had conducted health tests.
4.5 Report on the Environmental Protection
Agency Delegated Authority
Mr. Bill Luthans, Deputy Director, Compliance
Assurance and Enforcement Division, EPA Region
6, presented an overview of EPA's oversight of
permits under the RCRA program, with a particular
emphasis on the goals of such oversight.
Currently, most permits issued under RCRA are in
response to statutory requirements, he said. To
ensure the proper establishment of permits under
RCRA, a program delegated by EPA in which
authorized states manage the program, EPA and
the states enter into various agreements to
implement program requirements, he continued. If
a state is to be authorized to conduct the RCRA
programs, a memorandum of agreement (MOA) is
established that addresses the basic guiding
principles of the program, he said. Further, the
MOA includes the principles on which the
relationship between EPA and the state is based
and outlines the criteria EPA will use in conducting
oversight of the state program, he continued.
Mr. Luthans reported that EPA has identified 1,714
high priority facilities that need corrective action
and which form the baseline of hazardous waste
facilities to meet cleanup goals under the
Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA). In a nod to the subcommittee's concerns
about regulatory enforcement by Texas and
Louisiana, Mr. Luthans stated that those states are
"onpar" with the rest of the country in terms of the
number of corrective measures imposed. Exhibit
8-4 provides background information on GPRA
baseline facilities.
Mr. Samuel Coleman, Director, Compliance
Assurance and Enforcement Division, EPA Region
6, then presented information about EPA's
National Oversight of the RCRA delegated
programs. He stated that implementation of the
program, which features a national oversight
database of data provided by the states, follows a
four-pronged approach:
• Establishing procedures for evaluating a
state's activities under the MOA.
• Conducting enforcement by EPA if a state fails
to provide effective and consistent
enforcement.
• Implementing an appropriate reporting
process.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2001
8-7
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 8-4
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT BASELINE FACILITIES
In the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1980 (RCRA), Congress directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require corrective action for
all releases of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents from solid waste management units at facilities seeking
RCRA permits. Congress also expanded EPA's authority to address cleanup at permitted RCRA hazardous waste
management facilities for releases beyond the facility boundaries. Although the Corrective Action program has been
in effect since 1984, concerns have been raised that companies are not cleaning up their facilities quickly enough
and that properties remain contaminated, posing risks to public health and the environment.
As part of the process to formulate EPA goals to achieve outcomes under the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA), EPA identified 1,714 high priority baseline facilities that need corrective action. EPA developed the
baseline of hazardous waste facilities to meet GPRA goals. The list of facilities will be used to measure the
environmental progress of EPA's Corrective Action program. The baseline was developed from the National RCRA
Corrective Action Priorities Initiative and each facility was given an initial ranking with input from the states. Most
facilities were ranked based on information in their RCRA Facility Assessment report. The ranking tool took into
account: (1) type and design of waste management unit; (2) volume of waste; (3) waste toxicity; and (4) likelihood
of releases to the environment. Other factors included: (1) depth to groundwater; (2) groundwater use; (3) distance
to surface water; (4) nearest drinking water intake; (5) nearest sensitive environment; and (6) nearby pollution.
The current focus of the Corrective Action Program is to achieve by 2005 two environmental indicators at the 1,714
baseline facilities: current human exposures under control at 95 percent of the baseline facilities, and migration of
contaminated groundwater under control at 70 percent of the baseline facilities. The environmental indicators are
interim outcomes of progress toward the ultimate GPRA goal of restoring the baseline facilities. To initiate progress
toward the achievement of the environmental indicators, EPA or authorized states can require corrective action
through permits or orders which should include schedules for corrective action.
• Providing clear communication with
communities about activities under the
delegated program
Ms. Miller-Travis asked how "grandfathered"
facilities, facilities operating before enactment of a
law or regulation, are handled. Mr. Luthans
responded that, recently, such facilities have
received greater attention. Mr. Coleman added
that, once operational units have been modified,
they no longer are considered to be
"grandfathered" and now must adhere to the
provisions of the regulations.
4.6 Update on the Environmental Protection
Agency Relocation Policy Under Superfund
Ms. Suzanne Wells and Ms. Pat Carey, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR),
presented a status report on the EPA policy on
relocation under Superfund. Exhibit 8-5 presents
background information about the Agency's
relocation policy. Ms. Wells announced that on
November 8, 2000, EPA had issued the policy
Release of Appraisals for Real Property
Acquisition at Superfund Sites. Effective
immediately, she explained, EPA would provide
the owner of a residential or business property
affected by an action of the Agency with a copy of
the appraisal used to establish the value of the
property.
Ms. Carey then discussed EPA's Advisory
Services Team, which is conducting a pilot of
EPA's Interim Policy on the Use of Permanent
Relocation as part of Superfund remedial actions.
She explained that the pilot project will focus on
the Escambia Arms Apartments complex in
Escambia, Florida which EPA is acquiring as part
of the permanent relocation of residents affected
by the Escambia Wood Treating Superfund site in
Pensacola, Florida. The purpose of the project,
she said, is to assist residents in understanding
the relocation procedures, their rights under the
Uniform Relocation Act (URA), and the eligibility
requirements related to the voucher system for
Section 8 subsidized housing.
Ms. Wells then discussed case studies that are
underway at five sites: Escambia, Florida; Times
Beach, Missouri; Koppers, Texas; Old
Southington, Connecticut; and Grand Street, New
Jersey. The purpose of the studies, she said, is to
determine what action EPA took at the site, how
residents were treated, and what could have been
done differently or better to improve conditions for
the residents.
8-8
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Exhibit 8-5
EPA POLICY ON RELOCATION UNDER SUPERFUND
In January 1995, the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council requested that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develop a policy to be used in determining
when citizens should be relocated from residential areas near or affected by Superfund sites. EPA initiated the
national relocation pilot project at the Escambia Woodtreating Superfund Site in Pensacola, Florida. EPA reviewed
sites at which cleanups had been conducted in residential areas and solicited the views of stakeholders by sponsoring
a series of forums to provide stakeholders the opportunity to share their views and experiences.
In May 1996, EPA convened the Relocation Roundtable meeting in Pensacola, Florida, with community and
environmental justice representatives. Seven additional forums were held in 1996 and 1997 with representatives of
industry; state and local governments; public health, tribal, and environmental justice organizations; and other
Federal agencies.
In June 1999, EPA issued its Interim Final Policy on the Use of Permanent Relocations as Part of Superfund
Remedial Actions. The policy clarified when to consider permanent relocation as part of a cleanup at National
Priorities List (NPL) sites. The policy also provided examples of situations where permanent relocation could be
considered, although EPA's preference is to clean up and restore property so that people can live safely in their
homes. Public comments to the policy were received and a multistakeholder meeting was held in Washington, D.C.
on March 2 through 3, 2000.
Currently, EPA has issued "mini-guidances" on such implementation issues as the release of appraisals and the
establishment of advisory service teams. There is also closer coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
which manages for EPA, permanent relocation; and training for staff responsible for overseeing relocations.
Ms. Wells concluded the discussion by announcing
that a URA course would be held on January 10
through 12, 2001 in Dallas, Texas.
Ms. Miller-Travis then thanked Ms. Wells and Ms.
Carey for the presentation adding that EPA has
been very responsive.
4.7 Presentations of Federal Environmental
Justice Demonstration Projects
Presentations were provided on three Federal
environmental justice demonstration projects,
conducted in partnership between EPA, the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, and state and local governments and
organizations.
4.7.1 Spartanburg, South Carolina
Mr. Harold Mitchell, Regenesis, Inc., and a
member of the subcommittee, and Ms. Jewell
Harper, Deputy Director, Waste Management
Division, EPA Region 4, presented information
about environmental justice activities taking place
in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Spartanburg is
made up of two communities surrounded by five
waste sites, including two landfills, they reported.
Approximately 2,000 citizens are affected by the
waste sites, and more than 45 people living within
a one-half-mile radius of the waste sites have died,
they continued.
Working with local officials, Regenesis, Inc., has
developed many community programs that are
being implemented during the cleanup process,
they said, adding that major stakeholders currently
were "at the table working together." They then
described the Arkwright/Forest Park Environmental
Justice Project which supports three research
projects on the former IMC fertilizer plant, which
has since been removed, and the Arkwright landfill
superfund site. The project will continue and
expand existing research on health surveys of
residents, former employees and families of the
superfund site, they reported, adding that the
results will be disseminated to the residents
through a monthly newsletter. This project is
unique because it is totally driven by the
community and includes more than 60 individuals
from various organizations, Mr. Mitchell said. With
the help of Regenesis, the community is turning
toxic waste sites into "livable" communities and the
town is being revitalized, he concluded. Mr. Fields
commended Mr. Mitchell for his perseverance in
pushing the projects.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2001
8-9
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
4.7.2 Protecting Children's Health and
Reducing Lead Exposure Through
Collaborative Partnerships, East St.
Louis, Illinois
Ms. Noemi Emeric, Regional Team Manager, EPA
Region 5, presented an overview of the East St.
Louis, Illinois, Environmental Justice
Demonstration Pilot Project, Protecting Children's
Health and Reducing Lead Exposure Through
Collaborative Partnerships. The goals of the
program include promoting greater coordination
and cooperation among Federal agencies and
making government more accessible and
responsive to communities, said Ms. Emeric.
Historically, EPA had used a "top-down approach"
to implement its management program, she
continued. Inherent in this approach were such
limitations as a primarily regulatory program
directed at point sources of pollution, a lack of a
framework to address multiple sources of pollution,
one-size-fits-all solutions, and a lack of direct
relationships between Federal and local
governments, she pointed out.
Ms. Emeric then said that the East St. Louis pilot
project is a model for collaborative partnerships.
The model, she continued, has five levels:
• Level One: Engage the Community - listen
and identify problems.
• Level Two: Understand the Problems-
building collaborative partners helps to support
solutions.
• Level Three: Collaboratively Design the
Project - develop local capacity.
• Level Four: Create a Sustainable
Infrastructure and Model.
• Level Five: Create Livable Communities.
Currently, the program is focused on the third
level, she added.
Mr. Michael Holmes, St. Louis Community College
and member of the subcommittee, then explained
why the pilot project is needed, stating that 65
percent of the population of East St. Louis is low-
income, compared to the state average of 27
percent. Approximately 99 percent of the
population is minority, he continued, while minority
population of the state averages 25 percent. The
unemployment rate, he added, is 24 percent, and
only 51 percent of the population are high school
graduates. By helping the community, the region
is helped, Mr. Holmes concluded.
4.7.3 Bridges to Friendship, Nurturing
Environmental Justice in Southeast
and Southwest Washington, D.C.
Mr. David Ouderkirk, EPA OSWER, and Ms.
Brenda Lee Richardson, Women Like Us and
member of the subcommittee, represented the
Bridges to Friendship partnership. She presented
information about the Nurturing Environmental
Justice in Southeast and Southwest Washington,
D.C. demonstration project sponsored by the
Interagency Working Group on Environmental
Justice (IWG). Bridges to Friendship is a
partnership of community stakeholders who have
agreed to work together to achieve inclusive
community revitalization, said Ms. Richardson.
The organization, she explained, was founded on
the premise that nongovernment organizations,
private businesses, and the District of Columbia
and Federal government agencies can use
existing resources and expertise to improve
services. The primary "product" produced by
Bridges to Friendship is the building of
"organizational" bridges and fostering their use,
she continued, pointing to efforts aimed at
identifying and organizing the sharing of resources
and serving as a broker, catalyst or implementer,
as examples of how the partnership works.
Ms. Richardson identified several commitments
the partnership has made to the Interagency
Environmental Justice Work Group, including (1)
Bridges to Friendship Strategic Goals 2000, (2)
involving Community Visioning, (3) Gentrification
as Rising Tide Rather than Wave of Displacement,
(4) developing revitalization tools, (5) fostering
envirojobs and a small business focus, (6)
convening an environmental justice project
dialogue meeting, and (7) serve as a link to
improving government efforts.
Ms. Richardson then focused on one project, the
Youth Outreach-Job Training-Employment
Pipeline. The project, she said, is linked to the
NIEHS Minority Youth Worker Training, with local
youth outreach and life skills training provided to
ensure a complete training package. To date, she
continued, more than 120 participants had been
trained, and 72 percent of those participants had
been hired and currently were out on the job.
Salaries for the participants average $11 to 14 per
hour, she added. The next step is to have
"envirojobs" training program with curriculum
linked to the private sector. The Navy will
advertise job openings via D.C. Department of
Employment Services.
8-10
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
5.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC DIALOGUE
When Ms. Miller-Travis opened the floor to public
dialogue, the following comments were offered.
5.1 Community of Vieques, Puerto Rico
Mr. Garcia-Martinez introduced Dr. Antonio Rivera-
Castano, Committee for the Rescue and
Development of Vieques. Dr. Rivera-Castano
informed the subcommittee of the status of the
case of occupation by the U.S. Navy of the island
of Vieques, Puerto Rico. The Navy, he said, has
occupied Vieques for approximately 60 years. In
the 1970s, the island was used, with the
permission of EPA, for burning and exploding
ordnance, he continued. In 1980, the Navy
requested permission from EPA to conduct open
burning of unexploded ordnance, said Dr. Rivera-
Castano.
Dr. Rivera-Castano stated that such activities had
led to serious adverse effects on the health of
residents of the island, as well as to the natural
environment. On the island of Vieques, rates of
cancer, liver disease, diabetes, and heart disease
are higher than those on the main island of Puerto
Rico, he pointed out. Further, he said, samples of
seafood had been found to contain high
concentrations of heavy metals. Seafood is a
staple in the diet of the residents of Vieques, Dr.
Rivera-Castano reminded the members of the
subcommittee. Further, recent studies of divers
indicates that approximately 60 percent have some
form of heart disease, he said.
Mr. Garcia-Martinez added that high
concentrations of metals had been found in the
hair of residents, as well as in fish and land
animals. Such concentrations are not naturally
occurring, he continued, noting that the main
pathway for exposure to the metals is through
exposure to particulate matter.
On December 31, 2001, 8,000 acres of land on the
island of Vieques will be turned over to Puerto Rico
without having been cleaned up, Dr. Rivera-
Castano claimed that residents know what
activities have occurred that have resulted in the
contamination of the area with hazardous
materials. He then invited the members of the
subcommittee to visit Vieques to see first hand
"what is going on." Dr. Rivera-Castano added that,
in 1999 in Fajaida, Puerto Rico, the residents of
Vieques had met with officials of EPA to discuss
issues. However, no issues had been resolved
during that meeting, he said.
Ms. Miller-Travis asked Dr. Rivera-Castano
whether there were specific issues he would like
the NEJAC to pursue. Dr. Rivera-Castano replied
that he would like the subcommittee to investigate
the island to help the residents in their efforts to
have the island listed on the NPL. Ms. Miller-
Travis asked Mr. Fields about the protocol for
cleanup when the potentially responsible party
(PRP) is a Federal agency, such as the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD). Comparing
Vieques residents' concerns about unexploded
ordnance to citizen concerns about the cleanup of
the Nomans Island bombing range, Ms. Miller-
Travis asked how the White House could issue a
directive that uses cleanup standards that are not
acceptable to local communities. Mr. Fields
acknowledge that many Federal agencies would
need to get involved. He expressed his hope that
the NEJAC's Federal Facility Work Group would
be developed into a Federal facility subcommittee
of the NEJAC.
Responding to questions about whether the
Vieques case might be examined as a case study,
Mr. George Pavlou, Director, Division of
Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, EPA
Region 2, responded that it would not. He then
stated that only water quality standards have been
violated. The prescore ranking of the island under
EPA's Hazard Ranking System is lower than the
28.5 cutoff standard for placement of a site on the
NPL, he said. Therefore, he continued, the island
of Vieques is not eligible for listing on the NPL.
Further, said Mr. Pavlou, the Navy, rather than
EPA, determines when ammunition has become
waste.
Mr. Fields agreed to pursue the issue with DoD,
communicate to the affected community what
actions EPA Region 2 had taken, and consider the
possibility of developing a pilot case study.
Citing what he termed the unwanted transportation
and storage of napalm into the Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, Mr. Holden asked Mr. Fields whether
any current Federal regulation can be invoked to
direct the Navy to consider in such incidences,
factors and issues related to environmental justice.
Mr. Fields responded that the Navy is required only
to ensure that waste is transferred to regulated
facilities that accept hazardous waste.
Ms. Nelson concluded the discussion with the
suggestion that Puerto Rican communities on the
United States mainland be mobilized to lobby for
congressional support to terminate the Navy's use
of the island as a bombing range. Ms. Miller-
Travis added that EPA Region 2 encourage and
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2001
8-11
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
participate in a briefing to the Hispanic
Congressional Caucus and other Puerto Rican
members of Congress.
5.2 Concerns of the Citizens of Freetown,
Massachusetts
Reverend Curtis Dias, Pastor, Calvary Pentacostal
Church, presented to the subcommittee
information about what he termed the only minority
community in Freetown, Massachusetts. The
residents, descendants of Africans from Cape
Verde who settled in the Bradley Road area a
century ago, are fighting a series of environmental
injustices, he said. In recent years, he continued,
zoning action taken by the local government has
caused the majority of the industry in town, and the
heavy commercial traffic it produces, to be
clustered around Bradley Road. In 1995, the
Bradley Road community had been zoned for
industrial use, said Reverend Dias, resulting in a
number of proposals to site heavy industrial
facilities in the once "quiet" community. He added
that 180 acres of underdeveloped land may
potentially be developed into a waste transfer
station.
Reverend Dias reported that EPA Region 1 is
investigating whether the town deliberately zoned
the neighborhood for industrial purposes simply
because the residents are mostly low-income and
black. Currently, there are 19 businesses along
the two-mile Bradley Road, including trucking
companies, the Massachusetts Department of
Public Works, and a tire dump that had caught fire,
he continued.
Ms. Miller-Travis asked Ms. Eady to describe what
action the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has
taken to address the situation in Freetown. Ms.
Eady replied that the situation in Freetown was
being evaluated under the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act. Mr. Ira Leighton, Deputy
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1, joined the
discussion, stating that the case represents a
challenge and could prove to be a test case in the
investigation of environmental justice concerns.
He stated that given the nature of the violations,
EPA is taking steps consistent with its
responsibilities. Referring to an EPA investigation
of two Freetown officials for the filling and
delineation of wetlands, Mr. Leighton stated that
EPA had attempted to involve the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers in the permitting process. EPA
Region 1, he said, has now assigned a wetland
expert to the case and had slowed other
enforcement actions to "prevent competition." The
next step the Agency would take, he added, is the
conduct of a complete investigation of the situation
in Freetown.
Ms. Miller-Travis recommended that the
Massachusetts Department of the Environment,
EPA Region 1, and OSWER discuss how they can
collaborate to address the issue and then make
recommendations within three months to the
subcommittee.
6.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the significant action
items adopted by the subcommittee. The
members of the subcommittee adopted the
following action items:
/ Develop an environmental justice paradigm for
land use planning for local decision making
related to the siting of waste management
facilities. To achieve that end, the
subcommittee will undertake the following
actions: 1) develop a "best management
practices" manual on the environmental justice
implications of local land use decisions related
to the siting of such facilities; 2) develop a set
of implementation issues associated with land
use and environmental justice; and 3) develop
a resource guide on land use planning
instruments. To begin to implement the land
use planning framework, the subcommittee will
develop a work plan for discussion during its
January 2001 conference call.
/ Recommend that representatives of the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection; residents of Freetown,
Massachusetts; and representatives of EPA
OSWER, EPA Region 1, and other appropriate
Federal and state agencies, meet to discuss
how to collaborate to resolve environmental
justice issues faced by the Bradley Road
community of East Freetown, Massachusetts.
/ Recommend that the NEJAC Federal Facilities
Work Group use the issue of continued
bombing of Vieques, Puerto Rico, as a case
study. It is recommended that other Federal
agencies, especially DoD, be asked to join
EPA in its further investigation of the concerns
of the residents of Vieques. It is
recommended further that EPA Region 2
communicate to the community the actions the
region had taken to ensure that information
about wastes and cleanup activities are
communicated more clearly to the affected
community. There should be ongoing follow-
up with EPA Region 2, OSWER, and the
subcommittee about activities related to
Vieques and ongoing Navy bombing activities.
8-12
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2001
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 11 and 12, 2000
Arlington, Virginia
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Charles Lee
Office of Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Designated Federal Official
Peggy Shepard
Acting Chair
-------
CHAPTER TWO
SUMMARY OF THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
1.0 INTRODUCTION
During its meeting in Arlington, Virginia, the
Executive Council of the National Environmental
Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) held two public
comment periods, the first on Monday evening,
December 11, 2000 and the second on the
evening of Tuesday, December 12, 2000. During
the two sessions, 36 individuals offered comments.
This chapter presents summaries of the testimony
the Executive Council of the NEJAC received
during the public comment periods and the
comments and questions that the testimony
prompted on the part of the members of the
Executive Council. Section 2.0, Focused Public
Comment Period Held on December 11, 2000,
summarizes the testimony offered on that date
related to progress the Federal government has
made in integrating environmental justice into its
policies, programs, and activities, in a manner
consistent with the provisions of existing laws and
Executive Order 12898. It also summarizes the
dialogues between presenters and members of the
Council that followed those presentations. Section
3.0, General Public Comment Period Held on
December 12, 2000, summarizes the
presentations on general environmental justice
issues offered on that date, along with the dialogue
those presentations prompted.
Opening the meeting of the NEJAC, Mr. Haywood
Turrentine, Birmingham Urban Impact Board and
chair of the Executive Council of the NEJAC,
thanked members of the council and the public
who had traveled considerable distances to attend
the meeting. Mr. Turrentine pointed out that
individuals who wished to present comments are
required to register in advance. He requested that,
to ensure that every person on the schedule would
have an opportunity to speak, commenters adhere
to the guidelines outlined in the meeting materials.
Each organization would be allowed only five
minutes to make a presentation, he explained,
regardless of the number of representatives of the
organization in attendance. Mr. Turrentine added
that members of the Executive Council would have
the opportunity to ask questions and share
observations in response to the presentations.
2.0 FOCUSED PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
HELD ON DECEMBER 11, 2000
This section summarizes the comments presented
to the Executive Council during the focused public
comment period held on December 11, 2000,
along with the questions and observations those
comments prompted among members of the
Executive Council.
Comments are summarized below in the order in
which they were offered.
2.1 Jerome Baiter, Public Interest Law Center
of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Pointing out that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) had made no progress in preparing
its interim guidance for compliance with the
requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, Mr. Jerome Baiter, Public Interest Law
Center of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
explained that the new proposal promulgated in
June 2000 in the Federal Register is more
confusing than the original. The guidance is
flawed, he charged, and it penalizes communities
that suffer from environmental injustices.
While Mr. Baiter requested that EPA develop a
new guidance with the intent of enforcing civil
rights, he added that EPA cannot be depended on
to do so properly. Mr. Baiter stated that the
NEJAC should develop its own proposal, one that
examines the public health of communities; deals
with elevated cancer rates, birth defects, and
deaths in contaminated communities; and will be
understood easily by members of communities.
He added that EPA does not investigate
complaints about permits. Why should affected
communities submit complaints to EPA, he asked,
when the agency takes no action on them. Mr.
Baiter also stated that the handling of
environmental justice issues by state agencies
should be investigated.
Mr. Luke Cole, Center on Race, Poverty, and the
Environment and chair of the Enforcement
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, informed Mr. Baiter
that the Enforcement Subcommittee had
investigated the proposal and was to discuss it
further throughout the week's sessions.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
2-1
-------
Public Comment Period
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
2.2 Connie Tucker, Southern Organizing
Committee for Economic and Social
Justice, Atlanta, Georgia
Stating that she would like to compliment EPA
Region 4 for working to curb environmental racism,
Ms. Connie Tucker, Southern Organizing
Committee for Economic and Social Justice,
Atlanta, Georgia, explained that senior managers
within the region's Waste Management Division
and the Environmental Accountability Division are
confronting the problems in environmental justice
communities and engaging communities in the
development and implementation of collaborative
solutions. EPA Regions 4 and 5 are cleaning up
more sites than any other region, she continued,
explaining that eight years ago, Region 4 was
reputed to be one of the "most racist" regions in
the country. Major progress has been made in the
region, she stated. Ms. Tucker pointed out that the
enforcement roundtable meeting held in Region 4
resulted in the criminal prosecution of owners and
managers of LCP Company in Brunswick,
Georgia. She then applauded Mr. Timothy Fields,
Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER), for his
leadership in providing redress in such cases as
the permanent relocation of a minority community
in Pensacola, Florida. She also lauded Mr. Barry
Hill, Director, Office of Environmental Justice
(OEJ), EPA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA), and Mr. Charles
Lee, OEJ and Designated Federal Official (DFO)
of the council, for fostering the development of the
Interagency Working Group on Environmental
Justice (IWG). While those achievements
represent significant progress, she continued,
much more must be done to ensure that agencies
follow the letter of Executive Order 12898 and
establish environmental justice in all programs.
Ms. Tucker explained that the continued burning of
nerve gas by the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD) in Anniston, Alabama is an environmental
injustice. The community already has been
exposed to intolerable levels of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB), lead, and toxic metals, she said.
In addition, she continued, it is an injustice to
expose the citizens of communities in the vicinity of
the Defense Depot, Memphis, Tennessee, to
warfare chemicals released during cleanup efforts
without informing those communities about
accidental emissions during the cleanup process.
Health intervention and treatment should be
provided for citizens whose health has been
impaired, she urged.
Ms. Tucker then pointed out that the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) should
reassess how Federal funds are allocated for road
construction in small and rural communities.
Funds are allocated disparately, especially in
communities in the South, she continued. Roads
are paved in white communities, she said, but
often go unpaved in communities of color.
Equating the disparate allocation of transportation
funding to apartheid, Ms. Tucker stated that if the
Federal government, as the provider of such
funds, does not address the inequitable use of the
funds by local municipalities, then it too is to blame
for environmental injustices.
Ms. Tucker stated further that public participation
efforts and impact studies have failed to address
adequately noncompliance with clean air
standards by the municipalities that comprise the
Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area. She urged
DOT to not be conciliatory to make state and local
governments happy, but rather to be proactive and
to promote the education of local officials. She
called for DOT to promote the building of a major
train transit system, asserting however that more
buses will not increase the use of public
transportation, but rather an efficient regional "fast
train" system will. In addition, the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) and DOT should invest in clean
energy and renewable energy research and
demonstration projects, she said.
2.3 Kenneth Bradshaw and Doris Bradshaw,
Defense Depot Memphis, Tennessee
Concerned Citizens Committee, Memphis,
Tennessee
Pointing out that he had attended several meetings
of the NEJAC to plead for help, Mr. Kenneth
Bradshaw, Defense Depot Memphis, Tennessee
Concerned Citizens Committee, Memphis,
Tennessee, then congratulated Mr. Fields for his
efforts to hold Federal facilities accountable for
environmental injustices. The Federal government
has made progress in alleviating environmental
injustices that have occurred in Memphis and
across the United States, Mr. Bradshaw reported,
adding that such success was due to many
environmental justice organizations working
around the country. However, he continued, there
remain many concerns about DoD's facilities and
activities. DoD's control of land use should be
monitored, he suggested, and DoD should remove
contamination from communities affected by its
activities.
Ms. Doris Bradshaw, Defense Depot Memphis,
Tennessee Concerned Citizens Committee,
Memphis Tennessee, reiterated that DoD should
2-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Period
work with communities that have been affected by
contamination resulting from military activities.
Pointing to recent stakeholder meetings held in
San Diego, California, and St. Louis, Missouri at
which many significant minority stakeholder groups
such as Hispanics and Native American tribes
were not present, she said that all affected
stakeholders should be represented at meetings,
so that DoD and representatives of the
communities can collaborate effectively to develop
solutions to the problems that plague such
communities.
2.4 Manual Mirabal, National Puerto Rican
Coalition, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Manual Mirabal, National Puerto Rican
Coalition (NPRC), Washington, D.C., provided a
written statement about the Navy's bombing
exercises in Vieques, Puerto Rico. Since the
1940s, the Navy has used Vieques as a bombing
range for military training exercises, he wrote. The
Navy has ignored environmental laws, destroyed
the natural environment, and introduced health
hazards to the residents of the island, the
statement charged.
The bombing has damaged both land and ocean
ecosystems, the statement continued. The
topography of eastern Vieques is disfigured, and
extensive vegetation has been lost, contributing to
a decrease in rainfall in that portion of the island,
he continued. The ocean ecosystem is suffering,
and bombs and pieces of artillery can be found in
coral reefs, it continued. Research indicates that
environmental restoration is urgently needed in
Vieques, Mr. Mirabal said in his statement.
The statement also expressed NRPC's concern
about the effect of the military exercises on the
resident population. The people of Vieques suffer
from a multitude of illnesses and lack adequate
health care facilities to provide treatment, the
statement read. The cancer rate on Vieques is 27
percent higher than on the mainland, and infant
mortality rates are very high, as well, the statement
continued.
There is also concern about the level of toxins
released from bombing exercises that reach the
food chain, said the statement. The current
agreement between the Governor of Puerto Rico
and DoD allows the Navy to use inert bombs and
keeps open the possibility of using live ammunition
in the future, noted Mr. Mirabal's statement, adding
that both live and inert bombs seriously disrupt the
natural environment and ecosystem.
The statement then set forth NRPC's strong belief
that the Navy bombing in Vieques must stop
immediately and that EPA should fund research on
the environmental damage to the island. EPA
should deny renewal of the Navy's National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit, the statement suggested, because of past
violations, noise pollution, and the current
spreading of toxins by inert bombs. EPA also
should monitor the cleanup of Vieques carefully,
and every effort should be made to restore the
land completely so that, in the future, the
community of Vieques can have use of and access
to the current impact area, concluded the
statement.
2.5 Albert Donnay, Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity Referral and Resources,
Baltimore, Maryland
Mr. Albert Donnay, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
(MCS) Referral and Resources, submitted a
written statement about the issue of MCS. Mr.
Donnay first congratulated the NEJAC for the
resolution it had adopted on May 26, 2000 and
forwarded to the EPA Administrator on July 7,
2000, in which the NEJAC urges that EPA work
with other agencies to establish disease registries
and make MCS a reportable condition. However,
Mr. Donnay's statement continued, given that
several published epidemiological studies put the
rate of MCS cases already diagnosed by health
professionals at 2 to 6 percent of the general adult
population, establishing a disease registry for MCS
or making it a reportable condition would involve
tracking millions of cases. Doing so clearly is
beyond the scope of any Federal agency,
especially when there is no medical identification
code for MCS in the United States, the statement
read. Establishment of new codes is the
responsibility of the National Center for Health
Statistics (NCHS), which last year rejected a
request to adopt one for MCS. NEJAC should
consider passing another resolution that
specifically recommends that EPA petition NCHS
to adopt a code for MCS, suggested the
statement.
NEJAC's resolution also calls for funding and
programs to support increased understanding,
education, and research that will aid in identifying
causes, diagnosis, treatment, and the prevention
of MCS, read the statement. More than 30 million
dollars already is being spent every year by nine
Federal agencies on research related to MCS.
NEJAC should seek an accounting of that
research, said the statement, since the draft report
of the Federal Interagency Working Group on MCS
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
2-3
-------
Public Comment Period
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
specifies only the amount of research on MCS that
was funded by the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in 1994.
Mr. Donnay, in his statement, stated that EPA's
draft report on MCS neglected to address
comments received from other agencies before
releasing the final draft. It also is inappropriate
that EPA quote an August 1998 draft that does not
include an approved policy statement from the
agency, the statement continued. The NEJAC, the
statement suggested, should request copies of
comments on the April 1997 draft so that it can
identify the true extent of research on MCS and
determine the opinion of EPA staff about the issue.
2.6 Mary Lamielle, National Center for
Environmental Health Strategies,
Voorhees, New Jersey
Ms. Mary Lamielle, National Center for
Environmental Health Strategies, Voorhees, New
Jersey, stated that, for 15 years, her organization
had been working to help people who have been
injured or disabled by environmental exposures to
achieve a reasonable quality of life. She pointed
out that a disproportionate number of people of
color, the poor, and tribes are subjected to
significant levels of environmental pollutants that
may cause MCS and trigger debilitating symptoms.
Ms. Lamielle commended the NEJAC for its
initiative in presenting the MCS resolution to EPA.
However, she continued, EPA had rejected the
entire resolution unnecessarily because of the
erroneous information about MCS included in the
draft interagency report.
Federal agencies have failed to identify and
address the needs of minorities, the poor, and
those who suffer from chronic and debilitating
effects of chemical exposures, said Ms. Lamielle.
She outlined several recommendations the NEJAC
should support, including the establishment of a
disease registry for MCS and support of efforts to
make MCS a reportable condition. In addition, she
explained, more studies of the incidence and
prevalence of MCS in minority and low-income
populations should be conducted. Government
agencies and the public must be educated about
MCS, she explained, and research opportunities
must be supported. She concluded by indicating
the need for housing accommodations for those
who suffer from MCS and for the construction of
least-toxic, segregated housing for those in
minority and low-income communities who have
MCS.
Mr. Turrentine suggested that Ms. Lamielle speak
with Ms. Shirley Pate, EPA Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and DFO of
the Enforcement Subcommittee, about EPA's
comments on the NEJAC's recommendations
related to MCS.
2.7 Ethel Lane, Neighborhood for Justice,
Phoenix, Arizona
Stating that there is no environmental justice in
Phoenix, Arizona, Ms. Ethel Lane, Neighborhood
for Justice, Phoenix, Arizona, explained that, in her
community, members of her community have
written several letters to various Federal, state,
and local government agencies, she continued, but
no one has acted to address community concerns
about a hazardous waste site that is located next
to the Rio Solado River. The waste site
jeopardizes the health of the community, she said.
Federal agencies are not working together to
achieve environmental justice, she pointed out,
and citizens should be informed about hazards that
exist where they live.
2.8 Lawrence Plumlee, National Coalition for
the Chemically Injured, Bethesda, Maryland
Dr. Lawrence Plumlee, National Coalition for the
Chemically Injured, Bethesda, Maryland and
former medical science advisor to EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD), expressed his
pleasure that the NEJAC had passed the
resolution on MCS. The coalition, he said, as well
as U.S. Representative Udall of New Mexico, had
written to the EPA Administrator to point out its
agreement with the NEJAC's recommendations.
Dr. Plumlee showed the council a graphic that he
stated demonstrated the correlation between
chemical sensitivity and environmental racism. He
urged the council to inform its constituent groups
about how organizations such as the Chemical
Injury Information Network, which can be reached
by calling (406) 547-2255, can help people who
have chemical sensitivities.
Dr. Plumlee pointed out that a link between MCS
and environmental justice was established at the
1994 interagency Symposium on Health Research
and Needs to Ensure Environmental Justice. The
recommendations adopted during that symposium
must be implemented, he stated. Veterans
groups, farm workers, and those exposed to
hazardous waste sites include a high percentage
of minority and low-income individuals, he
observed, and it is crucial to establish the
prevalence of MCS in those populations and to
provide treatment for members of those
populations who are affected by MCS.
2-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Period
The National Coalition for the Chemically Injured
has reviewed EPA's official response to the
NEJAC resolution and found it outdated and
incomplete, Dr. Plumlee stated. Since the work
group's draft report, he continued, a consensus
definition of MCS has been agreed upon by 89
clinicians and researchers who have extensive
experience in this area. EPA should not rely on
the Interagency Workgroup on MCS to formulate
its MCS policy, he stated. Dr. Plumlee pointed out
that the work group had been unable to reach
consensus in more than five years of discussion.
He concluded by requesting that the NEJAC ask
EPA to develop its own MCS policy that is based
on information that is not tainted by biases
interjected by the military or the chemical industry.
2.9 Richard Burton, St. James Citizens for
Jobs and the Environment, Convent,
Louisiana
Mr. Richard Burton, St. James Citizens for Jobs
and the Environment, Convent, Louisiana, stated
that there is no environmental justice in Louisiana.
In Louisiana, he explained, a majority of plants and
industries are located in low-income and minority
communities. EPA's mission is to protect people,
he continued, and if the agency continues to do
nothing, those environmental injustices will
continue.
Referring to his communities successful effort to
prevent Shintech from locating a facility in the
Convent and Mossville, Louisiana communities,
Mr. Burton reported that the Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has issued
permits to two other firms to build facilities in his
community. It is time, he asserted, that EPA exert
pressure on EPA Region 6 to withdraw the
permitting authority it has delegated to the state
which allows the Louisiana DEQ to issue permits
without the prior knowledge of Region 6. He then
requested that the NEJAC continue to pressure
EPA Region 6; otherwise, he said, nothing will be
done in Louisiana to end environmental racism.
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos, Community of Catano
Against Pollution and member of the Puerto Rico
Subcommittee, stated that the situation in
Louisiana illustrates the need for EPA to hold
states accountable when communities are being
abused, particularly when states themselves are
abusing communities by ignoring health issues,
failing to include communities throughout the
decision making process, and ignoring the right of
people to live in a safe environment. Ms. Rose
Augustine, Tusconians for a Clean Environment
and member of the Health and Research
Subcommittee, echoed Ms. Ramos' sentiments,
pointing out that such issues are not confined to
Louisiana. The Federal government and EPA are
responsible for and must maintain oversight of the
contamination and waste management industry,
she continued, saying that EPA must examine
rescinding the authorities it has delegated to the
states.
Mr. Cole observed that Mr. Burton had appeared
before the NEJAC on several earlier occasions.
Mr. Cole pointed out that, two years earlier,
representatives of Louisiana DEQ had met with
some members of the NEJAC; he asked what
follow-up action had been taken after that meeting.
Mr. Turrentine responded that he would speak with
Mr. Lee about the issue.
Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental
Network and chair of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee, noted that he had visited Mossville,
Louisiana, and had witnessed the human rights
violations that are taking place there. The situation
there is an emergency, he said, because of the
high concentration of industry in the area. The
state is failing to comply with environmental laws,
he stated, and the state agency's authority to issue
and manage permits should be rescinded.
2.10 John Runkle, Conservation Council of
North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina
Pointing out that he had represented several
communities in North Carolina that oppose multi-
state regional solid waste landfills, Mr. John
Runkle, Conservation Council of North Carolina,
Raleigh, North Carolina stated that Waste
Management Inc. recently proposed to establish a
400-acre landfill in Halifax County, North Carolina.
The landfill's service area was to be at least five
states, he said. The preliminary franchise
agreement did not establish a daily or annual cap
on the volume of waste, he explained, and the
landfill was to be located in a rural and poor part of
the county that has a large minority population.
The community organized successfully, and the
Halifax County commissioners announced that
they no longer were considering entering into the
franchise agreement, he said.
As another example, continued Mr. Runkle, the
Environmental Poverty Law Program brought to
EPA a complaint under Title VI related to the
issuance of a solid waste permit proposed by
Chambers Development of North Carolina for a
multi-state landfill in Anson County, North Carolina.
The Anson County landfill would have the greatest
health and economic effects on residents near the
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
2-5
-------
Public Comment Period
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
landfill, all of whom are African-American, he
pointed out. Mr. Runkle explained that six years
elapsed after Chambers Development first applied
for a permit for the landfill before the North
Carolina Division of Waste Management did any
research into issues related to racial disparity. The
state's position is that it cannot consider issues
related to Title VI in permitting landfills, he said.
He explained that the permitting rules contain only
a general provision that the landfill must comply
with other state and Federal laws.
It seems that siting enormous landfills in poor and
minority communities is the state's unwritten
policy, Mr. Runkle stated, pointing out that 8 of the
last 10 applications for new landfills filed are for
private, regional landfills and 6 of the 8 appear to
have a racially disparate impact. It is in such
cases that the EPA interim guidance fails,
continued Mr. Runkle. In North Carolina, in only a
few isolated cases in which a landfill is proposed
within one mile of an existing landfill, is the local
government required to consider the effects of
siting the landfill in the community, he pointed out.
There is no requirement that the state permitting
agency determine whether there are any disparate
adverse effects on minority or poor populations, he
said.
Ms. Vernice Miller-Travis, Ford Foundation and
chair of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee, noted that EPA does have
statutory authority under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which
includes provisions governing landfills under parts
C and D. EPA cannot tell a local government
where to place a landfill, she stated, but the
agency can deny permits.
2.11 LeVonne Stone, Fort Ord Environmental
Justice Network, Marina, California
Pointing out that she had attended two previous
meetings of the NEJAC, Ms. LeVonne Stone, Fort
Ord Environmental Justice Network, Marina,
California, stated that her community is very
stressed. Regulatory agencies have not
responded adequately to environmental justice
issues, she said. Honest and timely responses to
issues related to Superfund and National Priority
List (NPL) sites must be provided, she
emphasized.
In her own community, she continued, a 120-acre
landfill is located in the vicinity of five residential
areas, and the city of Seaside also has several
contaminated military ranges. The ranges have
not been remediated, she explained, but fences
were built around them to be left in place until
agencies resolve disputes about cleanup.
Members of the community have not been
included in any of the decision-making processes,
she said. In sharp contrast to Seaside is Del Ray
Oaks which was cleaned up in six months and on
which was built a golf course and a hotel, she
stated. There are a number of public schools in
the vicinity, Ms. Stone noted, and a number of
explosives have been found outside the impact
range. She then expressed her displeasure that
her community has not been included in decision-
making processes.
Ms. Stone stated that she had spoken previously
with Mr. Fields about serving on the NEJAC
Federal Facilities Work Group. Mr. Fields had
responded that she would be named to the
working group, she continued, but no such
appointment has been made. Ms. Miller-Travis
informed Ms. Stone that a Federal Facilities Work
Group had been formed and that Ms. Stone could
take up issues with that body even if she is not a
member of the group.
2.12 Kathryn Mutz, Natural Resources Law
Center, University of Colorado School of
Law, Boulder, Colorado
Explaining that her organization focuses on natural
resources in the western United States, Ms.
Kathryn Mutz, Natural Resources Law Center
(NRLC), University of Colorado School of Law,
Boulder, Colorado, stated that the NRLC recently
has begun to examine the issue of environmental
justice in the context of natural resources. Many of
the natural resources in the West are located on
Federal lands, she pointed out, and are managed
by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and
DoD. The NRLC is working to identify existing
environmental justice issues and to determine how
environmental justice can be promoted in the
West, she said. Some issues to consider, she
explained, are land acquisitions that have social
justice implications and water resources in areas in
which poverty levels are high.
When dealing with natural resources, there are
both convergence and conflict issues among
groups and agencies, continued Ms. Mutz. An
example of convergence of people working
together is when environmental groups support the
efforts of tribes in the adoption of more stringent
water quality standards than those established by
the state, she explained. An example of conflict,
she continued, might be incompatible views held
by various entities about the management of
national forests and their timber and grazing lands.
2-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Period
The NRLC will work to address conflict and
convergence among agencies to see how the
protection of natural resources and social justice
can be promoted, she said. Ms. Mutz invited
anyone interested in the issue to speak with her
after the session.
2.13 Laura Hunter, Environmental Health
Coalition, San Diego, California
Ms. Laura Hunter, Environmental Health Coalition,
San Diego, California explained that her
organization deals with the impact of the facilities
and activities of Department of the Navy on
communities in San Diego, California. Federal
facilities commit numerous environmental
violations, she said, and there is a lack of
enforcement. She pointed out that Federal
facilities can violate the provisions of their permits
without suffering any consequences. Discussing
the recent permitting of a nuclear megaport for
San Diego Bay, Ms. Stone stated that the Navy
does not recognize its effect on environmental
justice or the cumulative effects of its actions on
the local communities in the Barrio Logan area of
the city, she said. In addition, these communities
lack access to decision makers at the Federal
facilities, she continued, explaining that
representatives of the decision makers attend
public hearings, rather than the decision makers
themselves. The military should be held
accountable for meeting the same standards that
govern other facilities, Ms. Hunter said. In
addition, she continued, Federal facilities should
send their decision makers to meet with residents
of communities affected by the Navy's activities.
Ms. Hunter also urged the NEJAC to examine the
activities of the DOE Office of Naval Reactors.
Stating that naval reactors are self-regulated, she
explained that these reactors pose a significant
effect on a wide range of communities, from the
communities in which they are made to the
communities in which the vessels are home-
ported. She predicted that in several years, the
San Diego Bay will be home to as many as 19
nuclear reactors housed in carriers and
submarines. Inadequate emergency planning
plague the densely populated area, she stated,
adding that the communities around the bay enjoy
less protection than they would if they were located
next to a commercial reactor. Ms. Hunter asked
the individual members of the council to endorse
the Military Environmental Responsibility Act which
requires military agencies to comply with and be
subject to the same standards and environmental
laws that govern non-military activities.
2.14 Chavel Lopez, Southwest Workers Union,
San Antonio, Texas
Discussing the issue of Federal facilities, Mr.
Chavel Lopez, Southwest Workers Union, San
Antonio, Texas, explained that EPA's interim
guidance on addressing administrative complaints
under Title VI offers several recommendations
about environmental justice. However, he said,
Federal facilities do not recognize the Title VI
guidance. Kelly Air Force Base was to close in the
near future, Mr. Lopez continue; yet, there are no
plans to deal with the off-base contamination
associated with the facility. More than 100,000
people live near the base and could be subjected
to groundwater contaminated with several very
toxic chemicals, he pointed out. Natural
attenuation currently is being proposed to address
contamination from the base, he added, noting that
the community believes such a remedy is an
"insult" because it does not consider the 30 to 60
year process to be a cleanup.
In addition, continued Mr. Lopez, the Texas
Department of Transportation is proposing a new
highway through the contaminated community.
Not only will the project increase air pollution, he
stated, but it also will force the displacement of
many people. An airport expansion also has been
proposed, he added. The community already
suffers from elevated rates of cancer and other
diseases, he said, and the decision makers are not
considering the cumulative effects of the proposed
highway, expanded and joint use of the airport,
and no clean up plan. In addition, new houses are
being built on contaminated plumes, he charged,
and home buyers are not being notified of that
issue.
Describing the restoration advisory board
established at the base, Mr. Lopez stated that
public participation also has failed, in part because
no translation services are provided. Mr. Lopez
concluded by stating that a disparate number of
minorities work in hazardous conditions, and they
often are without protective equipment.
2.15 Gilbert Sanchez, People of Color and
Disenfranchised Communities/
Environmental Health Network, Espanola,
New Mexico
Mr. Gilbert Sanchez, People of Color and
Disenfranchised Communities/Environmental
Health Network, Espanola, New Mexico, thanked
the NEJAC for establishing a Federal facilities
working group. However, he added, the
development of the working group is effectively
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
2-7
-------
Public Comment Period
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
silencing the input of communities. He stated that
there were fundamental flaws in a process that
does not take seriously the advice it asks of
affected communities. Mr. Sanchez asked the
council to "please open your doors, your hearts,
your minds, to all the grassroots communities . .
when we ask for something and if you are going to
give it to us, let us be a part of that."
2.16 Teresa Juarez, New Mexico Alliance,
Espanola, New Mexico
Ms. Teresa Juarez, New Mexico Alliance,
Espanola, New Mexico, stated that the NEJAC
Federal Facilities Working Group is a vehicle
through which community voices should be heard.
The working group was created to give a voice to
communities suffering from environmental
injustices, she continued, so that members of
those communities could bring their problems to
the attention of the appropriate authorities. The
fact that very few community representatives are
members of the working group shows a lack of
respect for communities, she charged.
Ms. Travis-Miller commented that the concerns
raised by Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Juarez would be
discussed during the council's discussions with Mr.
Fields and Mr. Hill. She stated that she "feels
caught in the cross-hairs" because the NEJAC
created the working group in response to multiple
requests by communities but which now seems as
if its been "subverted." Communities are asking us
why the NEJAC has failed to follow through on this
request, so we need to know that we can give an
honest answer, she emphasized. Mr. Lee, pointed
out that although there are several community
representatives on the working group, the
membership does reflect the diversity of the
stakeholder groups that comprise the membership
of the NEJAC. Mr. Turrentine observed that there
had been a lack of communication, both among
the members of the NEJAC, between community
representatives and the NEJAC, and between the
NEJAC and EPA.
2.17 Rodney Livingston, DC Urban
Environmentalists, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Rodney Livingston, DC Urban
Environmentalists, Washington, D.C., expressed
his discontent with the NEJAC for what he termed
its failure to achieve substantial accomplishments.
The NEJAC had done nothing to curb
environmental injustices, he said. Executive Order
12898 has not been successful in establishing
adequate environmental justice measures in
various Federal agencies, he continued. It
appears that there is always a reason to do
nothing, he observed, and many excuses are
offered when necessary action is not taken.
2.18 Armando Gandarilla, Grand Park
Neighborhood Association, Phoenix,
Arizona
Mr. Armando Gandarilla, Grand Park
Neighborhood Association, Phoenix, Arizona,
stated that noise pollution and contamination afflict
several communities in Arizona. Health issues
affect those neighborhoods, he explained, and
children are becoming ill. Mr. Gandarilla pointed
out that there is a correlation between
incarceration rates and exposure to pollutants.
Incarceration rates are higher among minorities,
he explained, adding that minorities are disparately
affected by contaminants because of
environmental racism. The state of Arizona is not
held accountable for allowing such injustices to
occur, he continued. The state seems to be above
the law, he said, and communities cannot afford
lawyers to fight for their rights. Mr. Gandarilla
concluded by stating that private corporations
should not be permitted to "hide behind" public
agencies that allow them to perpetrate
environmental injustices.
3.0 Public Comment Period Held on Tuesday,
December 12, 2000
This section summarizes the comments presented
to the Executive Council during the public
comment period held on December 12, 2000,
along with the questions and observations those
comments prompted among members of the
Executive Council.
Comments are summarized below in the order in
which they were offered.
3.1 Ann McCampbell, Multiple Chemical
Sensitivities Task Force of New Mexico,
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Dr. Ann McCampbell, a physician and chair of the
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Task Force of New
Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico, submitted a
written statement to the members of the Executive
Council. In that statement, Dr. McCampbell
commended the NEJAC for its resolution on MCS.
According to Dr. McCampbell, the resolution
acknowledges MCS and makes common-sense
suggestions about how the Federal government
should address the problem. Despite EPA
Administrator Carol Browner's praise of other
2-8
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Period
NEJAC recommendations, the agency rejected the
MCS resolution in its entirety, the statement
continued. Dr. McCampbell conveyed her
disappointment at EPA's rejection of the resolution
and EPA's 1998 draft report on MCS. In her
statement, she said that EPA had relied on a
biased work group's draft report in rejecting the
NEJAC's MCS resolution. Dr. McCampbell
attached to her statement a letter from U.S.
Representative Tom Udall (D - NM), requesting
that Administrator Browner reconsider her
decision.
Dr. McCampbell then expressed her gratitude to
the NEJAC for acknowledging MCS as a serious
medical problem and an environmental justice
issue and voiced the hope that EPA would
reconsider its decision and would begin to address
the matter by considering the implementation of
some of the NEJAC's recommendations.
3.2 Madeline Pepin, Our Lady of the Lake
University, San Antonio, Texas
Dr. Madeline Pepin, Environmental Science
Program, Our Lady of the Lake University, San
Antonio, Texas, a teacher at that institution, based
her comments to the Executive Council on two
case studies: the Polish-speaking community of
Falls City, Texas and the Spanish-speaking
Southwest San Antonio community that neighbors
Kelly Air Force Base. Both communities are
composed of native-born American citizens who
do not read the language they speak, she said.
Those citizens can read and understand very basic
English, she explained, but lack the confidence in
their limited English to ask questions or state
concerns at public meetings on environmental
issues. Dr. Pepin stated that, in both cases,
officials failed to realize that the citizens were not
literate in their native languages. In the Kelly Air
Force Base case, until recently, no translator was
provided on the grounds that the translation of
documents would be too expensive and that no Air
Force officials spoke Spanish. Dr. Pepin stated
that the Air Force should have requested the
services of a bilingual individual from the
community to assist in the translation of questions
and statements of concern by members of the
communities.
Mr. Turrentine asked Dr. Pepin what assistance
she would like to obtain from the NEJAC. She
responded by stating that Federal officials should
consult local governments or universities for an
accurate and complete account of the
demographics, including literacy of the
communities affected by Federal facilities and their
activities. In addition, she recommended that
Federal officials take note that there are many
non-English-speaking communities in the United
States and that the members of those
communities were not educated in other countries;
they read English, she said. Further, Federal
officials should consult with local governments or
universities to identify the type of translation
services needed, she said. Mr. Turrentine invited
Dr. Pepin to attend the meeting of the International
Subcommittee, which was to convene on the
following day.
Ms. Ramos suggested that Ms. Pepin speak to
staff of EPA Region 2 about how it obtains
simultaneous translation services.
3.3 Doris Bradshaw, Defense Depot Memphis,
Tennessee, Concerned Citizens
Committee, Memphis, Tennessee
Ms. Bradshaw expressed concern about the
Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) failure to
respond to her letters to the agency about an
incident that occurred at Defense Depot Memphis
on September 15, 2000. Three workers wearing
full protective gear, she said, had been exposed to
a release of mustard gas. She asserted that the
DLA did not have an emergency response plan in
place for the facility and that seven other releases
had not been reported to the public. After
repeated attempts to obtain information from EPA,
Ms. Bradshaw said, she had become frustrated
with EPA and Region 4. She stated that she was
"tired of asking for simple things." Despite such
lack of response, she continued, the citizens of her
community remain willing to put air monitoring
systems in their yards. DLA, she pointed out, did
not have any monitoring systems for checking air
quality.
As further evidence of the inconsideration and lack
of cooperation EPA Region 4 has provided her
community, Ms. Bradshaw reported that the
Agency had selected December 11, 2001, the first
day of the NEJAC meeting, to initiate testing in her
community. Even when informed that she would
be at the NEJAC meeting, DLA refused to change
the date, she claimed.
Ms. Ramos sympathized with Ms. Bradshaw,
saying it "breaks my heart that time after time I
hear the same problems." She suggested that Ms.
Bradshaw attend the meeting of the Federal
Facilities Workgroup. In addition, Mr. Turrentine
pointed out that Mr. Cole had suggested that at
least four community members should be added to
that workgroup and that Mr. Lee had stated that he
would consider approval of that action.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
2-9
-------
Public Comment Period
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Ms. Jane Stahl, Assistant Commissioner, State of
Connecticut and member of the Executive Council
of the NEJAC, stated that efforts to confront
Federal facilities and persuade them to fulfill their
responsibilities were met with "a brick wall." As a
representative of a state regulatory agency, she
said, "We have found a common enemy" in
Federal facilities. Ms. Stahl stated that the
problem must be addressed through more
extensive action than establishment of a work
group.
3.4 Beverly Wright, Xavier University, New
Orleans, Louisiana
Ms. Beverly Wright, Xavier University, New
Orleans, Louisiana, described the history of the
Thompson Hayward Chemical facility, located in
New Orleans, Louisiana. She stated that, from the
1940s until 1977, the facility was operated as a dry
and liquid chemical formulation plant; after 1977,
the facility was used for the warehousing and
distribution of industrial, pest control, and dry-
cleaning chemicals, she said. Commercially, she
noted, it has been inactive since 1988. Ms. Wright
then discussed a settlement awarded to residents
of the area. Individuals living within a specified
radius of Thompson Hayward received money, as
well as a million dollar endowment fund
established with the Greater New Orleans
Foundation, she explained. She added that the
city of New Orleans also had received $500,000
under the settlement; those funds were to be used
for capital improvements in the neighborhood.
Ms. Wright stated that, in 1997, the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), the
Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry
(LDAF), and the past and present owners of the
Thompson Hayward site signed a formal
agreement that set forth in detail the steps to be
taken to complete site investigation and cleanup.
As of October 2000, LDEQ is at least one year
behind its schedule, continued Ms. Wright. LDEQ
previously had revised the time frame in May 2000
but has fallen behind again, she said. Ms. Wright
stated that EPA had not "written off" the Thompson
Hayward site completely, but that it is "extremely
unlikely" that further work will be carried out there.
She posed several questions to the Executive
Council, asking why no progress has been made
since the 1997 order in remediating the site. She
asked further what EPA and LDEQ can do to
rectify the situation.
3.5 Lynn Pinder, Youth Warriors, Baltimore,
Maryland
Ms. Lynn Pinder, Youth Warriors, Baltimore,
Maryland, stated that she is the founder and
executive director of that organization, which
involves young African Americans in addressing
environmental justice issues. In addition, she said,
she serves as the southern regional coordinator for
the Northeast Environmental Justice Network
(NEJN).
Ms. Pinder directed her comments to the impact of
the NEJAC at the state level and the involvement
of youth (ages 18 and under) and young adults
(ages 19 to 30) as a recognized voice in areas
related to environmental justice.
The state of Maryland, continued Ms. Pinder,
created a Maryland Environmental Justice Task
Force at the request of some delegates to the
state legislature. She stated that the intent and
desire of most members of the task force is
sincere. She stated, however, that she was
concerned that the Maryland Environmental
Justice Task Force is made up primarily of
representatives of business and governmental
agencies. Ms. Pinder then stated that, in her view,
the term environmental justice signifies a call to
action for individuals and groups residing in high-
risk neighborhoods to take the lead in initiating
action to combat environmental problems.
However, she said, she believes that interests of
communities were not as highly regarded as those
of the business and government sectors at
meetings of the task force. How, she asked, could
the NEJAC do a better job in providing guidance at
the state level? She also suggested that the
NEJAC should foster youth leadership in the
environmental justice movement.
Mr. Turrentine referred Ms. Pinder's comments to
Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee stated that the NEJAC maintains
many partnerships with states, including the
Environmental Justice Training Collaborative,
which participants in the NEJAC meeting had
discussed earlier that day. Further, he continued,
the NEJAC engages in a great deal of outreach to
states. For example, members of the NEJAC
spoke at a recent conference in North Carolina on
environmental justice that was sponsored by the
U.S. Department of Natural Resources and the
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. In addition, Dr. Lee continued,
efforts undertaken in Florida brought about
legislation related to environmental justice. He
stressed that, overall, the process had begun and
that "we are feeling our way through." that process.
2-10
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Period
Addressing Ms. Pinder's second point, Mr. Lee
stated that, since 1992, OEJ had placed 1,600
students of diverse backgrounds in environmental
careers. Further, OEJ is exploring the placement
of students in community organizations. He then
expressed appreciation that Ms. Pinder had raised
the issue of representation of youth at future
meetings of the NEJAC.
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo, Oregon Office of the
Governor and Vice Chair of the Air and Water
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, pointed out that her
state had established an environmental justice
advisory board, but that its existence was not the
result of the influence of the NEJAC. In her
opinion, she said, the NEJAC should be
considered a model. The models that work best,
she added, are those conceived by communities
and advocates, rather those developed by
government agencies in response to a problem.
Ms. Stahl stated that the NEJAC is a model that
serves as a "repository" of people who have
expertise in environmental justice issues. The
strength of the environmental justice movement,
she continued, is with community groups, and the
NEJAC often is not most effective at the local
level. Ms. Pinder then expressed frustration
because communities experience stagnation
because although there is a national entity that
wishes to assist them, states fail to follow through.
3.6 Ethel M. Lane, Neighborhood for Justice,
Phoenix, Arizona
Ms. Ethel M. Lane, Neighborhood for Justice,
Phoenix, Arizona, stated that she is a citizen of
downtown Phoenix. She then discussed the
history of her neighborhood, which extends from
Seventh Avenue to Nineteenth Avenue in
downtown Phoenix. She reported that her
community is overburdened with toxic pollution.
She stated that, in 1952, the only area in which
minorities could purchase new homes was that
neighborhood, where the city of Phoenix operated
a landfill. In the early 1970s, she continued, it was
discovered that some of the garbage could
contaminate the groundwater; therefore, she
continued, the city moved the landfill. Currently,
she stated two hazardous waste companies are
located in the area.
Ms. Lane asserted that upper respiratory
problems, heart disease, and cancer are common
among the residents of the area. As member of
the Downtown Southwest Neighborhood
Association, she said, she had begun asking
questions about air monitoring stations in the area.
She stated that she had been informed that the
nearest monitoring station was located
approximately five miles from the neighborhood in
Greenwood Cemetery - "where the bodies don't
talk," she quipped. Continuing, Ms. Lane said that
she subsequently had requested that a monitoring
station be established at a location closer to the
neighborhood. She said that the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality had informed
her that monitoring stations would be too costly.
Therefore, she said, she had appealed to EPA for
assistance. Ms. Lane then stated that there is an
urgent need for resources to support the conduct
of research in the downtown area. She requested
that the NEJAC assist her in obtaining resources
for health studies in her community.
Mr. Turrentine asked whether there was a
representative of EPA Region 9 present and noted
that the members of the NEJAC would study the
situation in more depth to determine what direction
that office could provide to Ms. Lane.
3.7 Richard Burton, St. James Citizens for
Jobs and the Environment, Convent,
Louisiana
Mr. Burton stated that his organization is
committed to the mission of ensuring clean air and
water for the residents of the community, state,
and the nation. He then expressed concern that
his community is overburdened with toxic pollution.
He then stated that a company in Louisiana known
as Belmont Fleet, LLC, washes barges from the
Mississippi River and deposits the residue into the
river. Mr. Burton stated that he had questioned
LDEQ about the status of the company's permit
and that the agency had responded that the permit
was in LDEQ's offices. He said he was told he
must go to those offices to obtain a copy of the
permit. Continuing, Mr. Burton asserted that
LDEQ stated that he would have to write it to
request an opportunity to make a public comment
to the permit. It should not be necessary that we
have to request that LDEQ conduct public
comment, he said, adding that the Agency should
have requested comments before issuing any part
of a permit.
Mr. Burton also discussed spraying of sugar cane
with pesticides. He stated that many people in
Louisiana had become ill because of the
unregulated applications of pesticides. People, he
said, are not notified when the spraying is to take
place.
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
2-11
-------
Public Comment Period
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr. Burton then suggested that EPA take back the
regulatory authority it had delegated to LDEQ. He
circulated several documents, which included a
Public Hearing and Request for Public Comment
on a Draft Water Permit of Belmont Fleet and
information about the spraying of pesticides on
sugar cane. He asked that the documents be
submitted to EPA. Ms. Pamela Phillips, EPA
Region 6, a member of the audience, informed Mr.
Burton that she would provide him with more
information about the issues he had raised.
Ms. Ramos suggested that Mr. Burton buy a small
camera and take pictures of employees of Belmont
Fleet discharging chemicals into the river, submit
the photos to EPA, and then request enforcement
action.
Mr. Goldtooth indicated that the NEJAC would
attempt to obtain studies of the use of pesticides in
sugar cane operations and forward any information
found to Mr. Burton.
3.8 Patty Lovera, Center for Health
Environment and Justice, Falls Church,
Virginia
Ms. Patty Lovera, Center for Health Environment
and Justice (CHEJ), Falls Church, Virginia, which
works with grassroots groups nationwide, stated
that, over the past few years, CHEJ had identified
a trend toward building schools on or near
contaminated land, a practice that places low-
income and children of color at risk.
For example, she continued, in Houston, Texas, a
school for 3,000 students that will serve a
predominantly Latino population is being built next
to the Goodyear Chemical Company. Ms. Lovera
stated that, the community fought to have the
school built on another available piece of land, but
the effort was unsuccessful.
Further, she stated, in Rhode Island, five schools
for students who are predominantly African
American, have been built on industrial waste
sites. Despite the efforts of community members
to halt construction, she said, all five schools were
built.
Continuing, Ms. Lovera stated that Gordon
Elementary School in New Orleans, Louisiana, is
located on a Superfund site. The school, she said,
will serve children in the low-income, African
American neighborhood, in which the school is
located, she said. Although the school has been
closed, she noted, it likely will reopen because
EPA has conducted surface cleanup around the
building.
Ms. Lovera expressed concern that there are no
standards that determine what constitutes that a
school is "child-safe" with regard to environmental
contamination. A year earlier, she continued,
CHEJ and a coalition of other organizations had
asked EPA's Office of Children for guidance.
However, she said, that office had responded that
there are no guidelines; nor are there plans to
develop such guidelines, she added.
Over the past year, CHEJ's Poisoned Schools
Campaign, which involves more than 40 groups,
has created a draft document on criteria for the
siting of schools, continued Ms. Lovera. She
described the siting criteria, which includes a
requirement for buffer zones around schools and
establishes maximum levels for chemicals in soil
and groundwater.
Ms. Lovera called upon the NEJAC to review the
siting criteria document and share comments and
concerns with CHEJ. Ms. Peggy Shepard, West
Harlem Environmental Action and Vice Chair of the
Executive Council, agreed that school siting is an
important issue and stated her hope that the
NEJAC would consider taking on the issue of
environmental hazards in schools. Mr. Goldtooth
suggested that Ms. Lovera attend the meeting of
the Health and Research Subcommittee,
scheduled for the following day.
3.9 Kimberly Bandy, Tennessee Human Rights
Commission, Nashville, Tennessee
Ms. Kimberly Bandy, Tennessee Human Rights
Commission, Nashville, Tennessee, pointed out
that, in 1993, the state of Tennessee had passed a
law the mirrors the federal Title VI. The state law,
she continued, requires that Title VI
implementation plans or guidelines must be
developed by the outside community. Ms. Bandy
expressed concern about the lack of knowledge
about environmental justice issues in the state.
State agencies have proposed a study of Title VI,
she added. State surveys of knowledge about
environmental justice indicate that very little is
known, she stated. However, she added, EPA
Region 4 "is helping us break down the barriers to
environmental justice." Ms. Bandy stated that she
had noticed a great deal of interest in Title VI on
the part of local government agencies and private
industry. She stated that she would like to see the
same interest in environmental justice and the
principles of civil rights at the level of state
government, noting that such interest is vital to any
effort to comprehensively address quality of life in
Tennessee.
2-12
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Period
3.10 Tamia Boyen-Robinson, Environmental
Evangelism, Temple Hills, Maryland
Ms. Tamia Boyen-Robinson, Environmental
Evangelism, Temple Hills, Maryland, stated that
she is an environmental consultant and member of
the Maryland Environmental Justice Advisory
Council. She then described a project under which
environmental justice sites in the state of Maryland
are being identified. One of the recommendations
of the Maryland Environmental Justice Advisory
Council, she continued, was to develop a
geographic information system (GIS) data model,
she continued. The purpose of the model is to
encourage public collaboration and partnership in
the environmental justice process, she explained.
Health, income, housing, homelessness, child
care, education, transportation, public safety, and
environmental quality are the indicators chosen for
the model, she continued. Ultimately, the model
will identify environmental health concerns and
coordinate their consideration in the formulation of
public policy, she concluded.
Ms. Shepard asked whether Ms. Boyen-Robinson
believed that drawing maps of environmental
justice communities would be a deterrent to
investment. Ms. Boyen-Robinson responded that
she hoped the model would show that
disproportionate numbers of minorities are subject
to environmental risk. She added that mapping
might be detrimental to some communities
because it would effectively "red-line" some
properties.
Mr. Don J. Aragon, Wind River Environmental
Quality Commission, Shoshone and Northern
Araphao Tribes, noted that Region 8 also is
conducting GIS mapping on levels of income. The
region has software capabilities, he noted. Most of
the data have been sent to Region 8 by various
tribes and states, he continued.
3.11 Jenny Torres-Lewis on behalf of Manuel
Mirabel, National Puerto Rican Coalition,
Washington, D.C.
Jenny Torres-Lewis, National Puerto Rican
Coalition, Washington, D.C., identified herself as
vice-president of that organization and then spoke
on behalf of Mr. Mirabel. Ms. Torres-Lewis read
Mr. Mirabel's written statement (see Section 2-4 of
this chapter for a summary of the statement)
addressed to the NEJAC.
Ms. Shepard indicated that the International
Subcommittee was to address the Vieques case
during its meeting on Wednesday, December 13,
2001.
3.12 LeVonne Stone, Fort Ord Environmental
Justice Network, Marina, California
Noting that she had spoken before the NEJAC the
previous night, Ms. LeVonne Stone expressed
concern that the proper cleanup of sites that pose
environmental risk is not provided to low- income
and minority communities. She pointed out that it
is the responsibility of the Federal agency to clean
up such areas. However, the state, she charged,
is cleaning up sites in more affluent
neighborhoods. The state has not cleaned up two
ranges that are close to closure and that in the
future will belong to the city of Seaside, the
population of which is predominantly African
American and Latino, she said.
The communities, continued Ms. Stone, have
experienced deterioration of its economic base
because of closures of military installations.
People have been driven out of their homes, she
stated. Ms. Stone suggested that members of
communities be trained in the removal of
unexploded ordnance (UXO).
Ms. Stone expressed displeasure at the limited
progress of Federal agencies in complying with the
requirements of Executive Order 12898. Any
agency responsible for implementing the Executive
Order should be conscious of the needs of the
community, she added.
3.13 Rafael Rivero-Castano, Private Citizen,
Vieques, Puerto Rico
Dr. Rafael Rivero-Castano, Vieques, Puerto Rico,
a medical doctor who addressed the council as a
private citizen, stated that he is a retired professor
of epidemiology at the University of Puerto Rico.
Dr. Rivero-Castano expressed concern about
contamination caused by the Navy's use of
bombing ranges on the island of in Vieques,
Puerto Rico. He stated that, in the 1960s, the
cancer rate was higher in Puerto Rico than on
Vieques; however, he pointed out, the rate for
Vieques currently is 30 percent higher than that for
Puerto Rico. Dr. Rivero-Castano indicated that the
high cancer rate on Vieques is related to the Navy
bombings. Further, he stated, many residents of
Vieques have been exposed to toxic substances
originating from the bombings because the toxic
substances have entered the food chain.
Noting her respect for Dr. Rivero-Castano's work,
Ms. Ramos described the Vieques case as the
worst example of what can happen when the
community is not involved in the decisionmaking
process. She encouraged Dr. Rivero-Castano to
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
2-13
-------
Public Comment Period
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
continue dialogue with the Federal government
and invited him to the next meeting of the Federal
Facilities Working Group, tentatively scheduled for
late January or early February.
3.14 Stephanie Farquhar, University of North
Carolina School of Public Health, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina
Ms. Stephanie Farquhar, University of North
Carolina School of Public Health, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina, stated that she had been pleased
to learn about some of the demonstration projects
developed by communities that had been
mentioned during the NEJAC meeting. However,
she expressed concern that, even when there is
community involvement, Federal and state
agencies do not acknowledge that residents of a
community are aware of what that community
needs. She described in detail two case studies of
health research conducted in response to needs
identified by communities. One case involved the
rates of cancer and asthma in Detroit, Michigan,
where the population is 95 percent African-
American and the response of the community on
the interpretation of GIS data related to the
community. The other case, she continued,
centered on largely African American and Hispanic
communities in eastern North Carolina, that had
been devastated by Hurricane Floyd, and the
response of the Federal Emergency Management
Administration (FEMA) to those communities.
Ms. Farquhar recommended that the NEJAC
broaden the definition of environmental justice and
consider collaborating with such other Federal
agencies as FEMA in the future.
3.15 Betsy Boatner, Amazon Alliance,
Washington, D.C.
Ms. Betsy Boatner, Amazon Alliance, Washington,
D.C., discussed issues that had arisen during a
meeting in Washington, D.C. of an international
coalition of indigenous, environmental, human
rights, and policy organizations. The purpose of
that meeting, she explained, had been to examine
the escalation of the herbicide spraying program of
the government of Colombia - "Plan Colombia" -
intended to eradicate illicit crops. The program,
she stated, is funded by the U.S. government. Ms.
Boatner charged that the program could cause
serious harm to the health of indigenous and
peasant communities and endanger the biodiverse
ecosystems of the Amazon basin, while
nevertheless failing to reduce overall production of
drugs in Colombia or consumption of those drugs
in the United States. The Colombian National
Police, assisted by U.S. government spray aircraft,
fuel, escort helicopters, and private military
contractors, was to increase aerial fumigation
operations significantly in December 2000 in the
southern state of Putumayo, she continued.
Ms. Boatner reported that 58 indigenous peoples
whose territories cover almost half of the region
are among those affected by fumigation in the
Colombian Amazon basin. The Human Rights
Ombudsman offices at the national and local levels
have registered hundreds of complaints from
peasants throughout Colombia that aerial
eradication has caused eye, respiratory, skin, and
digestive ailments; destroyed subsistence crops;
sickened domesticated animals; and contaminated
water supplies, she continued.
Ms. Boatner then stated that experts on drug policy
argue that source-country counternarcotic
strategies will never be successful in decreasing
overall drug production because cultivation will be
carried on in other regions and countries. Further,
she asserted, domestic drug treatment programs
are 20 time more effective than aerial eradication
programs. The current policy, she stated, is
"creating a severe environmental justice in
Colombia."
Mr. Alberto Saldamando, International Indian
Treaty Council and vice chair of the International
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, noted that he would
make recommendations to EPA Administrator
Carol Browner for addressing Plan Colombia. He
then requested that Ms. Boatner provide written
testimony. She agreed to do so, stressing the
urgency of the matter because of the startup of
operations in December 2000.
3.16 Yvonne McSwain-Powell, People
Effective Against Chemical Eugenics,
Richton, Mississippi
Ms. Yvonne McSwain-Powell, People Effective
Against Chemical Eugenics, Richton, Mississippi,
stated that deaths and illnesses in her Richton
community were related to the condition of well
water that served as drinking water for her
community and contained high levels of chloride,
sodium, strontium, manganese, and boron. The
information about the quality of the water, which
suggests that local industry is the possible cause
of contamination, was obtained only recently from
documents prepared by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) in 1982 and 1983, she added.
The well that provided water to her community was
shut down officially in 1994, despite being declared
an emergency in 1991, she continued. Although a
2-14
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Period
new well serving other communities was built in
1992, her community was not removed from the
contaminated well until 1994, she added. The
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
conducted investigations and concluded that the
USGS documents were inaccurate and outdated,
she added.
Ms. McSwain-Powell expressed concern about the
high incidence of such diseases as multiple
myeloma, lupus, kidney failure, heart disease,
incurable skin rashes, loss of eyesight, cataracts,
gastrointestinal problems, tremors, and diabetes in
children in her community. One cause of the high
incidence of those illnesses, she stated, is arsenic,
which has been in the tap water of the community
for many years. Recently, she continued, arsenic
was found in one resident's blood at extremely
elevated levels. Further, she stated, the multiple
myeloma occurs in her community at a rate of 3
cases per 150 individuals, a rate deemed
insignificant by state epidemiologists. According to
the American Cancer Society, she said, the
average is 4 cases per 100,000 people.
Ms. McSwain-Powell indicated that she had
attempted to reach out to state agencies; however,
she said, those agencies have rejected her claims
and are unwilling to recognize the problem. She
requested that the well that was shut down in 1994
be reopened and investigated for possible
contamination.
Dr. Marinelle Payton, School of Public Health,
Harvard University Medical School and chair of the
Health and Research Subcommittee of the
NEJAC, asked whether any agencies had offered
Ms. McSwain-Powell any assistance. She replied
that she had requested assistance from the
Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) in providing consultation and sampling
for members of her community. However, that
agency had not yet provided such assistance, she
added.
3.17 Sandra Reid, Oak Ridge Health Liaison,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Ms. Sandra Reid, Oak Ridge Health Liaison, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, expressed concern about the
handling of community health issues related to
facilities of the U.S. Department of Energy in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. She stated that highly
enriched uranium had been detected in the
neighboring community of Oak Ridge. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDCP) had examined the health effects, she
continued however, no conclusive evidence was
found that uranium from the DOE facility had
caused adverse health effects in children. Ms.
Reid emphasized that the community had
encountered a lack of cooperation on the part of
DOE and the U.S. Department of Justice in its
efforts to address the health effects. Noting that,
seven years earlier, she had attended a meeting of
the NEJAC and that she had not seen action taken
since that time, Ms. Reid urged the NEJAC to
begin to address the inadequacies of studies of
health effects and to take action.
3.18 Armando Gandarilla, Grant Park
Neighborhood Association, Phoenix,
Arizona
Mr. Armando Gandarilla, Grant Park Neighborhood
Association, Phoenix, Arizona, expressed concern
that the area of that city that lies in the vicinity of
Grant Park had been contaminated by a variety of
sources, including the nearby Motorola Inc. plant, a
chromium plant that was set on fire, the addition of
runways at the airport, pollution from nearby
freeways, and wastes from the Arizona Public
Service. He noted that an informal survey had
indicated that there have been 35 cancer deaths in
a one-quarter mile section of his neighborhood.
Mr. Gandarilla requested funding to support the
research being conducted by Neighborhoods for
Justice to identify cumulative health risks and
identify concerns of residents about environmental
hazards, as well as funding to remediate the
contaminants. He then asked the council what the
time line is for bringing companies and or
government entities into compliance.
Mr. Cole said that the Enforcement Subcommittee
would address those issues during its meeting
scheduled for the following day. Mr. Willard Chin,
EPA Region 9, then approached the council from
the audience to indicate that he would contact Mr.
Gandarilla to address the issues Mr. Gandarilla
had raised. Mr. Chin mentioned that EPA Region
9 has targeted South Phoenix as a high-risk area
and is investigating facilities located near schools.
3.19 Andrew Brought, University of Maryland
School of Law, Baltimore, Maryland
Mr. Andrew Brought, University of Maryland School
of Law, Baltimore, Maryland, spoke on behalf of
the Cleanup Coalition, a small nonprofit group
organized to assist communities in addressing
issues related to environmental pollution and air,
waste, and water pollution permitting, particularly in
the Baltimore region. Mr. Brought, a student at the
law school, was requesting funding for a thorough
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
2-15
-------
Public Comment Period
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
study of subsistence and recreational fishing,
specifically in Baltimore Harbor and among
members of low-income or minority communities.
Because of contamination with chlordane, he
continued, the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) has warned the general public
not to eat substantial amounts of channel catfish or
eel caught in Baltimore Harbor. Moreover, a study
of Baltimore Harbor found concentrations of lead
and cadmium in the edible tissues of fish and
shellfish at levels high enough to cause health
problems in individuals who ingest a consistent
diet of such organisms, he noted.
Mr. Brought pointed out that the Cleanup Coalition
is concerned that efforts to communicate the
potential health risks of eating fish or shellfish from
Baltimore Harbor may not be effective. That
concern, he said, stems from anecdotal evidence
that minority or low-income residents in the area of
Baltimore Harbor are consuming fish or shellfish
taken from the Patapsco River in quantities that
exceed the limits suggested in the consumption
advisories posted on MDE's web site, he
continued.
To date, said Mr. Brought, there appears to have
been no thorough study of fish consumption by
subsistence fishers who fish Baltimore Harbor, Mr.
Brought said. Lack of such fish consumption
studies will prevent adequate protection of human
health, he continued. Therefore, in recognition of
the potential human health effects of carcinogens
and bioaccumulative toxics, particularly on low-
income or minority communities, and the almost
total lack of any current data, the Cleanup
Coalition was requesting that the NEJAC seek
funding from EPA to initiate a complete, thorough
investigation of consumption of fish and shellfish
taken from Baltimore Harbor and in nearby
communities.
Ms. Jaramillo encouraged Mr. Brought to present
the issue at the meeting of the Air and Water
Subcommittee meeting, scheduled for the
following day. Further, Mr. Cole asked Mr. Brought
to participate in the NEJAC meeting to be held in
Seattle, Washington in December 2001, which was
to focus on subsistence consumption.
2-16
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 and 12, 2000
------- |