National Environmental Justice Advisory Council New Orleans Louisiana April 13 Through 16 2004


NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
New Orleans, Louisiana
April 13 through 16, 2004

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This summary presents highlights of the 20th meeting of the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC), held April 13 through 16, 2004 in New Orleans, Louisiana at the Sheraton New Orleans
Hotel. On April 13 and 14, 2004, the NEJAC hosted public comment periods during which representatives
of community organizations presented their concerns about pollution, health risks, unaddressed issues
involving pollution from Federal facilities, and other issues of environmental justice. Six of the seven
subcommittees of the NEJAC met for a full day on April 15, 2004. Approximately 263 persons attended
the meetings and the public comment period.

The N EJAC 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. Ms. Veronica Eady,
Tufts University, serves as the chair of the Executive Council of the NEJAC. Mr. Charles Lee, Associate
Director, EPA Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), serves as the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for
the Executive Council.

OEJ maintains transcripts and summary reports of the proceedings of the meetings of the NEJAC. 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 of the NEJAC, through the
Internet at http://www.epa .gov/oe ca/ma in/ej/nejac/ind ex. htm I (click on the publications icon). The
summaries are available in both English and Spanish.

Remarks

At the April 2004 meeting, members of the NEJAC heard remarks from:

Mr. Barry Hill, Director, EPA OEJ, addressed the Executive Council and read a written statement on
behalf of Ms. Phyllis Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA), explaining that New Orleans was selected as the meeting venue
because Louisiana and other states in EPA Region 6 face significant issues related to cumulative
risks and impacts. The EPA needs to fully understand these impacts and the Agency is boking to the
NEJAC for advice in this effort. The efforts of the members of the NEJAC are invaluable in assisting
EPA in addressing issues related to environm ental justice.

Mr. Larry Starfield, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6, welcomed the members of the
NEJAC to New Orleans, Louisiana. He stated that EPA Region 6 is committed to continuing efforts to
ensure environmental justice for all communities. He thanked the members of the NEJAC Cumulative
Risks/Impacts Work Group and acknowledged their efforts in publishing the draft report, Ensuring
Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative
Risks/lm pacts.

Ms. Karen Gautreaux, Deputy Secretary, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ),
also welcomed the members of the NEJAC, and stated that the newly appointed officials of the LDEQ
recognize the need to work with individual communities on a statewide basis to ensure environmental
justice for all citizens in the state of Louisiana. She also added that the LDEQ is devebping a
strategic plan for achieving environmental justice in all communities and welcomes advice from the
members ofthe NEJAC.

-------
Cumulative Risks and Impacts Policy Dialogue

In its continuing efforts to provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator in areas related to
environmental justice, the NEJAC focused its 20th meeting on a specific policy issue cumulative risks of
exposure to pollutants and related impacts to communities. Cumulative risk is defined as the aggregate
of current or acute risk as well as bng-term exposure. On Tuesday, April 13 and Wednesday, April 14,
2004, members of the NEJAC participated in a dialogue about this topic.

Discussion among members of the Executive Council and the NEJAC Cumulative
Risks/Impacts Work Group

Mem bers of the NEJAC Cumulative Risks/Impacts Work Group provided an overview of the draft report,
Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communitbs with Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative
Risks/Impacts. During their presentation, the members of the work group briefly summarized the process
they underwent to develop the draft report and presented the preliminary findings. The members of the
NEJAC then discussed the draft report and recommendations at length, providing suggestions for report
revisions, including consolidating and condensing the action items and clarifying terminobgy (such as
community based participatory research and bias for action ) that could potentially be confusing or
misleading. Members of the NEJAC also noted that public comments on the draft report would be
ongoing for 30 days following the NEJAC meeting. They also stated that September 2004 is the
anticipated date for the completion of the report.

EPA Senior Officials Perspectives on Cumulative Risks and Impacts

Mr. Lee called on senior EPA officials to provide their perspectives and understanding of issues related to
cumulative risks and impacts and the draft report. Ms. Harris; Mr. William Farland, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Science, EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD); Mr. Larry Weinstock, Senior
Advisor, EPA Office of Airand Radiation (OAR); Mr. StarfieId; Mr. William Sanders, Acting Director, EPA
Office of Children s Health Protection; and Mr. Thomas Voltaggio, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 3, shared various perspectives and comments, highlighting the importance of industry
involvement, peer review of the draft report, and ongoing related initiatives that the NEJAC should be
aware of, such as a 20-year prospective children s health study.

Community Panel on Multiple Impacts

On Tuesday, April 13, 2004, the members of the NEJAC participated in a discussion with a panel
comprised of representatives of various community groups. The panel was chaired by Ms. Wilma Subra,
Louisiana Environmental Action Network and chair of the Air and Water Subcommittee, and represented a
wide range of racial and ethnic groups.

The panel consisted of the following m embers:

Ms. Helen Vinton, Four Corners Southern Mutual Help Association

Ms. Clementine Matthews, Four Corners Southern Mutual Help Association

Ms. Marylee Orr, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Mississippi River Industrial Corridor

Ms. Rebecca Jim, Tar Creek, Local Environmental Action Demanded (LEAD) Agency Inc.

Mr. Genaro Lopez, Southwest Workers Union, Kelly Air Force Base

Panel members presented information to the Executive Council on issues of concern to communities that
face multiple stressors, such as exposure to hazardous chemicals, racial discrimination, lack of
healthcare, and low-income and poverty issues. Specifically, Ms. Vinton described the multiple cumulative
environmental risks and impacts faced by the Vietnamese fisheries communities, consisting of more than
2,500 families, scattered along the coast of Louisiana. Ms. Matthews described a poor, predominantly
African-American community in Four Corners, St. Marys Parish, Louisiana, where pollution sources
included black carbon manufacturing industrial facilities, strategic petroleum reserves, applications of
pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers to sugar cane crops adjacent to residential dwellings. Ms. Orr

-------
described the multiple, aggregate, and cumulative risks and impacts in the Mississippi River Industrial
Corridor, where there is a significant African-American majority (63 percent), with Caucasian (30 percent)
and Asian (3 percent) minorities. Pollution sources along the Mississippi River Industrial Corridor included
petrochemical facilities, refineries, waste watertreatment facilities not meeting permit limits, agricultural
field runoff containing pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, and particulates resulting from burning sugar
cane during the fall harvest season. Ms. Jim described the Tar Creek Superfund site where she noted
five generations have been subjected to the ill-effects of lead poisoning and currently 32 percent of
children in the community suffer from lead-poisoning. Other sources of contamination that she noted
included benzene releases from chemical plants, and agricultural runoffs containing pesticides,
herbicides, and fertilizers. Finally, Mr. Lopez described the struggle for revitalization of predominantly
Mexican-Am erican comm unities surrounding Kelly Air Force Base (AFB). Local residents in that area are
subject to various ground water contaminants including chlorinated solvents such as trichloroethylene
(TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), vinyl chloride (VC), and soil contamination from lead and other heavy
metals. He stated that multiple health problems exist among residents such as asthma, low birth weight,
birth defects, and cancer.

Reports and Presentations

During the four-day meeting of the NEJAC, the members of the Executive Council heard presentations
from the folbwing individuals:

Mr. Hank Topper, EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), provided an
update on the Pollution Prevention Report, a draft of which had been discussed at the previous
NEJAC meeting in Baltimore, Maryland in December 2002. Mr. Topper noted that folbwing the
presentatbn of the draft report to the NEJAC in 2002, the final report has been completed, and
includes a promising collaborative problem solving model that could be adopted by other programs
and offices in EPA.

Mr. Hill made a presentation about OEJ s response to the Report on Environmental Justte, prepared
in March 2004 by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). Mr. Hill s presentatbn outlined the following
issues:

History of environmental justbe

Executive Order (EO) 12898 and the formation of the NEJAC

EPA s activities over the past few years that focus on issues related to environmental justice
Various opinions among academics, community organizers, and others about achieving
environmental justice through legal mechanisms, such as The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other
environmental laws

Ms. Mildred McClain, PhD, Harambee House Inc., and Mr. James Woolford, Director, EPA Federal
Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office, presented findings and recommendations of the draft report,
Environmental Justice and Federal Facilities: Recommendations for Improving Stakeholder Relations
Between Federal Facilities and Environmental Justice Communities, prepared by the Federal Facilities
Work G roup of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC.

Mr. Terry Williams, The Tulalip Tribes and acting chair of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee, and
Mr. Daniel Gogal, EPA OEJ and DFO of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee, presented action
items from the preliminary working draft report, Meaningful Involvement and Fair Treatment by Tribal
Environmental Regulatory Programs, prepared by the Meaningful Involvement and Fair Treatment
Work Group of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee of the NEJAC. They also presented the
schedule for the publication of the final report. Members of the NEJAC then provided their
suggestions and recommendations.

Ms. Subra presented the draft report, Guide and Recommendations for Improving the Integration of
Environmental Justice into Environmental Permitting, prepared by the Air and Water Subcomm ittee of
the NEJAC. She highlighted the recommendations included in the draft report.

-------
SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS EXPRESSED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS

Two public com ment sessions were conducted during the April 2004 meeting. The first public comment
session was held on Tuesday, April 13 and focused on issues related to cumulative risks and impacts.
Two written and 8 oral statements were offered during the Tuesday session. The second public comment
session was held on Wednesday, April 14 and provided the opportunity forthe submission of general
comments. One written and 21 oral comments were offered during the Wednesday session.

The predominantthemes thatwere raised during the public comment periods are outlined bebw:

Several commenters provided feedback and recommendations related to the draft report, Ensuring
Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative
Risks/lmpacts that was prepared by the Cum ulative Risks/Impacts Work Group of the NEJ AC.

Comm enters pointed out that Native and minority communities are being disproportionately affected
and overburdened by a combination of environmental toxics. Several of the comments concerned the
revision or addition of language to the report and the need to address specific concerns related to
American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. In addition, several individuals noted the complexity of
native cultures and the difficulty of incorporating social aspects into the assessm ent of cumulative
risks and impacts.

A number of participants presented comments summarizing concerns about with Federal facilities.
These individuals expressed concern that (1) EPA is not fulfilling its obligation to conduct oversight of
cleanups at U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) installations and (2) EPA is not exerting its regulatory
authority to hold DoD accountable forcontamination and cleanups.

Several participants were representatives of Alaskan communities who are dependant on traditional
subsistence lifestyles. Native Alaskans and others who depend on subsistence lifestyles to survive
are threatened by disproportionate contamination resulting from activities of Federal facilities and
industry. The state of Alaska contains over 600 formerly used DoD sites. Several participants
requested that the next meeting of the NEJ AC be held in Alaska.

AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. Larry Weinstock, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Program Innovation Coordinator, provided
a briefing on Comm unity Actions for a Renewed Environment (CARE) which is a community-
based, multi-media toxic reduction grant initiative. He highlighted the program benefits, goals,
organization, activities, and grants that are available under the initiative.

Mr. Kenneth Manaster, Santa Clara University, School of Law, led an extensive discussion on
improving the draft Recommended Practices Guide on Permitting document, Guide and
Recommendations for Improving the Integration of Environmental Justice into Environmental
Permitting, dated April 6, 2004. He and the other members of the Airand Water Subcomm ittee
discussed the document and made changes and improvements.

Mr. Michael Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Office of Water (OW), provided an update on permitting programs in the Office of
Wastewater Management Water Permits Division. He expressed interest in conducting ongoing
dialogue with the Air and Water Subcommittee in obtaining their input on the Permits Divisions
programs. He also presented the Small Communities Team program that provide water and
wastewater services to tribal and community leaders, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) programs and policies, Permitting for Environmental Results Strategy (PER),
Watershed-based Permitting, and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Mr.

-------
Shapiro also agreed to notify the mem bers of the Air and Water Subcommittee when the State
Self Assessments and the National Statistical Profile of OW will be publicly available.

Ms. Elizabeth Cotsworth, Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), presented on indoor
air quality. She focused her presentation on children from inner-city and lower-income
neighborhoods, as well as tribal communities. Ms. Cotsworth agreed to provide the bcation of the
20 Class C Hazardous Waste landfills in the U.S. that could be considered for Low level
radioactive waste disposal locations.

Mr. Bill Harnett, Director, Information Transfer and Permitting Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), discussed briefly the citizen s guide to providing input to EPA
on air quality issues. He also discussed the air quality index.

During the one-meeting, members of the subcommittee discussed the following issue.

Members of the Air and Water Subcommittee discussed at length the content and organization of
the draftversion Guide and Recommendations for Improving the Integration of Environmental
Justice into Environmental Permitting. The primary focus ofthe discussion included identifying
the audience and the goal ofthe document, defining flashpoint as used in the context of the
document, public participation, and siting and permitting issues. The members of the
subcommittee covered the Introduction, Flashpoints, Section 3a (Public Participation) and Section
3b (Permit and Terms) ofthe document.

The following is an actbn item the members adopted during the subcommittee meeting:

Beginning May 18, 2004, conducta conference call every three weeks focusing on revising the
Guide and Recommendations for Improving the Integration of Environmental Justice into
Environmental Permitting. Ms. Jody Henneke, Director of Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality Office of Public Assistance, and Mr. Robert Sharpe, Illinois EPA, willworkon Section 3a
(Public Participation) and Section 3b (Permit and Terms), respectively. Mr. Manaster will focus on
the Introduction and Flashpoint sections. The goal of the subcommittee is to produce a final
document by June 29, 2004 and then decide when to seek technical advice from subject matter
experts.

ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE

The Enforcement Subcommittee ofthe National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
conducted a one-day meeting on Thursday, April 15, 2004, during a four-day meeting ofthe NEJAC in
New Orleans, Louisiana. Ms. Vicki Simmons, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and acting Designated Federal Official (DFO) of the
Enforcement Subcommittee announced that Mr. Reiniero Rivera, EPA, will be joining OECA in May 2003
and will be serving as the DFO for the subcommittee. Members of the Enforcement Subcommittee then
heard presentations and reports from:

Ms. Phyllis Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA OECA, provided an update on
OECA, specifically with regard to OECA s national priorities process. She explained that concerns
related to environmental justice are incorporated as an integral part of each national priority.

Mr. Charles Lee, Associate Director, EPA Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), discussed the Office
of the Inspector General s Report: EPA Needs to Consistently Implement the Intent of the Executive
Order on Environmental Justice and the ways EPA differed with their recommendations.

Ms. Tinka Hyde, Enforcement Coordinator, EPA Region 5, provided an update on the Concept Paper
for Environmental Targeting: Policy and Technical Issues to be Considered. She explained thatthe
Concept Paper has been devebped to provide OECA with a consistent set of parameters that can be
used to define an environmental justice community and to provide a proactive targeting tool to assist
EPA regions and Headquarters in identifying the potential for disproportionate impacts in
communities.

-------
During the one-day meeting, members of the subcommittee discussed the following issues.

Members of the subcommittee reviewed each of OECA s national priorities and made
recom mendations on how O ECA could address environmental justice in each national priority.

OECA s national priorities include:

Wet weather
Air toxics

New source review and prevention of significant deterioration
Mineral processing
Tribal compliance
Financial responsibility

The members of the subcommittee discussed at length their reaction to the Office of the Inspector
General s Report: EPA Needs to Consistently Implement the Intent of the Executive Order on
Environmental Justice. The mem bers of the subcomm ittee discussed the importance of immediate
comm unication with the community about the Agency s response. In addition, the mem bers
recommended a comm unication strategy be implemented. The members agreed that the
subcommittee could be used as a vehicle to implement such a strategy.

The members of the subcommittee believed that the Concept Paper for Environmental Targeting
identifies a process that OECA could use to identify environmental justice communities. The
members wished to ensure that the concepts of the paper are incorporated into the EJ Mapper. They
also emphasized that OEJ should consider how communities can access the information and report
on the findings.

Following is a list of significant action items the members adopted during the subcommittee meeting:

Recommendations about outreach to the com mu nity concerning the Office of the Inspector General s
Report:

Imm ediate comm unication with comm unities about EPA s response to the report
Ongoing outreach should focus on training and resources to conduct outreach should be provided
Use the Enforcement Subcommittee as a vehicle to review and help implement the
communication strategy

Coordinatbn with other subcommittees on OECA s national priorities:

Coordinate with Mr. Wil Willson, Designated Federal Official (DFO), Air and Water Subcommittee,
and EPA Office of Air and Radiatbn on recommendations related to OECA s Air Toxic Natbnal
Priority

Coordinate with Mr. Danny Gogal, DFO, Indigenous Subcommittee, and EPA OEJ on
recom men dations re lated to O ECA s Tribal C omp Nance Na tional Priority

Coordinate with Mr. Bill Sanders, Director of the Office of Children's Health, concerning schools
being located in highly industrialized (potentially toxic) areas

Coordinate with Mr. Bill Sanders, Acting Director of the Office of Children s Health Protection
concerning schools being located in highly industrialized and potentially toxic areas

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE

Ms. Hazel Apok, Maniilaq Association, suggested that the subcommittee conduct a survey of each
tribe in Alaska to obtain a better understanding of the environmental justice issues facing the tribes
and how those issues relate to regulatbns of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). She

-------
recommended that EPA increase its collaboration efforts with tribal organizations, preferably in
person.

Mr. Benten Davis, Native Village ofSelawik, stated that tribal communities need additional training,
related to applying for grants, which will enable communities to become more effective at obtaining
funding from EPA. He also requested that individuals who are trained in a technical capacity also
should be trained in managing grants.

Mr. Roy Matsuno, Ugashik Traditional Village, expressed concern about funding for the enforcement
of environmental policies and requested additional funding for enforcement programs for tribes. He
stated that there have been several luel spills in his village and members of the tribal government
have found them selves without an avenue for enforcing cleanup activities.

Mr. David Conrad, Executive Director, National Tribal Environmental Council, provided several
suggestions to the subcommittee for improving the Preliminary Working Draft Meaningful
Involvement and Fair Treatment by Tribal Environmental Regulatory Programs. He urged the
mem bers of the subcom mittee to adopt a Bias for Action approach that focuses on the positive
progress that has been made in tribal communities related to tribal environmental programs. He
stated that such an approach would provide incentive for tribal organizations to take actbn and
provide comm ents to the subcomm ittee.

Ms. Agnes Rychnovsky, Newhelen Tribe, described a mining project that is scheduled to take place
near her village in Alaska. She expressed her concern about the potentially devastating impacts
mining would have on the tribe s water source. She added that the tribes have not been actively
involved in the planning process and urged the members of the subcommittee to support the inclusion
of tribal representatives at the beginning of any decision-making process that may have an impact on
their com mun ity.

Mr. Vince Cook, Makah Tribe, provided suggestions about effectively conducting outreach in tribal
communities. His approach includes meeting individuals in a tribal community face-to-face and
engage them in the decision-making process.

During the one-day meeting, members of the subcommittee discussed the following issues.

Members of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee Meaningful Involvement and Fair Treatment Work
Group presented its document to advise EPA about how to most effectively work with tribes to
enhance theirefforts to provide meaningful involvement and fair treatment in the development and
implementation of Federally authorized tribal environmental programs. The subcommittee reviewed
several comments that were submitted by various tribal organizations and discussed ways for
incorporating the comments in the document. The document is a preliminary working draft and the
subcommittee currently is addressing comments from the public. After the document is finalized, it
will be presented to the Executive Council of the NEJAC for approval and subsequently will be
submitted to the EPA Administrator for consideration.

Members of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee reviewed the recommendations presented in the
Executive Council meeting on April 14, 2004, on the NEJAC s draft document on cumulative risk. A
few participants provided background information about the development of the document followed by
a discussion about how cumulative risks impact the resources of tribal communities. Members of the
subcommittee recognized that contamination affecting tribal communities often takes place off tribal
lands. They also identified that cumulative risks have the most significant impact on subsistence
communities.

Representatives from EPAs Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) reported that OEJ is seeking
nominations for individuals who are interested in serving on the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee.
OEJ is accepting applications as soon as possible to fill positions beginning in January 20 05. In
addition, a position is available on the subcom mittee for a representative from Alaska.

Following is a list of significant action items the members adopted during the subcommittee meeting:

-------
Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird will develop language concerning the cultural and spiritual meaning of
environm ental reso urces for inclusion in the prelim inary draft do cum ent.

Members of the subcommittee will continue to address all comments submitted by the public on the
preliminary working draft in follow-up conference calls.

Mem bers of the subcommittee will research the possibility of EPA hosting a N EJAC meeting in
Alaska.

INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE

The Internatbnal Subcommittee of the Natbnal Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
conducted a one-day meeting on Thursday, April 15, 2004, during a four-day meeting of the NEJAC in
New Orleans, Louisiana. Members of the Internatbnal Subcommittee heard presentations from:

Mr. Jerry Clifford, Deputy Assistant Administrator of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Office of Internatbnal Affairs (OIA), provided an update of activities of OIA and participated in a
dialogue with members of the subcommittee on recommendations proposed by OIA to the
subcommittee.

Ms. Olivia Balandran, Associate Director for Environmental Justice, EPA Region 6 presented
information on the Final Report on Border Issues Subcommittee for Environmental Justice Listening
Session. The report identifies the primary concerns, priorities and key recommendations for actbn by
EPA, developed by participants of the Border Session.

Ms. Barbara Maco, Environmental Justbe Coordinator, EPA Region 9, reported on the new bi-national
clean-up pilot project at the Metales y Derivados site located in Tijuana, Mexico and informed the
members of the subcommittee of an upcoming listening session on border issues.

During the one-meeting, members of the International Subcommittee discussed the following issues.

Members of the subcommittee expressed their concern about the slow progress of appointing
mem bers to the subco mm ittee, and the void the Su bcom mittee fe els not ha vinjg a com mun ity
representative.

Acting on a previous Subcommittee recommendation, Mr. Clifford announced that OIA currently is
developing several environmental justice training forums for staff of OIA . First OIA has invited the
Director ofthe Office of Environmental Justice to lecture OIA staff at an All Hands Meeting on the
importance of integrating environmental justice principles into OIA s international work. OEJ is also
assisting OIA in developing an EJ training course specific to international activities. Further OIA has
developed a Speaker Series inviting speakers in to lecture staff on various EJ issues. The
Subcommittee offered to provide guidance in the development of training related to the review of trade
agreem ents.

The Joint Public Advisory Co mm ittee (JPAC) is conducting a 10-year assessment of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Subcommittee members offered to provide comments on
the assessment to EPA within the nextmonth.

Mr. Clifford explained that EPA OIA has an interest in addressing issues related to corporate
responsibility such as hazardous waste disposal and green supply chains. Subcommittee members
advised Mr. Clifford to simply ask corporations about their corporate operating procedures in their U.S.
facilities and if and how they differ from their international operating procedures. The members also
emphasized the need to integrate corporate responsibility into trade agreement negotiations.

EPA regions 6 and 9 led a discussion on their environmental justice activities related to the U.S.-
Mexico border. At a recent EJ Listening Session, several items of interest were identified by border
residents including the longstanding recommendation to create a U.S.-Mexico Border Commission
specifically to address issues of concern to border residents. Jerry Clifford asked Jose Bravo to

-------
gather comm unity views and develop a concept paper on what such a com mission would entail. Mr.
Bravo agreed to provide this paper to Mr. Clifford in the near future.

Members discussed comments to be provided to OIA in response to its Environmental Justice Action
Plan.

Following is a list of significant action items the members adopted during the subcommittee meeting:

EPA OEJ is developing internal environmental justice training for all EPA offices. Members of the
subcommittee will conduct a review of the content of the training.

Mem bers of the subcom mittee will contact Mr. Charles Lee, Associate Director, EPA O EJ; Mr. Barry
Hill, Director, EPA OEJ; and Ms. Phyllis Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) about the need to include environmental justice
principles into all OEJ training curriculum developed by EPA.

The members of the subcommittee agreed to provide recommendations to JPAC related to the
NAFTA 10-year anniversary assessment.

WASTE AND FACILITY SITING SUBCOM MITTEE

The Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) conducted a one-day meeting on Thursday, April 15, 2004, during a four-day meeting of the
NEJAC in New Orleans, Louisiana. Members of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommitteejieard
presentatbns and reports from:

Ms. Marjorie Buckholtz, Director, EPA Innovation, Partnerships, Communications Office, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), provided an update on the Five Priorities Work
Group. She stressed that the underlying theme for the priorities is innovation, and that funding is
available for testing pilot projects under any of the priorities.

Mr. Butch Wardlaw, WP I, provided a status update on the activities of the Unintended Impacts W ork
Group of the subcom mittee. He stated that the Work Group developed a draft report, Unintended
Consequences of Environmental Redevelopment in Five Environmental Justice Communities: A
Critical Exploration, which analyzes five cleanups conducted at Superfund and Brownfields sites.
Although EPA considered the cleanups successful, they had unintended impacts, such as
displace men t of residen ts.

Ms. Mildred McClain, Harambee House, Inc., provided an update on the status of the Federal
Facilities Working Group. She stated that the Working Group developed a draft that provides five
recommendations and three considerations to strengthen the role of community residents in the clean
up and disposition of Federal properties.

Members of the subcommittee heard presentations from representatives of EPA OSWER, including
Ms. Pat Carey, Ms. Tammie Owen, Ms. Glynis Hill, Mr. Vemon Myers, and Mr. Kent Benjamin. They
provided the following updates:

Ms. Carey provided an update on the Superfund Relocation Policy. She stated that 19 relocations
have occurred underthe policy, while three currently are ongoing.

Ms. Owen discussed the Hazardous Waste Targeting Project, which aims to provide incentives to
companies for reducing the use of chemicals.

Ms. Hill and Mr. Myers presented an update on the RCRA Demographics Study Findings,
elaborating on the progress of the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) at facilities
permitted under RCRA.

-------
Mr. Benjamin identified the accomplishments of OSWER in 2003, that included the Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) organizing its first roundtable discussion about environmental
justice issues and OSWER awarding its first Annual Assistant Adminstrators Environmental
Justice Awards.

Mr. Andrew Sawyers, Maryland Department of the Environment and Michael Lythcott, The
Lythcott Company, jointly moderated a discussion aboutthe Subcommittee Strategic Plan. They
discussed ways to improve the subcommittee processes and identified potential new projects for
the subcommittee to consider.

During the one-day meeting, members of the subcommittee discussed the following issues.

In response to Ms. Buckholtzs update on OSWER s Five Priorities, members of the subcommittee
discussed how the subcommittee can align their initiatives with those of OSWER. Specifically, they
discussed the possibility of identifying pibt projects that can be lunded by the Innovations Work Group
under the Land Revitalization program and developing recommendations related to improving
emergency response plans for chemical plants located in environmental justice communities.

Members of the subcommittee emphasized the need to develop outcomes that are tangible and
measurable. They agreed that in order to make their initiatives more credible, they should identify
metrics to measure their progress.

In response to Ms. McClain s presentation on the Federal Facilities Working Group s draft report,
mem bers of the subcomm ittee discussed the importance of inviting Federal facility representatives to
participate in meetings with the Working Group. They expressed concern aboutthe number of U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) sites that have environmental justice issues.

Some members of the subcommittee questioned the importance of the subcommittee s efforts and if
they have been helpful to communities. Othermembers of the subcommittee mentioned that
OSWER approves and supports the subcommittee s work, and that many of the products generated
by the subcommittee are used by OSW ER.

Following is a list of significant action items the members adopted during the subcommittee meeting:

Identify potential projects that can be conducted as pilot tests under the Five Priorities of OSWE R and
prepare proposals for the projects

Consider developing recommendations related to improving emergency response plans for chemical
plants located within environmental justice communities

Review and provide comments on the draft report prepared by the Unintended Impacts Work Group

Respond to recommendations by the NEJAC Executive Council regarding the draft report prepared by
the Federal Facilities Working Group

Update the Strategic Work Plan to cover up to the next 2% years

Investigate ways for the subcommittee to interact with external associations, such as those associated
with state and local governments, for the purposes of enhancing planning and product devebpment
by the subcommittee

-------
MEETING SUMMARY

of the
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
of the

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

April 13 through 16, 2004
New Orleans, Louisiana

Meeting Summary Accepted By:

Charles Lee	Veronica Eady

Designated Federal Official	Chair

Mary Nelson
Vice-Chair

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

CHAPTER ONE
MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The twentieth meeting of the Executive Council of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) took place on Tuesday, April 13, Wednesday, April 14, and Friday, April 16, 2004, during a four-
day meeting of the NEJAC in New Orleans, Louisiana. Ms. Veronica Eady, Tufts University, serves as the
newly appointed chairof the Executive Council. Mr. Charles Lee, Associate Director for Policy and
Interagency Liaison, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ),
serves as the Designated Federal Official(DFO) for the Executive Council. Exhibit 1-1 lists the mem bers
who attended the meeting and identifies those members who were unable to attend.

This chapter, which summarizes the deliberations of the Executive Council, is organized in four sectbns,
including this Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks, summarizes the remarks of senior EPA and Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) officials. Section 3.0, Cumulative Risk and Impact Potty
Dialogue, summarizes the following items: The discussion of the draft report titled Ensuring Risk
Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumutative Risk/Impact (the
cumulative risk report), including its of key
concepts, overarching recommendation themes,
and action items; the testimony provided by the
Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group of the
NEJAC (referred to hereafter as the NEJAC work
group); recommendations for improvement of the
cumulative risk report discussed by the members
of the real work g roup and the Executive Council;

EPA senior officials perspectives on cumulative
risks and impacts and their understanding of the
report; and presentations made to the Executive
Council by the community impacts panel. Section
4.0, Presentations and Reports-, provides an
overview of presentations and reports made to
the Executive Council on various other topics.

Chapter Two of this report sum marizes the pu blic
comment sessions held on April 13 and 14, 2004.

Chapters Three through Eight summarize the
deliberations of each of the NEJAC
subco mm ittees that m et on Ap ril 15, 2004.

2.0 REMARKS

Ms. Eady opened the meeting by welcoming the
members of the Executive Council and
introducing Mr. Barry Hill, Director, EPA OEJ.

The remarks of Mr. Hill and other senior EPA and
Louisiana DEQ personnel are summarized below.

2.1 Remarks of the Director, EPA OEJ

Mr. Hill addressed the Executive Council and
welcomed everyone on behalf of Ms. Phyllis
Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator,

EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA). Mr. Hill read a statement
written by Ms. Harris, explaining that New Orleans
was selected as the NEJAC meeting venue

Exhibit 1-1

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

Members Who Attended the Meeting
On April 13 through 16, 2004

Ms. Veronica Eady, Chair
Ms. Mary Nelson, Vice Chair
Mr. Charles Lee, DFO

Mr. Charles Collette
Ms. Judith Espinosa
Mr. Walter Handy, Jr.

Mr. Robert Harris
Ms.Jodena Henneke*

Mr. Philip Hillman****

Ms. Lori Kaplan*

Ms. Pamela Kingfisher
Mr. Juan Parras
Dr. Graciela Ramirez-Toro
Dr. Andrew Sawyers

Ms. Wilma Subra
Ms. Connie Tucker*

Mr. Kenneth Warren***

Mr. Teriy Williams

Members
Who Were Unable To Attend

Mr. Richard Gragg
Mr. Jason Grumet

* Attended on April 13 and 14,2004, only
** Attended on April 14 and 15, 2004, only
*** Attended on April 15,2004, only
****Attended on April 16,2004, only

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-1

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

because Louisiana and other states in EPA Region 6 face significant issues related to cumulative risks
and impacts. As E PA contin ues to assess hum an health and environ mental im pacts, it was especially
fitting for this NEJAC meeting to focus on cumulative risk. EPAs approach to understanding these
impacts must be broadened to reflect a more holistic approach for assessing the vulnerability of
communities to environmental hazards. EPA needs to fully understand these impacts and is looking to the
NEJAC for advice in this area. The efforts of the members of the NEJAC are invaluable in assisting EPA
to address issues related to environmental justice and to make informed decisions for the protection of
human health and the environment.

Mr. Hill continued that the NEJAC meeting is very important because of its focus on a very difficult
question, a question that is important for the future of EPA and its efforts to ensure environmental
protection and environmental justice for all communities. This meeting gives EPA the opportunity to
benefit from the deliberations of the NEJAC on a complex issue and to proactively develop collaborative
risk analysis and risk management strategies in the context of overall community goals. The NEJAC has
come a long way since its inception and is fulfilling its mission of being an effective advisory committee as
defined by the NEJAC charter and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Mr. Hill joined Ms.

Harris in commending the NEJAC for its diligentwork and for offering policy advice that is critical in the
light of changing policies, culture, and behavior.

Mr. Hill then quoted the EPA Administrator, Mr. Mike Levitt: While it is appropriate for the Federal
Government to establish national environmental hazards, environmental plans that consider localized,
ecological, economic, social, and political factors often enpy more support and involvement and therefore,
can reach national standards more efficiently and effectively . Toward that end, Mr. Hill stressed, the
agency and OEJ understand the importance of traveling throughout the country to make the NEJAC
meetings more accessible to members of the public and to encourage them to provide their comments on
various issues. Mr. Hill pointed out that Ms. Harris believes that environmental justice issues require
many stakeholders to be part of the solution and encouraged all parties to participate in the public
comment sessions at the meeting.

Finally, Mr. Hill stated that Ms. Harris s last comment was very significant. The states for their active
participation in the NEJAC m eeting as highlighted by the presence of representatives of Louisiana DEQ.
This would not have been possible five years ago, Ms. Harris stated, and is a reflection of how far the
NEJAC has come over the years and the respect that it has gained over time.

2.2 Remarks of the Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6

Mr. Larry Starfield, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6, welcomed the members of the NEJAC
to New Orleans. He stated that EPA Region 6 is committed to continuing its efforts to ensure
environmental justice for all communities. He thanked the members of the NEJAC work group and
acknowledged their efforts in preparing the cumulative risk report.

Mr. Starfield also noted the presence of state partners in EPA Region 6 at the meeting: Ms. Karen
Gautreaux, newly appointed Deputy Secretary of Louisiana DEQ, and Ms. Jodena Henneke, Director,
Texas Comm ission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and a member of the NEJAC work group and the
Air and Water Subcommittee of the NEJAC. He stated that this was a significant step toward EPA and
state collaboration in the development of a more cooperative and proactive environmental justice
program. Mr. Starfield added that the current leadership at Louisiana DEQ has a very strong commitment
to environmental protection, to communities, and to partnership and that EPA looks forward to working
with Louisiana DEQ in the coming years.

Mr. Starfield pointed out that EPA Administrator Levitt is committed to two central themes: collaborative
problem-solving and neighborhood solutions. The NEJAC work group, he continued, is taking the agency
in thatvery direction. This direction is important to communities that are subjected to cumulative risks and
impacted by multiple sources, communities where children and adults suffer from illnesses and
disabilities, Mr. Starfield added. These comm unities, he continued, frequently turn to the government,
whether Federal, state, or local, and ask the question What can you do for my children? He stated that
the N EJAC work group has put together a roadmap that could provide an effective answer to this

1-2 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

question. Finally, Mr. Starfield stated that the NEJAC work group advocated an essential message:
identify the m ultiple factors that affect comm unities, find ways to address those factors, try to achieve real-
world results one step at a time on the road to a more comprehensive solution, make use of partnerships,
and bring all stakeholders together for the overall benefit of each community.

2.3 Remarks of the Deputy Secretary, Louisiana DEQ

Ms. Gautreaux welcomed the members of the NEJAC to New Orleans on behalf of Louisiana Governor
Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and Dr. Mike McDaniel, Secretary of Louisiana DEQ. Ms. Gautreaux stated
that the newly appointed officials of Louisiana DEQ are very committed to making Louisiana DEQ an
agency that undertakes its mission in a fair and equitable manner, and they encourage input from all
stakeholders in this process.

Continuing, Ms. Gautreaux stated that Louisiana DEQ recognizes the need to work with individual
communities on a statewide basis in order to ensure environmental justice for all the residents of
Louisiana. She cited some of the efforts currently underway at Louisiana DEQ, including the introduction
of environmental justice panels , renamed community justice panels, that seek to bring together
community members and industry officials in a professionally facilitated, nonadversarial setting. These
voluntary panels, she added, are designed to encourage residents and industry to discuss and resolve
concerns with minimum government intervention. Other ongoing efforts at Louisiana DEQ, she said,
include development and implementation of a standard operating procedure to promote environmental
justice best practices, such as providing improved access to public documents in electronic formats.
Recently, Ms. Gautreaux explained, Louisiana DEQ invited EPA Region 6 to offer environmental justice
training to senior Louisiana DEQ managers and otheremployees. This training, she said, was found to be
beneficial by both the participants and the EPA training staff.

Finally, Ms. Gautreaux stated that Louisiana DEQ s efforts have helped to build trust in communities
previously subjected to environmental injustice. She added that under the leadership of Secretary
McDaniel, Louisiana D EQ is developing a strategic four-year plan for achieving environmental justice in all
communities and welcomes advice from the members of the NEJAC.

3.0 CUMULATIVE RISK AND IMPACT
POLICY DIALOGUE

In its continuing efforts to provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator in areas related to
environm ental justice, the NEJAC focused its twentieth meeting on a specific policy issue: cumulative
risks of exposure to pollutants and related impacts on communities. Cumulative risk is defined as the
aggregate of current or acute risk and long-term exposure. On Tuesday, April 13, and Wednesday, April

14, 2004, the members of the NEJAC participated
in a diabgue about this topic.

This section sum marizes the following items: a
discussion ofthe cumulative risk report, including
key concepts, overarching recommendation
themes, and action items; the testimony provided
by the NEJAC work group; recommendations for
improvement of the cumulative risk report
discussed by the me mbers of the N EJAC work
group and the Executive Council; EPA senior
officials perspectives on cumulative risks and
impacts and their understand ing of the cumulative
risk report and presentations made to the
Executive Council by the community impacts panel.

Exhibit 1-2

NEJAC WORK GROUP

Ms. Sue Briggum, Co-Chair
Ms. Judith Espinosa, Co-Chair

Dr. Tim Fields
Mr. Hector Gonzalez
Ms.Jodena Henneke
Ms. Patricia Hynes
Mr. Shankar Prasad
Ms. Wilma Subra
Ms. Connie Tucker

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-3

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

Mr. Lee introduced the NEJAC work group, whose members are identified in Exhibit 1-2:
3.1 Introduction of the NEJAC Work Group Process

Ms. Judith Espinosa, ATR Institute and member of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the
NEJAC, introduced the NEJAC work group process and said that so far in her career, this was the most
important thing that she had done in the areas of environmental justice and cumulative risk. She stated
that the process had been an extraordinary experience forher, especially because the subjectwas one of
great significance to many communities and EPA. She commended the other members of the NEJAC
work group for sharing their experiences and expertise and for their commitment to providing a good work
product thatwould be meaningful to impacted and environmentally overburdened communities and tribes.

Continuing, Ms. Espinosa said that the process had worked because it embodied the core concept in the
cumulative risk report, which is a comm unity-based problem-solving model for addressing cumulative
risks and impacts. The NEJAC work group, she said, wanted to put into action what communities have
been saying for many years with respect to the multiple impacts and risks that they face on a daily basis.
Ms. Espinosa stated that the NEJAC work group process involved dialogue, argument, and discussion
conducted with civility and respect, with the goal of sharing scientific evidence and facts and developing a
mutual vision. The NEJAC work group understood that this work would go a long way toward addressing
real-life public health and environmental risks and multiple stressors for environmentally overburdened
people of color, low-income communities, and tribes, Ms. Espinosa said.

The product of the dialogue and reasoned argument, Ms. Espinosa continued, was the decision to adopt a
bias for action approach, which is the main theme of the cumulative risk report This approach involves
early identification of and response to cumulative risks and impacts. This approach, she said, emphasizes
that we should not waitfor decades before taking action; instead, we should adopt a unified, place-based
approach that transcends the single-medium, single-program focus of current environmental solutions.
She further stated thatthe cumulative risk report is an affirmation of the picture portrayed fordecades by
environmentally overburdened people of color, bw-income communities, and tribes. This picture, she
said, is firstly one of vulnerability because of the environmental insults and the social and economic
disparities that these communities have endured over the years. Secondly, she said, this picture shows
the loss of social capital resulting from the cumulative risks that these communities have endured and the
multiple stressors inflicted upon them over time.

Additionally, Ms. Espinosa stated that the cumulative risk report is a recognition and validation of the skills
and expertise that communities and tribes have developed over the decades. These skills and expertise,
she further explained, involve perform ing com mun ity need assessments, comm unity-based research, data
collection, and analysis of the risks that they are exposed to on a daily basis and are reflected in the
recommendations of the cumulative risk report and the call for collaborative problem-solving and
community-based participatory Research (CBPR) .

Finally, Ms. Espinosa stated that the NEJAC work group would carefully address all comments and
questions raised during the meeting to further refine the cumulative risk report and bring it to completion.

Ms. Sue Briggum, then continued the introductbn of the NEJAC work group process by describing the
process as an educational experience. To overcome years offrustration in trying to resolve the issue, Ms.
Briggum explained, the work group identified the need for a better model than had been recommended
before, and this gave rise to the bias for action theme and the impetus for an interagency collaborative
model. The work group, she said, benefitted from having members who had worked previously with the
NEJAC who were familiar with the issues being raised, and who consequently became a productive
stakeholder group. Ms. Briggum stated that the work group did not focus on legalisms or what could not
be done. Instead, the work group emphasized recommendations that would resolve cumulative risk and
impact issues in communities and thatwould forge genuine partnerships between business and industry
and community members, with the government acting as a facilitator.

1-4 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

Ms. Connie Tucker, Southeast Community Research Center and member of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, commented that the cumulative risk report and the preceding Framework for
Cumulative Risk Assessment published by EPA in May 2003 are major victories for the environmental
justice movement. She noted that the issue of cumulative risks and impacts was the greatest of concerns
for many environmental justice communities that were angry and frustrated after facing years of exposure
to hazardous chemicals and the resulting diseases. Yet for many years, state regulatory agencies and
EPA were not able to identify either the causes or the effects, she explained. Ms. Tucker further stated
that the communities disagreed with the approach that EPA used with respect to using risk assessment
as a tool to address their concerns. The reason for this disagreement, Ms. Tucker explained, was that
risk assessment tools did not take into consideration that communities were exposed to multiple pollutants
and faced synergistic impacts, which are additive effects of exposure to multiple chemicals in these
communities. These communities, she added, have the right to be angry and the right to a solution. The
cumulative risk report, Ms. Tucker said, provides an avenue to a solutbn and would help the states and
regulatory agencies better understand the issue of synergistic impacts.

Mr. Hector Gonzalez, provided a public health perspective on the issue of cumulative risks and impacts
and the N EJAC work group process. He stated that for 20 years, public health officials have been trying to
resolve the relatbnship between the general health status of a population such as good health care,
proper nourishment, and access to physician versus an absence of health care, malnourishment, and lack
of health insurance and thus access to physicians and its susceptibility to biological and chemical
agents. The same question, he noted, is being asked today, and the cumulative risk report sought to
answer it to some degree. Mr. Gonzalez further indicated that the cumulative risk report is a major
paradigm shift compared to a few years ago in that public health officials and environmental advocates are
involved in a joint effort to study the issue of cumulative risks and impacts in communities and tribes. He
emphasized the importance of local government and community participation in the effort to better
understand the issue of cumulative risks and impacts. He also presented an overview of the matrix that
was used to studythe issue of cumulative risks and impacts, using the border community of Laredo,

Texas, as an example to explain the concepts.

Ms. Henneke commended the professionalism displayed bythe NEJAC work group in the process of
producing the cumulative risk report. She stated that she grew up in Tar Creek, a Superfund site in the
lead and zinc mine area of northeast Oklahoma, and that back then, the health department was
responsible for all environmental cleanups. In response to Mr. Gonzalezs statement, she said that
although it took two decades for public health officials and environmentalists to understand that they would
need to work together in orderto achieve a common goal, they are now beginning to cooperate in areas
such as cumulative risks and impacts.

3.2 Overview of the Cum ulative Risk Report

Ms. Wilma Subra, Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) and mem ber of the NEJAC work
group and the Air and Water Subcommittee of the NEJAC, presented an overview of the cumulative risk
report. She quoted a statement first voiced by a civil rights activist, Ms. Fanny Lou Haimer: I am sick and
tired of being sick and tired. This sentiment is repeatedly voiced at every NEJAC meeting, Ms. Subra
said, and reflects a cry for help and a plea for assistance from environmentally overburdened people of
color, bw-income communities, and tribes. These communities, she added, are angry, frustrated, and
bewildered with state, Federal, and local officials as well as public health offbials for being unresponsive
and failing to alleviate their situations. Concurring with Mr. Gonzalezs remarks, Ms. Subra said that
exposures to physical, chemical, biological, social, and cultural factors result in a community being more
susceptible to environmental toxins, because of compromised abilities to cope with and recover from such
exposures. She further pointed out that there is a rising demand from such communities that government,
business, industry, and the publb health sector take notbe of these issues and initiate effective and
immediate action to improve conditions in the communities.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-5

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

In response to the community demand, Ms. Subra continued, EPA and OEJ asked the NEJAC to address
the following question: In order to ensure environmental justice for all communities and tribes, what short-
term and what long-term actions should the EPA take to pro actively implement the concepts contained in
the Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment?

Ms. Subra further explained that the cum ulative risk report provides amechanismto (1) systematically
focus on m ultiple exposures, risks, impacts, and stressors and on environmental, health, social,
economic, and cultural factors; (2) set priorities foraction; and (3) institutionalize a bias for action so that
action ca n be taken imm ediately and not after m any years.

Using the cumulative risks and impacts faced by communities along the 2,000-square-mile Mississippi
River industrial corridoras an example, Ms. Subra explained the matrices that were developed to study
the multifaceted, interconnected, and complex issues in such communities. These matrices, she added,
illustrate the range of cumulative impacts and the factors thatdecrease the ability of communities to cope
with or recover from environmental exposures. She listed the various pollution sources, ranging from
petrochemical industries to agricultural operations, that expose the communities to toxic chemicals
through pathways such as air, drinking water, food crops, and seafood. Lack of access to health care
and social and cultural disparities further compound these problems, she said. Thus, Ms. Subra
explained, cum ulative risks and impacts are acollection of individual stressors that occur simultaneously
and in co mbin ation in com mun ities.

The starting point for assessing and responding to cumulative risks and impacts is the identification of
multiple stressors, Ms. Subra stated. Furthermore, she continued, to be sensitive to community concerns,
common conceptual frameworks and definitions need to be developed that deal specifically with
cumulative risks and impacts and that can be agreed to by all stakeholders. This framework, Ms. Subra
said, should be coherent, consistent, and transparent. She indicated that impacted communities consider
the cumulative stressors to include multiple stressors that occur concurrently and geographically. Hence,
she said, the concept of m ultiple stressors must address m ultiple media to attain a comprehensive
approach, and this is the starting point for a bias for action.

Ms. Su bra then provided a brief outline of the evolution of the concept of cum ulative risks within EPA.

Past risk assessments, she said, were designed to address the sources of pollution using technology-
based regulations or an individual chemical-by-chemical approach. Continuing her outline, Ms. Subra
stated that the 1970s saw the beginning of risk assessment with an emphasis on oral routes of exposure,
the 1980s saw the development of remedial action guidelines and databases, and in the 1990s, the focus
shifted to innovative approaches, mechanisms of action, and for the first time, ecological assessments. In
May 2003, she said, EPA published the Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment to address
environmentally disadvantaged and underserved communities and tribes. Describing the framework
further, Ms. Subra stated that it took a broad view of risk; called for population- and place-based analyses
involving multiple stressors, both chemical and nonchemical; dealt with vulnerability based on biological as
well as social factors; and involved impacted communities as well as other stakeholders. It also
emphasized planning, scoping, and problem formulation, she continued, and linked risk assessment to
risk management in the context of community health goals.

Ms. Subra then described the NEJAC s response to the EPA charge outlined in the cumulative risk report.
The main recommendation, said Ms. Subra, is to adopt a community-based, collaborative, problem-
solving model in order to address cumulative risk and impacts. She indicated that this model would
address multiple stressors in impacted communities, create transparent processes that instill confidence
and trust and generate social capital in the communities, institutionalize the bias for action, develop a
coherent and consistent framework, address the issue of vulnerability, use screening, describe
prioritization methods and tools to bring about significant risk reductbn on the part of the communities,
and encourage regulatory authorities to bring responsible parties to the table.

1-6 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

Furthermore, Ms. Subra noted, the model builds on the recommendations presented in the 2003 NEJAC
report title Advancing Environmental Justte Through Pollution Prevention and consists of the folbwing
seven eleme nts: (1) issu e identification; (2) com mun ity vision and stra tegic goa I setting; (3) co mm unity
capacity-building; (4) consensus-building and dispute resolution; (5) multi-stakeholder partnerships,
including supportive and facilitating roles forthe government; (6) sound management and implementation;
and (7) evaluations, lessons learned, and replication of best practices.

Use of the community-based, collaborative, problem-solving model, she concluded, with all stakeholders
contributing to the community-wide effort to reduce cumulative risks, will result in healthier and less
impacted environmental justice communities throughoutthe United States.

Ms. Eady then invited the NEJAC members to presenttheir questions and comments on Ms. Subras
presentation and the cumulative risk report.

3.3 Discuss ion of the Cum ulative Ris k Report and Recommendations for Its Improvement

In response to Ms. Subra s presentatbn, Ms. Tucker pointed out thatthe community-based, collaborative,
problem-solving model that had been displayed during the presentatbn lacked CBPR, a critical element
that needed to be inserted between Community-Based Issue Identification and Consensus Building and
Dispute Resolution. CBPR, Ms. Tucker added, provides the opportunity to have the community meet
internally and then with other stakeholders, particularly those in the community, to learn about equitable
partnerships. Ms. Subra responded that the change would be made to the model.

Dr. Andrew Sawyers, Maryland Department of the Environment and acting chair of the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC, complimented the NEJAC work group on the contents of the
cumulative risk report. He pointed out that the work group would need to develop a practical framework
for implementing the recommendations in the report in order to effectively achieve its goal. He also
commended the work group for addressing fundamental concepts such as vulnerability, loss of social
capital, and bias for action. He suggested that the term bias for action be clarified.

Ms. Briggum responded to Dr. Sawyers s request for clarification, stating that bias for action stresses a
proactive approach to solving problems using currently available tools to quickly address the situation in
impacted com munities rather than waiting for research to reveal a better solution. Dr. Tim Fields, Tetra
Tech EM Inc., concurred with Ms. Briggum, stating that the approach emphasized early intervention based
on the limited information available and avoiding the delay involved in trying to get the latest and best
information before making a decisbn. This approach, he said, is critbal for communities impacted by
cumulative risks and impacts.

Ms. Espinosa noted that bias for action is a validation of the CBPR that communities have been carrying
out for many years. CBPR involves communities performing their own research, risk assessments, and
data collection; identifying multiple stressors; and assessing their vuInerability to these multiple stressors.

Ms. Patricia Hynes noted that this discussion had raised a significant issue, which is the importance of
taking actbn with imperfect knowledge. Communities, she stated, are very conscious of what needs to be
done to im prove their situation and of what actions need to be taken to improve their living conditions.
She then described a project that she had been involved in, the Healthy Publb Housing Initiative, which
was funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Development (HUD) and EPA in Boston,
Massachusetts. This project, Ms. Hynes stated, had studbd the impacts of household insects and
rodents and resulting allergens on the health of asthmatic children. She noted that public meetings
indicated that the research with which communities most identified was that which they conducted
themselves. The meetings also served as indbators, she said, of whetherthe research carried out by
scientists and EPA corresponded with the needs of the communities. Another important lesson learned
from the project, Ms. Hynes continued, was the need for concrete action items at the conclusion of a
project rather than simply expressing the need for more research. For the HUD and EPA project, she

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-7

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

said, com munity health advocates learned about integrated pest management (IPM) and how to
effectively apply its principles in the arena of public housing. She stated that the action item at the end of
the project was to arrange for Federal job training for a cohort of residents who wished to become IPM
assistants and then to create jobs, both in the private sector and the public housing authority, for the
residents to work in IPM. That, Ms. Hynes noted, is a good example of bias for action.

Dr. Sawyers supported Ms. Hynes s statement about the need for bias for action, but he emphasized the
importance of having a robust implementation plan, especially in situations that involve multiple agencies
such as Federal, state, and local agencies.

Mr. Terry Williams, Tulalip Tribes and acting chair of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee of the
NEJAC, commended the NEJAC work group for its approach to the issue of cumulative risks and impacts.

From a tribal perspective, he suggested adding some clarifications to the cumulative risk report, including
clarification of the government-to-government interaction process between tribes and local and state
governments, tribal jurisdiction in terms of roles and responsibilities to protect the health and welfare of
tribal members, and tribal jurisdiction on off-preservation lands where tribes would have access to
environmental resources such as waterand fishing resources. Furthermore, Mr. Williams requested
clarification of the joint decision-ma king process and the role of tribes as cooperating agencies in
addressing issues of cumulative risks and impacts. Another issue of great importance to tribes involves
the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to on- and off-reservation lands and the loss of resources, he
stated.

To clarify his point, Mr. Williams stated the example of the Tulalip T ribes, a Federally recognized tribe in
Washington, and the watersheds that they use on a regular basis. These watersheds, he said, are now
very different from the original watersheds, and about 75 percent of the ecosystem functions have been
altered or lost as a result of natural processes causing landscape changes or industrial development. The
loss, Mr. Williams pointed out, manifests itself in a manner similar to the impacts of pollutants on tribes,
leading to loss of traditional foods and medicines and increases in the rates of diabetes, cancer, and heart
disease. Even when available, the resources are often polluted and cause similar impacts, he added.
Hence, he noted, tribal jurisdiction or any other type of input into management of these resources would
be of gre at value to triba I comm unities.

Dr. Graciela Ramirez-Toro, Inter-American University of Puerto Rico and chair ofthe Puerto Rico
Subcommittee, indicated that she found the cumulative risk report very useful and suggested that EPA
look at the issue of capac ity developm ent, which is the underlying th read of a II the issues related to
cumulative risks and impacts. It is very important, she noted, that there be a consensus within the agency
about what constitutes capacity development. She suggested recommending that EPA evaluate
capacity development carefully both within the agency and in communities.

Ms. Mary Nelson, Bethel New Life Inc., vice-chair of the Executive Council, and member of the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcom mittee of the NEJAC, said thatshe hoped that the cum ulative risk report wou Id
produce substantive results. She suggested that the NEJAC work group also confront issues such as
making funds for CBPR as easily accessible to community groups as they are to academic institutions.
Secondly, she suggested recommending the process discussed in the cumulative risk reportas a
framework for EPA and other regulatory agencies for other issues, not just the issue of cumulative risks
and impacts. She also suggested that EPA adopt the theme of bias for action as a way to achieve quick
results.

Ms. Pamela Kingfisher, Shining Waters and vice-chairof the Health and Research Subcommittee of the
NEJAC, expressed her satisfaction that the NEJAC work group had considered tribal issues in its
discussions of cumulative risks and impacts. In doing so, she noted, the work group had opened a

Pandora s box, and she hoped that this step would go a long way in bringing tribal issues to the forefront.
Also, she said, it was important to understand that the contamination issues that tribes face usually are not

1-8 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

their issues to begin with. The solution to these issues, Ms. Kingfisher noted, was greater corporate
accountability for contamination problem s and releases of hazardous chemicals into the environment.

In response to Ms. Kingfisher, Ms. Briggum clarified that the underlying presumption in the cumulative risk
report is that to operate in a community, one must be a responsible citizen. Ms. Briggum explained that as
part of this presumption, the business sector is expected to go beyond compliance and understand the
responsibilities of ope rating in the community. To achieve this goal, enforcement actions would have to
be conducted, and the business sectorwould have to be challenged to contribute more effectively to the
community, Ms. Briggum said.

Mr. Gonzalez provided a brief overview of the matrix that was used to study the issue of cumulative risks
and impacts. He used the border community of Laredo, Texas, as an example to explain the concepts.
He described the border community in Laredo as a mix of metropolitan and rural communities, including
underdeveloped and unincorporated subdivisions known as colonias. He noted that the population of
Laredo is about 200,000 but that environmental issues across the border in Mexico also need to be
considered, making the total affected population in this area about 1 million. He further stated that the
community has a mostly Mexican-American population with an average age of 27 years.

Mr. Gonzalez then listed the following multiple stressors affecting the Laredo community: (1) sources of
contamination such as warehouses; (2) lack of health care for 65 percent of the populatbn, mostly women
and children who are uninsured or underinsured; (3) hampered access to the few existing health care
facilities because of a railroad divid ing the com munity; (4) contamination of the only source of potable
drinking water (Rio Grande River) by both Laredo, Mexico, and Laredo, Texas. In additbn, Mr Gonzalez
noted, the lack of affordable housing in Laredo causes families to seek substandard housing in the
colonias, where about 90 percent of homes lack sewer service or running water.

Finally, Mr. Gonzalez stated that the community is looking for answers to many questions, such as the
relationship between diseases such as diabetes and cancer and environmental pollution. He said that
local, state, Federal, and international agencies, would have to work together to provide the answers to
the community.

In response to Mr. Gonzalezs descriptbn of the Laredo matrix, Mr. Lee noted that use of matrices is one
of 11 methods for analysis of cumulative environmental effects described in a 19 97 White House Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) report titled Considering Cumulative Effects Under the Natbnal
Environmental Policy Act. The CEQ report, he added, recommends use of matrices to determine the
cumulative effects on resources, ecosystems, and human communities by combining individual effects
resulting from different actions.

3.4 EPA Senior Officials Perspectives on Cumu lative Risks and Impacts an d Their
Understanding of the Cumulative Risk Report

Mr. Lee called on senior EPA officials to provide their perspectives on issues related to cumulative risks
and impacts and the cumulative risk report.

Mr. William Farland, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, EPA Office of Research and
Development (ORD), said that he greatly valued the process of peer participation and review in the
preparation of the cumulative risk report. He spoke about the unique role of research and development
(R&D) at EPA, especially at ORD, which conducts research in advanced science in addition to focusing on
problem-driven or problem-related science issues. It is this kind of work, he said, that is particularly
important for environmental justice communities. He gave a num ber of examples to illustrate his point.
He described a study of the health effects of particulate matter (PM) in ar, such as soot, smog, and other
particles; available research indicates that PM has disproportionate effects on children and the elderly. He
said that in that particular study, ORD is focusing its research on sensitive groups such as nursing home
residents and school children who might be particularly susceptible to PM.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-9

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

On the public health front, Mr. Farland noted, ORD has been working with the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) since 1996, state and local health departments, and international groups like the
Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) to address environmental health concerns and other
community issues. He described some measures developed by ORD, including indicators to better reflect
health impacts in border communities. Mr. Farland also stated that ORD would be starting a new natbnal
children s study. The study is to be a long-term, interagency examinatbn of influences on children s
health that will involve 100,000 children overthe next 20 years.

Mr. Farland then touched briefly on the impact of environmental regulations on R&D. He stated that
starting with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the 1960s, environmental regulation has
challenged science to do better. Some examples that he noted were the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) amendments, and the Food Quality Protection Acts, which challenged scientists at EPA to look at
cumulative risks, impacts, and multiple exposure pathways. Mr. Farland stated that cumulative risk tools
have only recently been developed by EPA and cited the publication of the Framework for Cumulative Risk
Assessment in May 2003. He also stated that the ability of ORD to develop tools such as the Integrated
Exposure Model for Lead to predict lead impacts in communities is important in the study of issues such
as cumulative risks and impacts. Mr. Farland also highlighted the science inventory, an agency-wide,
searchable database of over 4,000 scientific and technical work products that he described as the
agency s mechanism to communicate its science activities. He also noted that environmental justice has
been incorporated into the science inventory as a common search term.

Mr. Farland then announced upcoming workshops such as the workshop on the Science of environmental
justice to be held in Boston, Massachusetts, in May 20 04. This workshop would be conducted by ORD in
conjunction with the Boston University School of Public Health and would focus on areas such as air
toxics, asthma and children s environmental health, land-based risks, and water quality. In addition, he
announced a science forum meeting to be held in May 2004 in Washington, DC, that would focus on
science issues within the agency, such as issues involving healthy communities and ecosystems. He
stressed that ORD s focus is on pursuing scientific innovation to protect human health and the
environment, delivering science-based information to decision-makers, and using science to make a
difference.

Finally, Mr. Farland mentioned some promising research areas and new tools such as toxicogenomics,
which can be used to improve the ability to assess individuals, their susceptibilities, and the impacts of
multiple exposures. He stated that these tools would be even more effective when coupled with CBPR.

Mr. Larry Weinstock, Senior Advisor and Program Innovation Coordinator, EPA Office of Air and Radiation
(OAR) described his involvement in an agency-wide effort to develop a new initiative called Community
Action for Renewed Environment, or CARE. He defined CARE as a community-based, multimedia toxics
reduction grant initiative that allows quick assessment of risk reductbn in a community using existing
tools, brings together stakeholders, and prbritizes voluntary programs to meet the specific needs of the
community. Mr. Weinstock said that EPA hoped that CARE would bring communities together and
provide them with additional resources, tools, and information to improve their environm ents. An exam pie
of such success, he said, was O EJ s grant to a community organization in Charleston, South Carolina.
The grant of about $ 100,000.00 was ultimately used to leverage $5 m illion in additional resources. This
kind of empowerment will allow communities to build capacity for their own environmental stewardship,
Mr. Weinstock noted.

Mr. Weinstock expressed a need for cooperation between various offices and programs of EPA. He said
that although the Toxin Report released by the EPA Office of Management and Budget (OMB) indicates
that the health benefits of the Clean Air Act (CAA) outweigh those of all other EPA programs such as the
Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA), this should not hamper
cooperation within the agency. He further stressed that EPA needs to bring down barriers within the
agency in order to focus on the environment as a whole, go beyond pilot efforts, and focus on building

1-10 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

overall environmental stewardship in communities. He stated that overburdened communities continue to
need help and that EPA should work to address the issues at the national level.

Ms. Eady then requested that Mr. Weinstock list at least one CARE comm unity in each EPA region for the
benefit ofthe NEJAC members.

Mr. Weinstock responded with the following list of 2004 CARE comm unities in the 1 0 EPA regions:

Region 1 - the Mystic River watershed near Boston, Massachusetts; Region 2 - Rochester, New York;
Region 3 - Elizabeth River, Virginia; Region 4 - Louisville, Kentucky; Region 5 - Detroit, Michigan; Regbn
6 - Albuquerque, New Mexico; Region 7 - St. Louis, Missouri; Region 8 - northeast Denver, Colorado;
Region 9 - West Oakland, California; and Region 10 - the Yakima Valley.

Mr. Starfield described some of the challenges faced in implementing cleanup efforts in communities. He
provided an example of a com mun ity in El Paso, Texas, that had lead-contaminated soil. Comm unity
members resisted cleanup efforts because they believed that the contamination was not a major issue
and were more concerned that the cleanup efforts would negatively impact real estate prices in the area.
This issue, Mr. Starfield noted, was solved by involving the community in a meaningful manner by
conducting free workshops in which the community, the city, the state, and EPA participated. The
workshops were conducted on various subjects such as cleanup levels, new technologies, and liability and
property resale issues that were of concern to the com mun ity, he said. Another challenge to
implementation of cleanup efforts, Mr. Starfield noted, was the issue of litigation involving communities
that resist cleanups. He noted that EPA would need to partner with state and local governments to
effectively im plem ent its enviro nme ntal justice a genda.

Mr. Starfield raised another important issue, which was the forging of cross-cultural understanding
between EPA and the tribes. He stated that the environmental justice Tribal Office is working with EPA
Headquarters to put together an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure to be used with tribal
nations; the procedure would take cultures and customs into consideratbn. He provided the example of
New Mexico, which is conducting a series of regional listening sessions devoted solely to tribal issues.

Mr. Starfield commended the NEJAC work group for putting forth the bias for action theme. He stated
that this them e encouraged all parties involved to continue the process of cleanup and development with
available resources and information rather than be discouraged by scarcity of resources and the need to
prioritize cleanups in communities because of lack of adequate funds. The key to making this happen, he
said, is forging partnerships between agencies, communities, industries, and businesses. Also, he said,
the recommendation in the cumulative risk report that EPA should target vulnerable communities was
important because it would help direct the resources to communities that really need them.

Finally, Mr. Starfield indicated that EPA would appreciate specific recommendations from the NEJAC in
addressing two questions: (1) How can industry be included in the environmental justice process? and (2)
How can EPA build trust in communities and encourage them to participate in the process?

Mr. William Sanders, Acting Director, EPA Office of Children s Health Protection, previously with the EPA
Office of Pesticides and Pollution Prevention, highlighted an important public health study on children, the
National Childrens Study. This 20-year prospective study, he noted, is a longitudinal cohort study on
environmental effects on children s health and development and will folbw 100,000 pairs of mothers and
children from conception to age 21. He encouraged the NEJAC to provide comments and guidance at
this early stage of the study so that it can be improved to provide valuable information on children s health.

Commenting on the cumulative risk report itself, Mr. Sanders congratulated the NEJAC work group for
providing recommendations and guidance on the subject of cumulative risks and impacts, which EPA has
been struggling with since the inception ofthe environmental justice movement. He also noted that the
cumulative risk report shifts the focus of the way that the agency measures performance.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-11

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

Quoting the old adage what gets measured gets done, Mr. Sanders said that fora long time all EPA
programs that worked to im prove comm unity health assumed that their individual efforts would combine to
benefit comm unities. However, he said, E PA soon realized that this fragmented approach failed to benefit
the communities in the long run. Instead, he stated, EPA would make progress toward achieving its goal if
it made community health in its entirety a priority. He suggested formulating a more integrated approach
to measuring risk reduction. Addressing individual media such as air, water, and soil produces a
fragmented picture and fails, to reduce health disparities within communities. Mr. Sanders stated that
EPA would need to build on existing efforts instead of starting from scratch and to recognize the need for
an integrated approach. To illustrate this point, Mr. Sanders provided the example of the Environmental
Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Grant Program in the Office of Children s Health Protection, which
would address multimedia concerns with respect to children s health issues.

Mr. Sanders noted that the issues of multimedia concerns and working across programs in EPA could be
addressed using an approach thathas been adopted by some EPA regions overthe last decade. He
pointed out some regional efforts that exemplify this approach, including Region 1's urban initiative, the
Chelsea Creek Comparative Risk Study; Region 7'sworkin St. Louis, Missouri; and Region 9's work in
south Phoenix, Arizona, and west Oakland, California. The key, he said, would be to build on these
initiatives and then move them up to the level of agency-wide policy and practice.

Recognizing that EPA alone would not be able to implement all these initiatives, including some of the
recommendations in the cumulative risk report, Mr. Sanders stressed the need for (1) pilot projects to
build the experience needed for the initiatives and (2) partnerships within all levels of government as well
as with communities, which would encourage the collaborative problem-solving efforts recommended in
the cum ulative risk re port.

Finally, Mr. Sanders stated that the cumulative risk report pulls together a host of important ideas and
builds significantly on efforts to address environmental health overthe past several years. The report, he
said, has the potential to move the discussion forward and to catalyze the changes that will be needed to
make progress. He asked the NEJAC for advice on how to effectively communicate the findings and
recom mendations of the report to a broad er audience.

Mr. Thomas Voltaggio, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3, described a cumulative risk study
conducted in 1993 and 1994 in Chester, Pennsylvania. He noted that this was one of the first cumulative
risk studies of an area where the major issue was the exposure of young children to lead. He noted that
Mr. Reginald Harris, EPA Region 3, was the chief scientist for the project. Also, he said, lessons learned
from this project expand our knowledge of cumulative risks and impacts. He then proceeded to briefly
describe the study and some of the important findings.

The study, Mr. Voltaggio said, focused on finding the most important risk factors that affect children, and
in the process EPA studied exposures via air, water, and waste. He stated that this study revealed that
the most significant risk was ingestion of lead-based paint by children of ages six and under. He further
stated that factors such as poverty played a role in the exposures because low-income, urban families
lived in older housing with lead-based paint. On the other hand, low-income, rural families were exposed
to lead emissions in air.

Another important finding of the study, Mr. Voltaggio noted, was that emissions and effluents that were
affecting the health of the population were in fact in compliance with Federal regulations. This was in part
due to environmental regulations devebped in the 1980s and early 1990s that did not considerthe issues
of environmental justice and vulnerable populations, he stated. Enforcement was not the solution in this
situatbn, Mr. Voltaggio said; instead, voluntary reductbns on the part of industry and business would be
needed. He emphasized the importance of a robust, voluntary reduction program as a m ajor tool in
achieving environmental justice. He concluded that a voluntary reduction program would be a significant
tool for reducing risks resulting from industrial emissions and effluents.

1-12 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

Mr. Voltaggio stated that the Chesterstudy also brought to light nuisance issues , such as noise pollution,
dust blown from dirt piles on windy days, and idling trucks carrying hazardous materials. He stated that
although these issues contribute to health problems in several comm unities, they are not regulated by law.
He recommended that the cumulative risk report include suggestions on how these nuisance issues may
be addressed, whether under a regulatory scheme or through voluntary efforts.

Finally, Mr. Voltaggio praised the cumulative risk report and noted that the recommended process
included the components needed to resolve or minimize environmental impacts on environmental justice
communities. He hoped that the report would benefit from the lessons learned in the Chester study.

Ms. Tucker introduced Ms. Harris to the NEJAC. Ms. Tucker stated that although she had only a distant
working relationship with Ms. Harris, she had closely followed Ms. Harris s work in EPA Region 4 before
she worked for OECA. Ms. Tucker stated that Ms. Harris was not guided by politics or special interests
and credited Ms. Harris for bringing to light the extensive contamination in Anniston, Alabama. She
applauded Ms. Harris s work in EPA Region 4 and thanked her for participating in the NEJAC meeting.

Ms. Harris thanked Ms. Tucker for the introduction and noted that many offices at EPAwere involved in
the environmental justice process, which indicates maturation of the process. She highlighted the work of
OECA, especially that involving major settlements with utilities and refineries regarding releases of PM
such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides. Noting her many personal experiences with disadvantaged
communities in EPA Region 4, Ms. Harris stated that the situations faced by such communities are very
real. She noted some significant hot spots such as Fort Valley and Norfolk, Virginia; Louisville,
Kentucky; Memphis, Tennessee; and Anniston, Alabama. She stated that OECA is in the process of
drafting im portant principles that will continue to add ress the issues of environmental justice. Ms. Harris
also emphasized the need for smart enforcement that focused on compliance by industries and large
businesses rather than by small businesses and individuals. She further noted that integrating
enforcement with compliance assistance and injunctive relief forcomplying parties would encourage
industries and businesses to comply with environmental regulations.

Ms. Harris also stressed the importance of assessing and reviewing the effectiveness of each program
within EPA. She stated that in addition to the EPA Office of the Inspector Generals (OIG) review of the
effectiveness of programs across the agency, it is important for each program to conduct an assessment
of its own effectiveness. M s. Harris also noted the importance of comm unicating environm ental, public
health, and compliance outcomes. She noted that in 2003 alone enforcement actions resulted in the
reduction of over 600 million pounds of pollutants; these included significant actions involving utilities and
refineries, and 67 percent of the actbns resulted in a specific environmental or public health benefit. Over
the next several years, she said, OECA would strive to increase this percentage by embarking on a new
set of priorities for the Enforcement Compliance Assurance Program that would be consistent with the
priorities of all the program offices within EPA. She noted that new initiatives would ensure the integration
of environ men tal justice into the process of setting priorities.

With respect to measuring the effectiveness of the new initiatives, Ms. Harris stated that OECA convened
a work group and consulted with the NEJAC Enforcement Subcommittee to devebp an environmental
justice Concept Paper. Ms. Harris explained that this concept paper would identify a consistent set of
parameters for m easuring the work being don e in environmental justice comm unities and would support
development of tools for identifying disproportionate impacts in communities.

Finally, Ms. Harris stated that OECA realizes that environmental justice problems and particularly those
related to cumulative risks and impacts cannot be solved by EPA alone. A collaborative process would be
required, with all stakeholders participating constructively in formulating solutions, she said. She asked
the NEJAC to provide advice and recom mendations on how EPA can move forward with regard to
cumulative risks and impacts.

3.5 Presentations of the Community Impacts Panel

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-13

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

On Tuesday, April 13, 2004, the members of the NEJAC received a series of presentations from a panel
composed of representatives of various community groups. The panel was introduced and chaired by Ms.
Subra and represented a wide range of racial and ethnic groups, including African-Americans, Native
Americans, Hispanics, and Vietnamese (who could not participate). The presentations were designed to
provide insight into relationship of environmental justice and cumulative risks and impacts in communities
that face multiple stressors such as exposure to hazardous chem icals, racial discrimination, lack of health
care, and poverty. Ms. Subra explained that the 2003 CDC report on health disparities referred to these
minority groups in terms of their higher susceptibility to poor health and prematu re death as com pared to
other communities. These minority communities, she said, ranged from urban to sparsely populated and
rural.

The panel consisted of the following individuals:

Ms. Helen Vinton, Southern Mutual Help Association

Ms. Clementine Matthews, Four Corners Mutual Help Associatbn

Ms. Marylee Orr, LEAN

Ms. Rebecca Jim, Tar Creek, Local Environmental Action Demanded (LEAD) Agency Inc.
Mr. Genaro Lopez, Southwest Workers Union, Kelly Air Force Base (AFB)

Ms. Vinton described the work carried out by the Southern Mutual Help Association, explaining that its
mission is to find fair and innovative solutions for rural communities facing challenges such as
environmental contamination, economic disparity, health problems, inadequate housing, unemployment,
illiteracy, and discrimination. The Southern Mutual Help Associatbn, she stated, recently received an
award for its work from the Nation al Com mun ity Reinvestm ent Coa lition.

Ms. Vinton described the multiple, cumulative, environmental risks and impacts faced by the Vietnamese
fishery communities, which consist of more than 2,500 families scattered along the coast of Louisiana.
She explained that members of these communities rarely make appearances in public because of their
fear of discrimination. Free trade policies have resulted in a catch-22 situation for these communities,
she continued, because they are torn between loyalty to the American fishing industry and supporting
economic progress in their native Vietnam, where the Vietnamese fishing industry profits from exporting
large quantities offish to the United States.

Ms. Vinton noted that most members of the Vietnamese comm unities are legal permanent residents of the
United States, and that some are American citizens. She explained that they are in urgent need of
technical assistance that would help them attain citizenship rights in the United States and thus integrate
them into the mainstream of society.

Ms. Vinton described some of the multiple stressors in the predominantly non-English speaking
Vietnamese communities, which include exposure to hazardous commercial chemicals imported from
across the United States and other countries, the presence of a large number of hazardous waste dump
sites in residential areas, contamination of surface and drinking water sources, improper sewage disposal
and sanitary infrastructure, poverty, lack of nutrition and access to health care, and discrimination by
seafood processors. These communities, she noted, were in immediate need of environmental justice.

Finally, Ms. Vinton expressed appreciation that the NEJAC would be discussing the important issue of
cumulative risks and multiple impacts.

Ms. Matthews described a poor, predominantly African-Am erican com munity in Four Corners, St. Mary s
Parish, Louisiana. She noted that the pollution sources in this farming community include carbon black
manufacturing facilities and sugar mills (three carbon black plants and four sugar mills within a 15-mile
radius); strategic petroleum reserves; applications of pesticides; herbicides, and fertilizers to sugarcane
crops; and burning of sugar cane adjacent to homes. She added that substandard housing with lead

1-14 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

pipes and inadequate sewer systems, lack of health care, and poverty further compound the cum ulative
risks and impacts faced by this com munity.

Ms. Matthews also described the actions taken to address the issues in Four Corners, which include a
Self Help Housing Initiative to improve the quality of housing in the comm unity, health fairs to bring health
awareness into the community, environmental workshops, leadership development workshops,
scholarship programs, and increased community involvement. Leadership training, she said, allowed
community members to serve on the water and sewer board and the school board.

Finally, Ms. Matthews noted that the actions taken have resulted in less burning of the sugar cane crops,
an imp roved water system , and bette r housing in the com mun ity.

Ms. Orr commended the NEJAC work group for the findings in the cumulative risk report and thanked the
group for putting into words what we experience everyday, for what you wrote, we live. She also
congratulated the work group for stressing bias for action and for incorporating the community into the
decision-making process and into the solution.

She described the multiple, aggregate, and cumulative risks and impacts along the Mississippi River
industrial corridor. She stated that the community in this region included a significant African-American
majority (63 percent) with Caucasian (30 percent) and Asian (3 percent) minorities. She described some
of the pollution sources along the Mississippi River industrial corridor, which included petrochemical
facilities; refineries; wastewater treatment facilities not meeting permit limits; agricultural field runoff
containing pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers; and the burning of sugar cane during the fall harvest
season, which generated air particulates. Ms. Orr further stated that although generations had lived off
the land, they had benefitted little from the industrial development in the area. Lack of social capital, she
said, is the major cause for concern in this area, whose residents have minimal educatbn and poor
community infrastructure.

Continuing, Ms. Orr noted that an important issue thatthe NEJAC work group had only briefly touched on
was that of worker exposure. This is an important issue in the Mississippi River industrial corridor
because m ost mem bers of the com munity are employed in industries, she said. She also called for a
commitment on the part of industry management to ensure the safety of employees. She added that
Louisian a has 1 9 new fis h adviso ries, indicating the quality of the water bo dies.

Finally, Ms. Orr quoted women in Bh opal, India, a comm unity that faced acute exposure to a deadly,
poisonous gas from a Union Carbide chem ical plant in the mid-1980s and that continues to suffer from ill
effects even today. Ms. Orr said that she derived inspiratbn and encouragement from their determined
fight for justice and their thoughts: We are not expendable. We are not flowers to be offered at the altar
of profit and power. We are dancing flames comm itted to conquering darkness. We are challenging
those who threaten the survival of the planet and the magic and mystery of life. Through our struggle,
through our refusal to be victims, we have become survivors, on our way to becom ing victors.

Ms. Jim described the Tar Creek Superfund site, where five generations have been subjected to the ill
effects of lead poisoning. This 40-square-m ile site in northeast Oklahoma is part of the historic Tri-State
Mining District consisting of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. The site, she explained, contained five
mining towns, and their drinking water sources were contaminated by acid mine drainage containing
heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and arsenic. Other sources of contamination at the site, she noted,
include benzene releases from chemical plants and agricultural runoff containing pesticides, herbicides,
and fertilizers.

The site, Ms. Jim stated, was initially ignored by Federal agencies, such as EPA even though com munity
members from Love Canal, New York, had brought media attentbn to Tar Creek. A student who made
Tar Creek the subject of his master s thesis found that 32 percent of the ch ildren in the comm unity

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-15

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

suffered from lead poisoning. This students work succeeded in bringing the community into EPAs focus,
she said.

Ms. Jim noted that although sites in Kansas and Missouri have achieved significant cleanup and
rehabilitatbn, the main pollution sources in Tar Creek, piles of mine waste, as high as 150 feet, continue
to exist on roadsides where children play and teenagers ride their four-wheelers and party at night. It is
the only Superfund site in the nation I challenge you that you can still play on, Ms. Jim said. Acid mine
drainage from these waste piles continues to pollute the surface and drinking water sources in the
community with heavy metals, she continued.

Ms. Jim described the poor Native Americans and other minority groups in the area, who are
predominantly subsistence fishermen and hunters who depend heavily on the land. She further noted that
lack of adequate health care, lack of testing of populatbns to determine the extent of human
contamination, and inadequate evaluatbn of contamination in environmental media compound the
cumulative risks and impacts in the com munity.

Ms. Jim described recentenvironmental justice efforts in the area, which include working with tribal and
nontribal comm unities with the help of a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG). TAGs are initially worth u p to
$50,000 and are available to qualified community groups so that they can hire independent technical
advisors to interpret and help the community understand technical information about the site. The
com mu nity is also partnering with Harvard U niversity researches for a birth cohort study, which is
examining the lead and manganese levels in newborns in the area, and with the Natbnal Institutes of
Health (N IH) to study health trends in the area and establish a Children s Health Center.

Finally, Ms. Jim stated that much more remains to be done at Tar Creek and EPA cannot do it alone. This
effort, she emphasized, would require interagency collaboration.

Mr. Lopez stated that Kelly AFB has been in San Antonio since 1918. It is one of the oldest AFBs in the
nation and one provided most of the logistical and aircraft maintenance support for the U.S. Air Force. In
addition to Kelly AFB, San Antonb is home to eightother military installations, all ofwhich contribute to the
pollution problems in the surrounding communities, he added. Mr. Lopez stated thatunder the 1995 Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decision, Kelly AFB was officially closed and is now called Kelly USA.
Companies such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and General Electrb continue to provide logistical and
aircraft maintenance support to the Air Force, continuing the impacts on neighboring communities.

The communities surrounding Kelly AFB have various groundwater contaminants, including
trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and vinyl chloride (VC), and soil contaminated with
lead and other heavy metals.

Mr. Lopez described the struggle to revitalize the predominantly 95 to 100 percent Mexican-American
communities around Kelly AFB that are affected by multiple health problems such as asthma, central
nervous system disorders, low birth weights, birth defects, and cancer. He also described socio-economic
factors that compound the cumulative risks and impacts faced by these communities, such as single-
parent homes, high school dropout rates, and lack of adequate health care. Mr. Lopez also noted that
about 10 different agencies such as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR),
CDC, the Department of Defense (DoD), EPA, TCEQ, the San Antonio Metropolitan Health Department,
and the City of San Antonio, have been involved in cleanup and community efforts, but lack of
coordination between them presents a challenge to achieving any further progress.

Mr. Lopez questioned the cleanup decision to use monitored natural attenuation (MNA) at Kelly AFB.
MNA is a passive cleanup approach that allows natural soil and groundwater microflora to degrade
polluting chemicals over many years. He stressed that the decisbn would only mean that the
communities would face several more years of exposure to the hazardous chem icals.

1-16 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

Finally, Mr. Lopez emphasized the importance of educating communities, mobilizing people at the
grassroots level within the communities to stand up for themselves, and helping them to understand the
issues as well as to make changes necessary to improve their lives. He noted some important
achievements by the San Antonio communities over the last few years, such as demolition of jetfuel
storage tanks in the communities, halting further construction efforts by the Air Force, and com munity
participation in an interagency working group.

Ms. Eadythen invited the members of the NEJAC to present their questions to the com munity impacts
panel.

Ms. Tucker thanked Ms. Orr for pointing out the issue of worker safety and agreed that it would have to be
addressed in the cumulative risk report. Ms. Tucker also expressed disappointment at the racial make-up
of the Louisiana panel members. She noted that a large proportion of the impacts in Louisiana are seen
in the African-American communities and that she expected a significant percentage of the panel
members to represent that group. She stated that such communities need more representation on the
panel.

Responding to Ms. Tucker, Ms. Orr said that itwas a challenge for community representatives to be
present at meetings to express their concerns and that it was important to be inclusive and respectful of
those who do come forward with their problems and issues. It is also important not to discourage
representatives from any community from talking about the issues that they feel strongly about. She
noted that everyone s knowledge collectively is important.

Ms. Eady then called on Ms. Henneke and Ms. Briggum to talk about state and local government and
industry perspectives and why this approach would be helpful.

Ms. Henneke stated that she felt more like a community resident because she had grown upin TarCreek,
which Ms. Jim had described earlier. Growing up, she confessed, she had not realized that she was in an
environmental justice community. From the perspective of a state regulator, Ms. Henneke admitted that
the com munity impacts panel presented issues that are very significant.

Ms. Henneke noted the difficulty in dealing with facilities that are no longer operating orthat are operated
by entities different from the original operators, such as at Kelly AFB. Ms. Henneke also stated that
although the situations at Tar Creek and Kelly AFB are very different, the cumulative risks and impacts
faced by the residents of the com munities at these sites are the same. As a regulator, she said, it is
important to see and hear different perspectives, referring to Ms. Tuckers earlier remark.

Providing an industrial and business perspective to the discussion, Ms. Briggum stated that industries and
businesses are reluctant to take responsibility for their actions. This, however, should not deter a
community from naming names and clearly stating which industry or company is polluting its
neighbo rhood a nd enviro nme nt. She ho ped that th e cum ulative risk re port wou Id encou rage indu stries to
take responsibility and show accountabiity for their actbns by providing them with incentives for
contributing to community revitalizatbn and moving beyond mere compliance with environmental
regulations.

Dr. Sawyers thanked the community impacts panel members for their insights and compelling
presentatbns. He asked them for recommendations on how the NEJAC can improve the cumulative risk
report and on new policies and different approaches that may help address some of the concerns that
they expressed during their presentations. He also asked the panel members to share som e of their
success stories.

In response, Mr. Lopez stated that the collaborative problem-solving model recommended in the

cum ulative risk re port was perhap s the m ost significa nt chan ge in policy for com mun ities and ag encies.

This process, he noted, would encourage better flow of information to the communities, and prevent anger

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-17

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

and frustration within the communities. To illustrate his point, Mr. Lopez pointed out that the communities
surrounding Kelly AFB had to struggle to obtain information and were being asked to go back and forth
between the Air Force, TCEQ, and other agencies. He pointed out that the current process of obtaining
information was extremely complex and inefficient, as it involved the filing of Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) requests. It is very important for communities to be able to obtain information so that they can
actively participate in decisions that affect them , Mr. Lopez said.

Ms. Orr expressed the need for more enforcement. She also noted the importance of collaboration, citing
the work of LEAN in conjunction with the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) to produce
an educational pesticide brochure for rural communities, using funding from EPA and the Louisiana
Department of Agriculture and Forestry (LDAF). She stated that LEAN is considering publishing this
brochure in Spanish as well and a new brochure on IPM. Some of the other successes of LEAN, Ms. Orr
noted, included distribution of nebulizers in public schools, educating nurses and doctors in asthma
management, and conducting an asthma camp for children from environmental justice communities.

Ms. Jim expressed her support for the bias for action theme in the cumulative risk report, stating that this
was really important in Tar Creek. She also noted the success of remedial yard work that was being
done in residential neighborhoods in Tar Creek. This work involved excavation of lead-contaminated
soils, which in turn reduced lead levels in children.

Ms. Espinosa noted that the presentations made by the community impacts panel members highlighted
the importance of CBPR. It was obvbus, she said, that they knew much more about theirown
communities, having experienced first-hand the symptoms, diseases, and pain, than any outside regulator
or researcher. On the issue of cooperation between multiple agencies raised by Mr. Lopez, Ms. Espinosa
expressed the need for one agency to take the lead in such a matter regardless of whether that agency
has regulatory control or enforcement power. She stated that regulators and agencies would have to
recognize that community representatives are not paid for their efforts to get more information and that
they sacrifice valuable time with their families and loved ones to bring attention to their problems.

Mr. Lopez then addressed the issue of worker impacts. He stated thatamong the 15,000 to 20,000
workers at Kelly AFB, over 1 50 cases of Lou Gehrig s Disease have been identified.

Ms. Lori Kaplan, Indiana Department of Environmental Management and member of the Health and
Research Subcommittee of the NEJAC, noted that as a state regulator, she supported collaboration
between communities, industry, and the government to achieve results. She noted, however, that the
cumulative risk report lacked emphasis on the importance of regulatory tools. It would be important not
just to possess enforcem ent powers but also to take cum ulative risks and impacts into account while
issuing permits, she added.

Mr. Weinstock agreed with Ms. Kaplan about the need for regulatory and enforcement tools. He also
pointed outthe role of voluntary programs at EPA, that help businesses improve their environmental
performance without hampering their profits. He cited two examples of such voluntary programs: the
Design for Environment Program in Cleveland, Ohio, which helped small, community-based chrome
electroplating businesses to reduce emissions of chromium and to benefit financially, and the
Environmental Management Systems program, which can help large businesses improve their
performance and profits. This positive approach, he noted, would encourage business and industry to
contribute to community revitalization.

Following up on Ms. Kaplan s comments, Mr. Starfield said that regulatory flexibility like that in the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program would be very useful in dealing with
environmental issues. Third-party monitoring would also be useful, Mr. Starfield noted, citing the
examples of areas north of Albuquerque, New Mexico and in Ponca City, Oklahoma where the issue of air
toxin levels prevented collaboration between the communities and industry. The communities believed
that the cause of their problems was high levels of toxins in the air, but industry claimed that levels of

1-18 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

toxins in the air were low, he said. This situatbn was resolved, he explained, by installing state-sponsored
monitors. These monitors showed that the air quality in Albuquerque was acceptable, but that was not the
case in Oklahoma, he said. These examples, Mr. Starfield noted, emphasized the importance of
establishing an information base that cannot be easily refuted by industry and that would force it to
accept at least part of its responsibility .

Ms. Briggum wholeheartedly agreed with Mr. Starfield s remarks, saying that ultimately, clear regulatory
obligations would certainly obtain results, but itwould take a while to getto that point. In the meantime,
she added, information can be a very powerful tool in and of itself.

Joining in the discussion, Mr. Lee noted that all this discussion was asking a single, underlying questbn:
What is the relationship between cumulative risk and regulation? He said that there was actually another
important question here: What is the relationship between the use of law and dispute resolutbn in terms of
addressing issues that may not be directly related to regulation? He stated that some of these questions
would be partially answered by a set of case studies that OEJ asked the Consensus Building Institute to
put together regarding the issues ofdispute resolution and environmental justice. He noted that these
case studies are available for downloading on EPA s internet web site at:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice. He also pointed out that OEJ has been developing
dispute resolution training for comm unities and other groups that would be introduced as a pilot effort in
New Mexico in fall 2004.

Adding to Mr. Lee s comments and addressing earlier comments by Mr. Starfield, Dr. Fields, stated that
communities now recognize that litigation can bring things to a screeching halt and look for alternative,
collaborative methods such as ADR or other tools to resolve issues. Hence, Dr. Fields said, the bias for
action has real potential for being implemented because this approach has acceptability not only from
industrybut also from the communities themselves as well as otherstakeholders in the process.

Agreeing with Dr. Fields, Mr. Starfield wondered whether EPA could deliver such a message alone and
asked whether there was a way that the NE JAC could assist in that process. Acceptability and credibility
for this approach would be wider if it were to be propagated notjust by EPA but also by industry and the
communities, he concluded.

3.6 Discussion of Key Concepts in the Cumulative Risk Report

To ensure that the NEJAC mem bers clearly understood the key concepts discussed in the cumulative risk
report (see Exhibit 1-3), Mr. Lee introduced the next series of presentations by members of the NEJAC
work group on the various key concepts, such as stressors, vulnerability, CBPR, proportbnal response,
qualitative analysis, and others.

KEY CONCEPTS ADDRESSED IN THE
CUMULATIVE RISK REPORT

Stressors
Vulnerability

Exhibit 1-3

Mr. Gonzalez began his presentation bydefining
stressor as any entity, notjust chemical, physical,
or biological, but including stress due to age, sex,
economic status, social conditions, housing, or
healthcare. He also offered the definition in the EPA
Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment.

Proportional Response
Qualitative Analysis
Efficient Screening, Targeting, and Prioritization Methods
and Tools

Unifying the Fields of Public Health and Environmental
Protection
Social Capital

CBPR

A stressor is a physical, chemical,
biological, or any other entity that
can cause an adverse response in a
human or other organism or
ecosystem. Exposure to a
chemical, biological, or physbal
agent (e.g. radon) can be a
stressor, as can the lack of, or

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-19

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

destruction of, some necessity, such as a habitat. The stressor may not cause harm
directly, but may make the target more vulnerable to harm by other stressors. A
socioeconomic stressor, for example, might be the lack of needed health care, which
could lead to adverse effects.

Notably, Mr. Gonzalez continued, the framework includes socioeconomic factor stressors, making it an
important milestone that lays the basis for a dialogue about comprehensive risk in impacted communities
or tribes.

Mr. Gonzalez then stated that the concept of vulnerability goes to the heart of environmental justice.
Furthermore, he explained, vulnerability recognizes that disadvantaged, underserved, and overburdened
communities come to the table with pre-existing deficits of both a physical and social nature. As such, he
noted, the concept of vulnerability fundamentally differentiates such communities from healthy and
sustainable communities. To further clarify the concept, he cited the example of pregnancy, during which
both the mother and child are more susceptible and sensitive to certain impacts.

Mr. Gonzalez then explained several terms that help to better define vulnerability. He stated that
differential ability to recover, takes into account the length of exposure, amount of exposure, source of
exposure, preparedness of the individual in terms of physical condition, and vaccinations. Social,
economic, and cultural factors can play a role with respect to differential exposures, he added, citing the
example of a study conducted by Professor Manuel Pastor, University of California, and his colleagues,
who found a strong correlation between the periods of greatest community demographic change and the
introduction of noxious land uses. He said that they surmised thatduring this period, social capital in a
community in terms of stable leadership, networks, and institutions is perhaps the lowest, he added. Such
a phenomenon was described as ethnic churning by Professor Pastor, Mr. Gonzalez noted. Referring to
the term social factors, Mr. Gonzalez explained that it referred to income, employment status, access to
insurance, discrimination in the health care system, language ability, and the existence of social capital, all
of which affect the ability to prevent, withstand, or recover from environmental insults. Health disparities,
another important term associated with understanding vulnerability, is both an outcome of and a
contributor to vulnerability, he added. As an example, he noted that children who are exposed to lead and
live in communities lacking wastewater treatment often suffer from diarrhoea. The diarrhoea causes
chronic anemia, which in turn worsens the effects of lead exposure and causes a decline in general
health.

Explaining the concept of CBPR, Mr. Gonzalez noted that this was the most important community
contribution to the environmental justice process. This kind of research, he noted, was what people in the
community lived on a day-to-day basis. This process, he continued, fosters co-learning, ensures that
projects are community-driven, disseminates results in ways that communities can understand and
identify with, ensures thatresearch and interventbn strategies are culturally appropriate, and defines the
com mun ity as a unit of identity.

Members of the NEJAC work group then supplemented Mr. Gonzalezs explanations of the key concepts.

Dr. Fields further explained the concept of stressors . He stated that stressor is any physical, biological,
or chemical entity that may be adversely impacting a community. He offered the example of a chemical
manufacturing plant down the street from a community; a hazardous waste facility two miles away; the
warehouses in Laredo, Texas; the presence of asthma in a community; or lack of adequate clinics or
health ca re facilities in a comm unity.

Dr. Fields continued to explain that multiple stressors are regulated by different environmental statutes
such as the CAA, the CWA, Superfund, and RCRA, which traditionally have been implemented on a
statewide basis. He stated that each regulatory agency has dealt with those stressors under its own
authorities in different ways and often in an uncoordinated manner. This led the N EJAC work group to
recognize the urgent need for greater partnership in terms of how these stressors and their cumulative

1-20 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

effects are dealt with, Dr. Fields said. The work group has developed recommendations about how these
stressors can be dealt with in a coordinated way to achieve public health, environmental protection, and
the betterment of communities across the country, he concluded.

Elaborating on the concept of vulnerability, Ms. H ynes stated that she would use two exam pies to explain
the social, econom ic, and cu Itural factors that contribute to ill health and com pound disproportionate
exposures to environmental toxins in communities.

The first example, she noted, was the rate of asthma and lead poisoning in children. It is no coincidence,
she emphasized, that the highest rates of childhood asthma and childhood lead poisoning are seen
among poor children and children of color, particularly African-American children. Their environment is
only part of the reason, she said. Ms. Hynes noted that poor children live in poor housing and that poor,
urban children live in older housing with lead paint. The parents cannot afford to de-lead the homes or
maintain them, and the situation is worsened by poor nutrition, she added.

Ms. Hynes noted that the same points are true for asthma. Furthermore, she explained, the
environmental exposures, particularly for poor, urban children, include poor housing and exposure to
vehicular pollutants, especially near bus depots or similar facilities that are differentially located in their
communities.

An additional burden in this situation is the stress of being poor, Ms. Hynes said, which increases
vulnerability. In additbn to poverty itself, income inequality plays a role, she said. She explained that
income inequality measures the difference between the upper 10 to 30 percent income and the lowest, 10
to 30 percent income. The wider that gap, the worse the health of the poor people, because of poor
distribution of resources, she added. She furthernoted that among industrial countries, the United States
has the greatest gap in income and thus the highest rates of child poverty and homicide. Another
contributing factorto vulnerability is weaker social cohesion, she continued, wherein people give up
when they feel that they have reached a dead end. Citing the example of children in public housing in
Boston, Massachusetts, whom she works with, Ms. Hynes explained that their parents have no jobs or
survive on minimum wage jobs and that the school system is very poor, which cause the parents and
children to give up. This weak social cohesion translates into poor health, she added.

Race is also a contributing factor to vulnerability, Ms. Hynes continued. She stated that many studies
have indicated that in a racist society, the stress of not being the right color can increase vulnerability.
She described some studies that showed that African-American children have three and a half times the
rate of elevated blood lead poisoning compared to the U.S. average. In otherstudies of asthma in Boston,
Massachusetts; Harlem, New York; and many other inner cities, minority children always have higher rates
of asthma, she noted, resulting in multiple health impacts and early mortality. All the factors described
earlier, Ms. Hynes said, can be described as social inequalities.

Touching on the issue of health disparities, Ms. Hynes stated that in Boston, Massachusetts, African-
Americans had poorer health outcomes for 15 of the 20 health indicators studied. She described a recent
report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that examines health disparities on
a nationwide level. DHHS reports severe health disparities among all minority groups compared to whites
and among the poor compared to financially secure communities. Ms. Hynes then quoted from the DHHS
report:

The use of physical restraints in nursing hom es is higher among Hispanicsand Asian-Pacific
Islanders compared to non-Hispanic Whites. Minorities are more likely to be diagnosed with late
stage breast cancer and colorectal cancer compared to Whites. Blacks and poor patients have
higher rates of avoidable hospital admissions.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-21

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

Racial an d ethnic m inorities are less likely to report health insu ranee compared with W hites.

Lower income persons are also less likely to report health insurance compared with higher

income people.

Many racial and ethnic minorities and persons of lower socioeconom ic position are less likely to

receive childhood immunizations.

Finally, Ms. Hynes stated that these impacts demonstrate synergistic or additive health impacts. The
challenge, she claimed, would be to address all these impacts simultaneously. She also noted several
ways to measure vulnerability that are available at EPA, such as indices. For example, the genie index
for income and equality measures income distribution on a scale of zero to one, with zero being equity and
one representing inequality, and the dissimilarity index measures racial segregation. The vulnerability
data, she concluded, would be helpful in the identification of communities across the country thatare most
severely burdened with health impacts. These sites should be the places where immediate action takes
place, she said . Concluding her remarks, Ms. Hynes addressed EPA, noting that to reduce vuInerability,
cleanup of environmental contamination would be effective only when combined with reduction of
inequ ality.

Elaborating on the concept ofCBPR, Ms. Tucker noted that at present there is a great deal of
dissatisfaction among communities on the issue of research. The comm unities feel that the research is
inconclusive by design and that research agendas are flawed and lack inputfrom community members,
she added. She continued to say that it is wrong of researchers to arrogantly assume that without
contributions from the community, they can come up with research questbns that are relevant to the
concerns of the community. And all too often, she noted, research is driven by the funding dollar or by the
wish of the research institution to build its capacity.

Comm unities face issues such as increased incidence of learning disabilities in their children and rare
diseases and conditions, and hence they express the need for research that takes social factors into
consideratbn, Ms. Tucker said. CBPR provides an opportunity for equitable partnerships in which all the
research is formed at the community level, she added. This kind of research, explained Ms. Tucker,
involves dialogue sessions and discussions with community members to bring out their primary concerns
and observations and with other stakeholders. She noted that this kind of research is not a threat to
existing research and would contribute to the existing knowledge abou t a comm unity. CBPR, she said, is
a tool designed to allow communities to work with scientists and other stakeholders.

Finally, Ms. Tucker noted that if CBPR had existed 10 years ago, the understanding of cumulative risks
and impacts would be far more advanced than it is today.

Ms. Briggum expanded on the concepts of qualitative analysis and proportional response. Qualitative
analysis, she said, recognizes that any analysis that is solely quantitative would be inadequate to explain
all aspects of cumulative risks and impacts, especially in turns of stress and vulnerability. This is the case
because some stressors can be easily measured, such as the amount of a pollutant in a water body or the
toxicity of a chemical, she said. However, she added, some stressors such as racial disparities and social
discrimination can not be quantified, and certain impacts such as species loss are still not very well
understood. She stated that CEQ has pu blished guidance for analysis of cum ulative risks and im pacts
that em braces the qualitative approach.

Regarding proportional response, Ms. Briggum stressed two aspects. First, she noted, that the more
severe the impact that a comm unity is experiencing, the more immediate and serious the response has to
be. Thus, she explained, prioritization is the key, and the communities that are the most burdened, the
most vulnerable, and subject to the most sources of environmental pollution and other stressors need to
receive the priority attention of the government and the highest attention of business and industry.

1-22 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

The second aspect, Ms. Briggum added, is accountability in the community, which means thatthe
expected response of industry, business, or another source of impacts should be proportional to its
contribution to the cumulative impacts in the community. She noted thatthe sources of pollution with the
largest potential negative impacts will be expected to provide the largest and most immediate responses
to the situation, and sm aller sources of pollution will be expected to be accountable on some level, albeit
smaller.

Mr. Gonzalez then addressed the last key concept in the cumulative risk report, unifying the fields of public
health and environmental protection. This complex process would involve forging partnerships with
utilities, housing owners, solid waste management facilities, and other entities to create a comprehensive
approach to better community health, he noted. This process would also involve building social capital, he
added, and would involve not only EPA but other agencies, Federal, state and local, and the communities
themselves.

Beginning a discussion and dialogue about the key concepts presented before the NEJAC, Mr. Lee noted
some of the significant points of the presentation. He noted the importance of the term vulnerability,
which forms the basis of understanding cumulative risks and impacts, cumulative risk analysis, and
environmental justice. Addressing the term disproportionate impact, Mr. Lee noted that although it would
be discussed at length during the discussbn of OIG report, it was important to understand that different
types of comm unities with d ifferent types of backgrounds and deficits wou Id face different impacts.

Mr. Robert Harris, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and member of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, noted that in the process of bringing all stakeholders together fora healthy
discussion of a sensitive situation in a community, the regulator plays a central role. This is the case
because the regulator not only deals with the polluter regarding this particular issue but regarding
numerous other issues, he added. So, he said, there is an incentive for the polluter to come to the table
and participate if the regulator acts as the facilitator and assumes that role very forcefuly. It is important
for the regulator to be honest and unbiased, Mr. Harris added.

Dr. Fields, agreeing with Mr. Harris, responded by saying that it is important for the regulator to be a
facilitator for effective action. He cited an example in EPA Region 4 where this approach had been
successful. In Spartanburg, South Carolina, Dr. Fields said, dialogue has been ongoing for three years
between the community and a company, and the one reason that the dialogue continues to this day is the
involvement of EPA at every meeting and its working with the community and industry to reach a solution.
A regulators commitment, powers of persuasion, and resolve can play a constructive role not only in the
overall context of pollution reduction but also in addressing cumulative risks and impacts, Dr. Fields
added.

Ms. Henneke thanked Mr. Harris for raising the regulator issue. She noted that this role was notjust for
EPA to fill, but also for state regulators.

Ms. Harris responded to the discussion, stating that from EPA s point of view, it is critical to share
knowledge and abilities with state and local governments in order to refrain from undermining the work of
state governments and also to allow them to act as facilitators between communities and industry.

Joining in the discussion, Mr. Williams added that irrespective ofwhich agency plays the lead facilitator
role, the agency must have a clear idea of whatthat leadership role is going to entail, especially because
cumulative impacts can cross broad jurisdictions. He stressed the importance of making decisions based
on current knowledge instead ofwaiting and facing the prospect of higher costs to resolve the same issue
in the future. He also noted that although the CEQ guidance referred to earlier was important to
understanding the basis of cumulative risks and impacts, that guidance was based on the state of
knowledge nearly 10 years ago when the guidance was published. Hence, he said, it is importantto keep
up with new information and studies as they are published because modeling and risk assessment
methods have vastly improved the ability to project future cumulative risks and impacts.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-23

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

Mr. Lee thanked Mr. Williams for his suggestion and requested that he provide the NEJAC work group
with a list of any new references to be included in the cumulative risk report.

Ms. Tucker commented that the key to achieving results is a well-organized community because
regulators respond better to communities that are well organized. She cited the example of Spartanburg,
South Carolina, in EPA Region 4 as one such community. She also noted that the ADR method will be
useful in getting the polluter to do the right thing, which will also ensure that the communities gettheirfair
shares. To illustrate this point, she cited the example of Anniston, Alabama, where Monsanto agreed to
pay nearly $117 million, but most of this money did not reach the people impacted by Monsanto. Instead,
she stated, much of this money was used to pay attorneys, while the rest was shared among the
communities, leaving them with amounts that are far from fair compensation for their years of suffering
and social impacts. Mr. Lee provided further details on the settlement in Anniston. He said that an article
in the Washington Post revealed that the average settlement amount that the plaintiffs received was
between $500 and $7,000, while the attorneys walked away with amounts ranging between $4 million and
$34 m illion.

Ms. Eady added that if a polluter is not required to obtain the services of a law firm, as would be the case
with ADR, the polluter wouId have more funds available to invest in the community.

Dr. Ramirez-Toro expressed satisfaction that the topic of fragmentation had been addressed in the
cumulative risk report. Referring to Puerto Rico, she stated that the topography of the island is such that
even communities that are only two miles away from each other are in fact worlds apart. But they face
similar stressors and need similar attention, she added. Hence, it is not possible to choose between such
communities based on their racial make-up; instead, she suggested thatthese communities be discussed
in terms of their burden as a class. This process would allow issues of cumulative risks and impacts to
be addressed on a natbnal level and would prevent fragmentation of the issue based on superficial
divisions.

Ms. Henneke said thatas a state regulator, she thought that itwas important that the policy ormethod
adopted by EPA to resolve this issue be easily implemented at the state level.

Referring to earlier statements made by Mr. Harris and Dr. Fields, Ms. Briggum stressed the importance
of training within the EPA and state regulator community to ensure that each regulator understands the
importance of being an honest broker when facilitating discussions between the community and polluter.

Responding to Ms. Briggum, Ms. Tucker concluded the discussion by noting thatthe regulator must be
biased toward the law and protection of the environment and public health.

3.7 Discussion of Overarching Recommendation Themes in the Cum ulative Risk Report

Mr. Lee began the discussion of the overarching recommendation themes in the cumulative risk report
(see Exhibit 1-4) by providing an overview of the key concepts discussed earlier. The NEJAC work
group s goal was to unequivocally and unapologetically bring about a paradigm change in order to bring
about a new process of thinking about risk comprehensively and cumulatively, he stated. He also noted
that the foundation for the cumulative risk report was provided by EPAs May 2003 Framework for
Cumulative Risk Assessment. Introducing the next series of discussions, Mr. Lee explained that the eight
overarching recommendation themes proposed in the cumulative risk report are fundamentally
interdependent and that the most important step is the translation of these themes into action items.

Ms. Espinosa and Ms. Briggum, the co-chairs of the NEJAC work group, presented an overview of the
overarching recommendation themes proposed in the cumulative risk report. Ms. Espinosa began with
Theme 1, To institutionalize a bias for action within EPA through widespread utilization of an
Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model. She stated that this theme expressed a
clear and urgent need to address the needs of disadvantaged and environmentally overburdened

1-24 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

communities and tribes. She added that many legal, scientific, and programmatic tools exist to address
risk in the short term and that significant opportunities exist for partnerships with state, local, tribal,
business and industry, academic, civic, and community-based organizations. The environmental justice
Collaborative Problem-Solving Model makes it possible to integrate these tools and resources, she said.

Dr. Fields added to Ms. Espinosa s explanation, stating that Theme 1 is the critical element in the overall
agenda that has been presented to EPA. This agenda, he noted, emphasizes that although EPA has
been excellent over the years at studying, investigating, and conducting research, the need to really take
action forthe future is critical. In orderto do this, the NEJAC work group has suggested that EPA conduct
pilot activities in each of the 10 regions, focusing on underserved and disadvantaged communities with
urgent needs.

Ms. Briggum expanded on Theme 2, To fully utilize existing statutory authorities, which she said was
necessary to institute a bias for action. The existing statutory authorities that consider multiple and
cumulative impacts have been outlined by EPAs General Counsel in a memorandum titled Implementing
Environmental Justice Through the Use of Existing Statutory Authority, she explained. A guidance is
necessary to show how these authorities can be used in permitting and enforcement contexts so that
community needs can be addressed under existing statutes, Ms. Briggum noted. She added that a
second guidance would also be required to help communities inventory cumulative impacts, both those
currently regulated and those that are insufficiently regulated. In this context, she noted that RCRA has
been construed as providing an overall authority to protect human health and the environment.

Theme 1: To institutionalize abiasfor action within EPA
through widespread utilization of an environmental Justice
Collaborative Problem-Solving Model

Theme 4: To fully incorporate the concept of vulnerability,
especially its social and cultural aspects, into EPA s strategic
plans and research agendas

Theme 3: To address and overcome programmatic and
regulatory fragmentation within the nation s environmental
protection regime

Theme 6: To incorporate social, economic, cultural, and
community health factors, particularly those involving
vulnerability, in EPA decision-making

Theme 2: To fully utilize existing statutory authorities

Theme 7: To develop and implement efficient screening,
targeting, and prioritization methods and tools to identify
communities needing immediate intervention

Theme 8: To address capacity and resource issues (human,
organizational, technical, and financial) within EPA and the
states, within impacted communities and tribes, and among
all relevant stakeholders

Theme 5: To promote a paradigm shift to community-based
approaches, particularly CBPR and intervention

OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATION THEMES IN
THE CUMULATIVE RISK DRAFT REPORT

Exhibit 1-4

Continuing with Theme 3, To address and
overcome programm atic and regulatory
fragmentation within the nation s environmental
protection regime, Ms. Briggum stated that this
theme assumes that Theme 2 will reveal a number
of gaps and shortcomings with respect to existing
statutory authorities. Although each statute has its
own jurisdiction in terms of addressing different
facilities and different media, environmental
statutes as a whole fail to work in unison, she said.
These holes and gaps, Ms. Briggum stated,
should be not just acknowledged but identified and
analyzed. She noted that certain solutions have
been proposed in the cumulative risk report.

These solutions include multimedia, community-
based initiatives involving several offices and
implementing a wide range of approaches,
including comparative risk assessment,
collaborative planning and scoping, partnerships,
and interagency coordination. Adding to Ms.
Briggum s presentatbn, Ms. Subra noted that other
agencies contribute to the fragmentation within
EPA. These agencies include the Department of
Agriculture (DOA), which regulates the application
of pesticides and fertilizers; oil and gas
conservation agencies that operate at the state
level and deal with waste issues on a secondary
level; public health agencies that provide primary
health care but frequently not environmental care;
and state audit programs that reveal expired
perm its and lack of oversight.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-25

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

Them e 4, To fully incorporate the concept of vulnerability, especially its social and cultural aspects, into
EPAs strategic plans and research agendas, was addressed by Ms. Espinosa. She noted that EPAs
Cumulative Risk Assessment Framework acknowledges the concept of social vulnerability, which is an
important milestone. Vulnerability should be made an integral part of cumulative risk assessment using
qualitative as well as quantitative evaluations, she added. Incorporation of vulnerability into EPAs
research agendas would require a comprehensive, community-based approach, Ms. Espinosa concluded.
Mr. Gonzalez added that ATSDR and NIH both have existing models that incorporate vulnerability as the
foundation for environmental exposure.

Ms. Briggum expanded on Theme 5, To promote a paradigm shiftto community-based approaches,
particularly CBPR and interventbn. The term intervention once again stresses the bias for action, she
said. CBPR is a term that explains what communities have been doing already for many years, she
explained. Elaborating, Ms. Tucker said that the CBPR process provides an opportunity for a community
to work with researchers in order to ask questions through quantitative as well as other methods. She
added that the cumulative risk report should include a diagram that outlines the CBPR process.

Ms. Espinosa explained that Themes 6 and 7, To incorporate social, economic, cultural, and community
health factors, particularly those involving vulnerability, in EPA decision-making and To develop and
implement efficient screening, targeting, and prioritization methods and tools to identify communities
needing immediate intervention, are essentially tools that EPA can use to understand how available
information can be applied to identify cumulative impacts in a community as well as to prioritize the
communities that are most burdened. Ms. Hynes added that the existence of different types of
knowledge, such as technical knowledge; scientifically based knowledge, including environmental
knowledge; legal and social knowledge; social science knowledge; and pubic health knowledge, gives rise
to a hierarchy. This hierarchy must be expanded to include knowledge thatcommunities contribute, she
said. Focus groups in com munities are important tools for eliciting key insights, information, and data.
Mr. Shankar Prasad, Air Resources Board, elaborated on Theme 7, stating that a bias for action cannot
be efficiently implemented withoutan adequate set of tools. The most important tool, he said, is a
comprehensive screening tool that goes beyond the current concept of the quantitative risk assessment
based on a single pollutant and a single source.

Theme 8, To address capacityand resources (human, organizational, technical, and financial) within EPA
and the states, within impacted communities and tribes, and among all relevant stakeholders, recognizes
that although resources are available, capacity needs to be built, Ms. Espinosa continued. This theme
accounts for the need for training, such as the environ mental justice training that wou Id train regulators to
negotiate skillfully and would encourage business and industry to participate as partners in the process,
she added. This theme also takes into account the research arm of EPA, which can set a long-term
research agenda for vulnerability issues, she concluded.

Commenting on the overarching recommendation themes, Mr. Starfield added that it would notbe
practical for EPA alone to implement these themes and that the N EJAC should consider an important role
for the states and other Federal agencies in the process. He suggested that members of the NEJAC
along with OEJ adopt a broad outreach strategyto present these themes in forums such as the
Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), to DO A, to the Department of Energy (DOE), and to others
in order to generate awareness of the cum ulative risk report and its expectations.

Responding to Mr. Starfield, M r. Voltaggio stated that as a Federal regulator in a regional office, he is
conscious of the constraints faced by EPA in introducing and staffing a new project and ensuring that it
meets the needs of the community. Hence, he noted that Mr. Starfield s point that more responsibilities
should be delegated to the states as well as local governments is an important one. In fact, he stated,
local government organizations such as county and municipal governments, local planning associations,
zoning associations, and zoning boards deal with many permitting and zoning issues that the state and
Federal governments cannot keep track of, and their participation in the environmental justice process
could prove invaluable.

1-26 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

Next, responding to Dr. Fields s comments, Mr. Voltaggio informed the NEJAC that EPA regional offices
have been asked to put together regional strategic plans that reflect priorities in the regional offices that
may be different from national priorities. These plans could include lunding for environmental justice
projects. Although the plans forfiscal year (FY) 2005 are almost complete and preliminary planning for FY
2006 has begun, Mr. Voltaggio said, there is still time for revisions.

At this point, Ms. Espinosa stated that the ongoing discussion underlined the need for members of the
NEJAC to outline a strategy for an outreach process to highlight the issues of cumulative risks and
impacts for the regulators, polluters, and the impacted communities. In response, Mr. Lee noted that the
NEJAC is primarily an advisory body and can help by developing recom mendations for EPA and OE J to
disseminate, communicate, and promote the strategies outlined in the cumulative risk report. Individual
mem bers of the NEJAC are encou raged to reach out to the different stakeholders on their own, he stated.
Ms. Tucker added that although she agrees that EPA has to bear most ofthe responsibility for
implementation ofthe recommendations, the NEJAC should consider developing a strategy for outreach
to the states, including outreach at EPA regional meetings. Ms. Hynes suggested that the implementation
strategyalso include the risk assessment community. Continuing the discussbn, Ms. Henneke pointed
out that although most state plans and budgets depend on what EPA instructs the states to do, it is
important that the recommendations be relatively simple to comprehend. She also suggested formulating
incentives for state governments to participate in the process.

Referring to the recommendation themes in the cumulative risk report, Dr. Sawyers stated that although
they are comprehensive, the action items associated with the themes would have to be prioritized and
would have to include a robust implementation plan. Referring to Ms. Hynes s earlier presentation, Dr.
Sawyers added that the most important concept in the report is that of social capital, and the report needs
to address this concept more effectively.

Mr. Williams joined in the discussion with some remarks from a tribal perspective. He suggested that
EPA (1) formally recognize tribal and customary law, which may have to take the form of statutory
authority; (2) incorporate traditional knowledge while considering capacity and social science issues; (3)
include tribes as co-lead or cooperating agencies in the collaborative problem-solving model; and (4)
include a recovery or restoratbn plan for bst tribal resources, such as important species and plants in the
implementation plan.

Dr. Ramirez-Toro presented her comments in writing to the NEJAC work group. Some of the highlights of
her written comments are as follows. With respect to Puerto Rico, which is neither a sovereign nation (like
the tribes) nor a state but is designated as a U.S. commonwealth territory, primacy agreements that define
power-sharing and distribution of resources should incorporate interagency and intergovernmental
approaches to address issues of cumulative impacts in impacted comm unities in Puerto Rico.

In response, Dr. Sawyers noted that several states, including Maryland, are renegotiating their
performance agreements and in some cases their environmental partnership agreements. He stated that
this would be an op portunity to integ rate som e of the iss ues be ing discu ssed into these ag reem ents.

Ms. Nelson suggested several improvements for the cumulative risk report. Referring to the concept of
vulnerability, Ms. Nelson expressed concern that the matrices developed to study the cumulative risk and
impact issues in communities portray the communities as vulnerable, deficient places, which could
discourage communities from taking action. She suggested including positive comments on community
capacity in the matrices and identifying opportunities that can be used as a basis for community
development. Next, addressing the issue of contracts with universities, Ms. Nelson suggested the
incorporation of environmental justice requirements into the grant fulfillment criteria. Third, regarding use
of com mun ity-based research, she stated that the high volume of information makes it challenging to
efficiently convey the information to communities. Hence, she pointed out that there is a need for a better
graphical representation ofthe community as it progresses toward sustainability. Finally, referring to
implementation of the recomm endations, Ms. Nelson suggested that the NEJAC members make specific
commitments for implementation ofthe recommendations within their respective frameworks.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-27

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

Mr. Kenneth Warren, Wolf, Block, Schorr, and Solis-Cohen and acting chair of the Enforcement
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, noted that the themes and language of the cumulative risk report set an
excellent tone for marketing the ideas to the various stakeholder groups. As a lawyer, he said, he would
be interested in knowing what types of regulatory changes would be required to adopt this new paradigm.
Suggesting a model adopted by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), which manages the
water resources of the Delaware River, he stated that multi-stakeholder processes contribute significantly
to building regulatory as well as planning capacity. Providing examples to illustrate his point, Mr. Warren
noted that DRBC recently formulated a Total Maximum Daily Load (TM DL) for polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB) that would indicate the sum of the allowable loads of PCBs from all contributing point and nonpoint
sources established under Section 303 of the CWA. The TMDL development process, he said, involved a
technical advisory committee with representatives from various stakeholder groups as well as from the
various states represented on the DRBC. A similar model, he concluded, would be useful forsetting up a
regulatory process to implement the recommendations in the cumulative risk report. With respect to
multimedia concerns, which are important in studying cumulative impacts, he suggested that work already
being done in the agency on multimedia approaches, such as the use of facility-wide permits, be used as
a foundation for a strategy to address multimedia concerns. Finally, addressing the bias for action, Mr.
Warren stated that it was important to make a distinction between whether the administrative agency
would be taking the action, which would require the establishment of rules and regulations and a public
comm ent process, or whether the adm inistrative agency would motivate others to participate in a voluntary
process, which would then require a cultural change.

Finally, Ms. Kaplan added that from the perspective of a state regulator, it would be invaluable if EPA were
to put together a better guidance document on the existing tools that may used to implement the bias for
action. Better guidance wouId also encourage consistency from state to state and from region to region.

3.8 Discussions and Dialogue Between the Executive Council Members on the Action Items
Proposed in the Cumulative Risk Report

On April 14, 2004, the NEJAC deliberated on the development of an implementation framework for the
action item s under each of the eight overarch ing recom mendation themes in the cum ulative risk report.
Mr. Lee suggested that during the deliberations, the NEJAC prioritize each action item with respect to
implementability; available resources; urgency; and time required, such as short-term (one year, before
the end of FY 2005), intermediate (two to three years, FY 2006 and FY 2007), or long-term (five years or
more, FY 2008 and beyond).

Dr. Fields facilitated the discussion. He suggested that the discussion should proceed by considering
action items under each theme and their implementation time frames. Dr. Ramirez-Toro suggested that a
new recommendation theme be added to the existing eight themes; this new them would involve the
designation of a coordinator to ensure collaborative partnerships between the regions and EPA
Headquarters.

Discussion of Action Items under Theme 1

Beginning with Theme 1, Dr. Fields discussed the first action item, that EPA initiate multimedia toxic
reduction pilot projects in each of the ten EPA regions. Mr. Williams; Dr. Sawyers; and Mr. Charles
Collette, Florida Department of Environmental Protection and member of the Enforcement Subcommittee
of the N EJAC, all agreed that this could be a short-term initiative. Mr. Williams added that he would like to
see more representatbn in the pilot projects from the 572 tribes in the country instead of at least one
tribal community as mentioned in the cumulative risk report. Dr. Sawyers suggested translating the
action items into guidance to assist other EPA programs in integrating the bias for action and other
themes into their agendas. Ongoing pilot projects in the regions could be illustrative of the application of
the themes, Dr. Sawyers noted. Mr. Collette also called for the development of performance measures for
these pilot projects.

1-28 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

Dr. Fields responded to Mr. Collette that when EPA and OEJ award the new collaborative problem-solving
grants, they would be developing performance measures with the grantees. These measures would
document the goals and expectations for the grantees during the partnership effort.

At this point, Mr. Starfield interjected that the NEJAC recommendations should emphasize that it is a
priority that EPA develop a program of community-based projects to deal with environmental justice
communities with a bias for action and should allow EPA to decide the best method of implementation,
and whether thatwould require pilot projects or not. Dr. Fields respectfully disagreed with Mr. Starfield,
stating that although taking action is the priority, pilot projects are only a mechanism for facilitating action.
The NEJAC work group suggested pilot projects as a way to ensure that the agency would step up and
commit to a specific set of actions, he stated.

Proceeding with the next action item, the designation of at leastfive underserved, disadvantaged,
environmentally overburdened communities in each EPA region, Ms. Subra, Mr. Sanders, and Dr.

Sawyers agreed that this effort should be designated as intermediate and should immediately follow the
pilot projects. Dr. Sawyers emphasized that states in conjunction with EPA should play a critical role in
designating the communities. He also stated that the lessons learned in the pibt projects should be
incorporated into the designated communities. Ms. Eady suggested that the first two action items be
combined so that the communities chosen become the subjects of the pilot projects. Responding to Ms.
Eady, Dr. Fields revealed that EPA Region 4 has in fact designated some communities that are
underserved, disadvantaged, and environmentally overburdened as the subjects of the region s pilot
projects.

Noting thatthe preceding discussion led the next action item, development of criteria for selecting the pibt
projects, Dr. Fields referred to Dr. Sawyers s earlier statement expressing the need for a guidance for
choosing pibt project candidates. Dr. Fields added that the guidance should describe the general
information that would be needed about a community to decide whetherthat community would be an
appropriate candidate. Mr. Lee noted that the basic issue is one of asset building and of looking at
communities not just as sets of problems and deficits but in terms of potential assets and opportunities. A
similar potential, he noted, exists within EPA. Mr. Weinstock and Dr. Sawyers agreed that the action item
should be a short-term initiative. Mr. Weinstock insisted thatthe existing tools be assessed before new
ones are developed. Ms. Henneke suggested that the basic criteria be chosen first and then refined over
time after selection of the pilot projects. Mr. Wallace, supported by Ms. H enneke, em phasized an iterative
process involving adaptive management, noting that some basic criteria would be needed for selecting the
pilot projects but that these criteria would need to be redefined based on lessons learned during the
selection process.

Dr. Sawyers, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Collette concurred that the next action item, that EPA should develop
a toolkit for early implementable actions, should be an intermediate goal. Mr. Prasad commented that
because every action item would rely on the toolkit for guidance, the toolkit should be an ongoing effort a
short-teim goal to begin with and modified in conjunction with pilot projects abng the way. Ms. Briggum
expressed concern that if all action items are designated as short-teim, the workload for EPA would be
too high and the quality of the final product would not be as good. She suggested that the development of
the toolkit be more of an intermediate process, building on the initial pibt projects and lessons learned
from them. Ms. Henneke responded that because pilot projects already exist in most regions, an
intermediate goal would be more practical. Joining in the discussion, Mr. Juan Parras, De Madres a
Madres, Inc., and member of the Enforcement Subcommittee of the NEJAC, stated thatalthough the
states and EPA have greater control in selecting the pilot projects, each region should decide which of the
64 action items would be short-term, intermediate, or long-term in nature.

Ms. Su bra sug gested the cons olidation of T hem e 1 action items th at refer to p ilot projects in order to
make the recommendations concise and easier to understand. Agreeing with Ms. Subra, Ms. Harris
stated that the process should establish more of a framework or guidance on how to implement the pilot
projects rather than be too specific or too prescriptive. She said that there should be flexibility to deal with

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-29

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

specific situations. Ms. Nelson suggested building a matrix that would define and consolidate the action
items and also distinguish them in terms of change in agency action, change in agency thinking, and
change in agency capacity. She also suggested that the NEJAC discuss only those action items that
most of the members did not agree on with respectto the implementation time frame instead of each one
in detail. Mr. Lee responded that the real value of the discussion was that it would allow each member of
the NEJAC to comment on the action items, and hence itwas important to go through the process of
discussion.

Discussion of Action Items under Theme 2

The first action item under Theme 2 called for utilization of existing statutory authorities and for the Office
of General Council to issue a memorandum identifying authority to evaluate and address cumulative risks
and impacts in the statutes that it administers and delegates. Although Mr. Collette opposed such an
action and asked that the NEJAC reconsider whether to include this action item for legal reasons, Mr.
Wallace and Mr. Harris supported the action item, stating that itwould be helpful to have such a
memorandum. Mr. Wallace added that in the absence of regulatory and statutory authority to implement
the recommendations in the cumulative risk report, the OGC memorandum would provide the required
legal backup to states and regions; he also stated that this action item should be an intermediate goal.
Mr. Harris, however, thought that this could be accomplished within a year, making it a short-term goal.
Mr. Collette again cautioned againstthe idea but recommended that if the NEJAC did insist on going
ahead with it, the NEJAC should consider also recommending that EPA provide some direction to the
OGC and have a dialogue with the OGC before OGC issues the memorandum . Mr. W illiams stated that it
would also be helpful to involve tribal attorneys in the process because many tribal issues also require
clarification.

Moving on to the next action item, that O GC or the EPA prog ram offices provide an inventory that is easily
accessible to communities and that describes the procedures by which cumulative risks and impacts can
be evaluated based on existing authority, Mr. Parras indicated that this should be accomplished as soon
as possible, making it a short-term goal. Ms. Henneke stated that although it was important that the
information be available as soon as possible, in reality it could only be accomplished over two to three
years, making it an intermediate goal.

The next action item would require that EPA translate the authorities articulated in the OGC memorandum
into guidance for the permitting authorities that would advise on how best to incorporate cumulative risks
and their reduction into faciity permitting processes. Dr. Sawyers indicated that this would be an
intermediate goal. Othermembers of the NEJAC concurred.

The next action item stated that EPA, in completing the materials discussed earlier, should identify the
sources of adverse cumulative impacts that it has no or incomplete authority to control and for which state
or local regulation has provided inadequate or inconsistent control. Dr. Sawyers responded that this would
be a long-term effort because of the com plexities involved, and other members of the NEJAC agreed with
him.

The next action item would require that EPAs program offices compile a web-based inventory of case
studies of communities and regulatory programs where cumulative risks and impacts have been factored
into-decision making to provide practical guidance on how to use existing laws and procedures. Mr.

Harris and Ms. Espinosa agreed that this would be a useful effort but wou Id be more of an intermediate
goal. Ms. Kaplan disagreed, saying that this effort would be an ongoing effort that would require timely
updates. Mr. W illiams noted that many inadeq uacies come to light with respect to issues of tribal health
and well-being, such as gathering resources for subsistence or ceremonial purposes or for medicines.
Most of these resources, he stated, are unregulated. Dr. Sawyers concurred with Mr. Williams.

Dr. Fields suggested moving on to the next action item, that EPA create incentive programs to maximize
early, voluntary efforts to go beyond compliance in order to reduce cumulative impacts. Ms. Espinosa

1-30 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

suggested that EPA and the NEJAC capitalize on past work in this area, including the Pollution Preventbn
Report that was discussed at the last N EJAC meeting, and not reinvent the wheel, indicating that this
would be an intermediate and ongoing effort. Dr. Sawyers stated that while in principle he agreed with Ms.
Espinosa but that he would like this to be a short-term effort, especially when states like Maryland are
already working on incentive projects or incentive-based approaches for compliance assistance.

Mr. Parras totally opposed the action item, stating that from a community perspective he had not had very
good experiences with voluntary programs. He elaborated that although numerous voluntary incentive
programs exist in Texas, companies have simply chosen not to take action regardless of incentives. He
also pointed out the issues associated with grandfatherclauses in Texas state legislation that exempt
companies from complying with betterair emission standards and give them the option of not participating
even if given incentives; he noted that this essentially meant that regulators are paying companies to not
comply with regulatbns. Dr. Sawyers disagreed, stating that he has had good experiences with some
voluntary programs. Mr. Parras clarified his point, stating that incentive programs should not give
industries a long time (for example, 10 years) to comply, because this would only lengthen the process
instead of providing a solutbn. He insisted that requirements be made mandatory, giving industries a
limited period of time such as 30 to 90 days to comply.

In response to Mr. Parras, Mr. Harris and Ms. Briggum agreed that the incentive programs should insist
that businesses go beyond compliance. Dr. Fields added that Mr. Parras s concern was well founded, and
past issues have highlighted community concerns that incentive programs would cause public health to be
compromised. Illustrating his point, Mr. Parras cited the example of a report recently released by the
Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG), a state-wide public interest advocacy group. The
report stated that not too many companies joined a voluntary program of responsible care sponsored by
the American Chemistry Association. Furthermore, the reportstated that even among those companies
that had joined the program since 1990, over 7,000 accidental releases or accidents in plants had been
reported. Mr. Williams noted a similar experience some years earlier with a national voluntary watershed
program, for which strict time fram es and m inimum stand ards had to be established in order to ensure
adequate resolutions of the issues.

Commenting on the previous discussions, Mr. Prasad expressed concern that the focus was only on
pollution prevention, and he noted that options should also include pollution reductbn. Ms. Briggum noted
that pollution reduction was an important concept and had been addressed in the Pollution Preventbn
Report.

Mr. Weinstock stated thatthe action item could be divided into short-term and intermediate goal. In the
short term, he added, better targeting of EPAs existing voluntary programs thatdeal with pollution
prevention and other initiatives focusing on businesses, would be a starting point. The intermediate effort
would involve improvising the program to make it more effective, he concluded.

Dr. Sawyers re-emphasized the need to continue the use of voluntary projects to achieve and go beyond
compliance. He cited a successful project in Park Heights, Maryland, in which several hundred auto body
shops that were out of com pliance were granted imm unity for a certain period of time with the full support
of the community so that they could achieve compliance.

Referring to Mr. Parras s comments about paying to pollute, Ms. Espinosa suggested that he work with
her, Ms. Briggum, and Mr. Lee to revise the language of the cumulative risk report in order to include
certain recommendations that would be useful to communities and thatwould ensure that EPA and the
states do not tolerate noncompliance by businesses. Mr. Parras agreed with this suggestion.

The last action item under Theme 2 was revised by Ms. Harris, so Dr. Fields requested that she explain it
in her own words. Ms. Harris, speaking from the perspective of enforcement, stated that she modified the
action item because it originally did not accurately reflect the work of the enforcement and compliance
assurance program. Explaining the revisbns, she stated that OECA should investigate ways to target

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-31

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

communities with high cumulative impacts and to employ cumulative risk reduction as a goal for and in the
context of injunctive relief and supplemental environmental projects. This effort would be an intermediate
one, she explained, because itwould require that OECA work closely with states and EPA program
offices. The NEJAC work group agreed to incorporate the changes into the cumulative risk report.

Ms. Eady then requested clarification from the NEJAC work group regarding the definition of communities
of high cumulative impact. Ms. Briggum responded that the term reflects a comparison with other
communities and that it would be beneficial to have a threshold that defines high. Mr. Lee also clarified
that cum ulative impact refersto mu Itiple im pacts. Dr. Fields agreed that Ms. Eady had raised a valid
point and stated that appropriate clarifications would be included in the cumulative risk report.

Mr. Sanders requested clarification of the actbn item that called for EPA to identify sources of adverse
cumulative impacts that it has no or incomplete authority to control and for which state and local regulatbn
has provided inadequate or inconsistentcontrol. He stated that including local regulation in the action item
would exponentially increase the amount of work to be done. Ms. Briggum responded that although this
effort may involve a significant amount of work and would have to broken out in term s of tim e frame, it
was important to include it in the action item, because communities are often most concerned about local
ordinances rather than Federal regulations. These local ordinances are inconsistent, she continued, with
respect to the amount of paperwork required to obtain a permit and other similar issues. Dr. Fields added
that communities have indicated that it is important for local government and not just the state and EPA to
be involved in understanding community issues.

At this point, Ms. Nelson informed the NEJAC that she and Ms. Espinosa, with the concurrence of Ms.
Eady and Mr. Lee, had drafted a form for the NEJAC members to fill out. The members were to use the
form to state their specific comm itments to disseminate and comm unicate the message of the cumu lative
risk report.

Ms. Eady then informed the NEJAC about an article published in The Times-Picayune that morning about
Ms. Matthews, a m ember of the co mm unity impacts panel whose earlier presentation on the cum ulative
risks and impacts in the Four Corners community was the subject of the article. The article also
highlighted the public comment session scheduled for that evening and the NEJAC meeting, Ms. Eady
noted.

Ms. Hen neke inqu ired about what kind of concise briefing document on the m eeting would be available
that could be shared with various managers. Mr. Lee replied that an executive summary of the meeting
would be available soon. Ms. Nelson em phasized the need for a graphically interesting, concise executive
summary. Dr. Fields thanked Ms. Nelson for raising this matter, pointing out that a fact sheet briefly
describing the cumulative risk report would also be a useful communication tool.

Discussion of Action Items under Theme 3

Theme 3 addresses methods to examine and overcome programmatic and regulatory fragmentation
within the nation s environmental protection regime.

The first action item under Theme 3 recommended that EPA conduct a systematic examination of issues
related to programmatic and regulatory fragmentation that contribute to cumulative impacts, identify
environmental protectbn gaps resulting from programmatic and regulatory fragmentation, and develop
strategies to address the pitfalls of such fragmentation. Dr. Sawyers stated that the requirements of the
action item were difficult to comprehend and that this would be long-term effort. Dr. Fields and Mr.
Williams agreed with Dr. Sawyers. Mr. Williams added that itwould be helplul to have a format for
Federal, state, tribal, and local authorities that would specify the rules of the road. This format is
important because to have a pilot project for a pilot planning area, the participants would need to
understand the applicable Federal, state, and local government rules, especially because those rules vary
with each jurisdiction. Dr. Fields noted the magnitude of the task, stating that on the Federal level alone,

1-32 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

13 statutes would need to be considered. In addition, the state, local, and tribal laws would have to be
addressed.

Ms. Subra suggested consolidating the first four action items under Theme 3 into one stepwise action item
that would start off as a short-term effort (with the first half of the first action item) and then continue into a
long-term effort with the development of a strategy. A similar suggestion was made by Ms. Tucker, Dr.
Fields, and Dr. Sawyers for the second action item, which would require EPA to create an advisory
committee to examine issues related to programmatic and regulatory fragmentation. They suggested
dividing the action item into two sections, the creation of the advisory committee being a short-term effort
and exam ination of the issues being done over time. Ms. Su bra noted that the work for the advisory
committee would only follow the first action item and hence it would not be a good idea to set up the
comm ittee too early. Dr. Sawyers then asked whether any other agencies, such as the National Advisory
Council on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), could assist with this particular task. Dr.
Fields directed the question to Ms. Subra, a member of NACEPT. Ms. Subra agreed to bring the issue
before NACEPT for its consideration.

Ms. Briggum suggested that before other agencies such as NACEPT were approached, the N EJAC s role
should be better defined because there is well-balanced representation of community groups within the
NEJAC that may not existwithin NACEPT. Ms. Tucker added that EPA could also use the expertise of
the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) to put together a document on environmental justice and existing
environm ental statutes and to address issues of regu latory fragm entation.

The third action item included multiple tasks for EPA, such as to (1) develop, integrate, and coordinate an
approach to unify resources and maximize strategies for current environmental health assessment; (2)
provide recommendations or procedures to eliminate the barriers and challenges caused by fragmentation
problems in program processes; (3) develop new or revised regulations and programs; and (4) establish
an interagency collaborative effort to coordinate and develop an integrated approach to program services
and regulatory monitoring. With the concurrence of Mr. Lee, Dr. Fields informed the NEJAC that the
multitask effort would involve an interagency environmental justice work group. Ms. Nelson stated that
this effort should be started immediately, given the vast amount of work that it would involve. Dr. Fields
agreed with her, stating that he recognized that the effort m ay be a long-term one, but to get it done, it
would have to be started as soon as 2005 with targeted completion in 2007 or 2008. Ms. Tucker
proposed that item 1 be a short-term effort, item 2 be an intermediate effort, and items 3 and 4 be long-
term efforts.

Continuing the discussbn of regulatory fragmentation, Mr. Lee shared a report published in 2000 by the
National Academy of Public Administrators (NAPA) that discussed fragmentation. He stated that while
finalizing the cumulative risk report, the NEJAC work group should keep in mind the key questions that
would be raised by communities as well as agencies with respect to issues of cumulative risks and
impacts. Dr. Fields agreed that the cumulative risk report would have to be recrafted in order to better
distinguish between short-term and long-term goals.

Mr. Weinstock pointed out that in theory it would be possible to start any specific task at this point in time
but that it would be impractical to do so because of limited resources. Keeping this in mind, he said, the
NEJAC would have to prioritize tasks. In response, Dr. Fields stated that the NEJAC work group would
definitely take this point into consideration when itreconvened in May2004 to further discuss completbn
of the cumulative risk report and would recommend the tasks that could be reasonably completed in FY
2005, FY 2006, and FY 2007, and beyond. He noted that before this could be done, however, the work
group would have to look at the whole picture and assess some new short-term priorities that the work
group believes require immediate attention. Ms. Espinosa agreed with Dr. Fields and Mr. Weinstock that
the work group should focus on some real priorities to avoid resource conflicts. She encouraged the
NEJAC as well as those providing public comments on the cumulative risk report to help the work group
decide what the real prbrities are.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-33

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

Dr. Ram irez-Toro noted that different agencies are not completely fragmented in their approach to
cumulative risks and impacts and stated that the recommendations should build on what currently exists in
EPA in terms of interagency communications. Mr. Sanders noted that it would be useful to organize the
action items, as suggested earlier by Ms. Nelson, in terms of change in agency action, change in
agency thinking, and change in agency capacity, which would help in prioritizing the action items as
short- and long-term efforts. Mr. Walter Handy, Cincinnati Health Department and member of the Health
and Research Subcommittee of the NEJAC, wondered whether agency sponsorship and current
availability should be considered as variables in the discussbn. Mr. Lee stated that the efforts for better
understanding of cumulative risks and impacts are being sponsored by numerous agency offices both at
the Headquarters and regional levels. Ms. Harris also noted that the EPA Executive Steering Committee
consisting of Deputy Regional Administrators and Deputy Assistant Administrators would lend its guidance
and expertise to the N EJAC work group in term s of the various offices that would be able to participate in
the process. Dr. Fields agreed that this topic could be discussed at the next Executive Steering
Committee meeting.

Discussion of Action Items under Theme 4

Theme 4 concerned full incorporation of the conceptof vulnerability, especially its social and cultural
aspects, into EPAs strategic plans and research agendas.

The first action item stated that EPA should make it clear that although quantitative evaluation of
vulnerability is precluded in almost all cases by the scarcity of scientific knowledge and understanding of
the subject, this is not an excuse to ignore vulnerability. Vulnerability should be an integral part of
cumulative risk assessment even if it must be analyzed using qualitative measures. Dr. Sawyers
commented that in the context of the cumulative risk report, it is absolutely necessary that this action item
be addressed in the short term because it is a fundamental part of the report. If this is not done, he
stated, the report will lose some of its momentum.

Ms. Henneke noted that this effort would involve assessment of vulnerability from a different point of view
and was different from previous efforts because it emphasized social and cultural aspects. Hence, she
although while it could be started in the short term, it would have to continue for a longer period of time. In
response to Dr. Fields s request for clarification, she stated that some states and even some programs in
EPA) would not receive this concept very well and that it would require a great deal of outreach to ECOS
and other organizations in order to clearly communicate this issue. Mr. Warren pointed out that this action
item does not provide adequate guidance to the decision-maker on what to do with inform ation when it is
received, how to evaluate it, and specifically how to define vulnerability in a cumulative risk assessm ent.
Dr. Fields agreed with Mr. Warren that there are serious implementation issues associated with this action
item and stated that increasing its specificity with respect to definitions of terminology as well as
widespread outreach would allow the concepts to gain acceptance.

The next action item would require EPA to direct all its offices to devebp strategic environmental justice
action plans for incorporating the concept of vulnerability into their operational paradigm. Dr. Fields noted
that this item could also be applicable to the regional strategic plans referred to earlier by Mr. Voltaggio.
Dr. Sawyers expressed full agreement with earlier comments by Ms. Henneke and Mr. Warren and noted
that this action item would be a short-term exercise butwould depend on further explanation of other
concepts. Ms. Tucker informed the NEJAC that EPA only recently finalized its five-year strategic plan and
inquired about other opportunities to incorporate the concepts beyond environmental justice action plans.
Mr. Lee responded that other opportunities would include EPAs Human Health Research Strategy, which
focuses on populations; a framework for cumulative risk assessment that is being developed by the
Cumulative Risk Technical Review Panel; a series of workshops; issue papers; and, pilot projects. Ms.
Harris noted that EPAs five-year strategic plan is being developed for FY 2005 to FY 2007 and hence
could include those actbn items that are intermediate efforts. Also, she noted that because the action
items would require a significant amount of resources, a specific budgetfor it should be allocated in the
FY 200 7 budget.

1-34 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

Ms. Tucker suggested revising the action item to include the other opportunities mentioned by Mr. Lee.
Ms. Nelson added that the meaning of social and cultural with regard to environmental justice would
have to be clearly defined and better explained using examples. Ms. Tucker further suggested revising
the theme statement by not including social and cultural, and instead including these concepts in the
descriptbn. Ms. Henneke supported this suggestion but added that because these concepts go to the
heart of vulnerability, providing examples wo uld be useful to clarify the terms in the context of cumulative
risks and impacts. Ms. Kaplan agreed with Ms. Tucker and Ms. Henneke and stated that although she
had no language suggestions at the moment, it was importantto educate the states on the significance of
the issues being discussed. Mr. Handy also recommended that states look beyond physical sciences and
train their staff in the social sciences as well, noting that newly trained staff would provide support in the
implementation ofthe recommendations suggested in the cumulative risk report. In response, Dr. Fields
noted that a series of recommendations in the report suggest hiring of staff members that possess
capability and expertise in the social sciences as part of the resource pool. Mr. Williams reiterated Ms.
Tucker s sentiment that the statement of the theme could be misleading, especially from the tribal
perspective.

Mr. Lee responded that Theme 4 was perhaps the most important one in the cumulative risk report,
because it was a major paradigm shift and addressed a fundamental concept. He noted four main
challenges in the implementatbn of this theme. The first challenge is to find the right language to convey
the point, which would require a series of discussions, dialogue with communities and other stakeholders,
scientific symposia, stakeholder forums, and advisory panels that would clarify how this concept is being
understood and integrated. He further stated that at the Coalition for Environmental and Economic
Balance in California, in which he participated along with Ms. Tucker, Ms. Briggum, and Mr. Prasad, social
issues were discussed. The second challenge concerned the third action item, which called for EPA to
incorporate the concept of vulnerability into its definition of disproportionately high human health or
environmental impacts. Mr. Lee pointed out that social and cultural issues are not addressed in the
existing environmental statutes and that this fact presents a challenge to the integration of the social and
cultural concepts within the context of regulatory statutes. Third, he pointed out that although pilot
projects are important to the understanding of fundamental concepts, it is a challenge to effectively design
pilot projects that will provide lessons with respect to these concepts. Fourth, he noted that, as Ms. Hynes
had pointed out, social science and public health literature is beginning to lay the foundation for a future
course of action.

Dr. Fields then asked Mr. Lee when he believed that EPA could reasonably incorporate the concept of
vulnerability into the definition of disproportionately high human health or environmental effects. Mr. Lee
responded that EPA is on the verge of doing this conceptually and would require an intermediate effort to
translate the concepts into the tools required to provide robust and predictive indicators. He stated that at
the current NEJAC meeting, the Enforcement Subcommittee would be discussing targeting tools being
developed by OECA that incorporate disproportionate human health and environmental effects. Ms.

Harris added that the project that Mr. Lee was referring to has taken about a year, within OECA and that a
hands-on tool for inspectors who handle cases was yet to be established. The next step would be to
encourage other EPA offices and the regions to learn from OECAs experience and continue the effort
instead of starting over.

Ms. Espinosa stated that the current list of recommendations were drafted with the thought of provoking a
discussion, not only within the NEJAC but outside as well. She also pointed out that like the tribal
communities, the Hispanic community faces issues with regard to the cultural aspects. Mr. Gonzalez
added that the initial work on this issue was started with the publication of EPA s Framework for
Cumulative Risk Assessment, which has to be taken into account before other tasks are initiated. Some
suggestions that are new and not part of the framework, such as developing a scientific agenda taking the
concepts discussed at the NEJAC meeting into consideration and developing indicators for vulnerability
assessments, would have to be addressed as well, he noted.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-35

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

Dr. Fields then began a discussion of the action item that would req uire EPA to convene and promote
community dialogues, scientific symposia, expert panels, stakeholder forums, and advisory panels in
order to fully discuss the concept of vulnerability and obtain input on how to incorporate vulnerability into
its operational practices and research agendas. Ms. Nelson responded that this would be a good step
and would require collaboration with the health community and others. Ms. Espinosa added that the
action item was ongoing at EPA but that it would have to continue and advance the effort. Mr. Lee noted
that EPAs Human Health Research Strategy had defined vulnerability and susceptibility only from the
biological point of view. Hence, a great deal of education would be required to communicate the meaning
of these concepts in order to continue and advance EPA s efforts, he concluded.

Ms. Tucker noted that with respect to the fifth action item, which would require EPA to integrate measures
of vulnerability into existing as well as new screening tools, EPA should first develop the measures. She
also suggested that indicators be used instead of measures. Dr. Fields noted that the fourth and fifth
action items which required EPA to issue explicit guidance on the meaning of vulnerability, are tougher
issues that would be clarified over time. Mr. Prasad pointed out that although this effort would occur over
the long term, it was important to rem ember that the whole reason for the bias for action was not to wait
too long before initiating action. Hence, he said, the effort should com mence in the next two to five years
and should incorporate ongoing research into the risk assessment protocol down the line.

Discussion of Action Items under Theme 5

Theme 5 called for promoting a paradigm shiftto community-based approaches, particularly CBPR and
intervention. The first action item recommended that EPA institutionalize a paradigm shiftto community-
based approaches, building upon and expanding the use of the CBPR model. Ms. Espinosa emphasized
that the NEJAC work group wanted EPA to build upon and expand ongoing efforts atthe agency. She
suggested adding another category, ongoing, to the time frame classification of the action items. Ms.
Nelson stated that many of the points underTheme 5 were in fact mind sets or ways of thinking and not
action items and that the work group would have to distinguish between them. She added that the first
action item was a mind set. Dr. Fields agreed with Ms. Nelsons comments, stating that the work group
would have to reformulate some of these points into specific action items.

Mr. W illiams noted that with respect to the community-based approaches, in areas involving multiple
com munities, the Federal role of EPA and the fiduciary role of tribes should not be overlooked. He said
that where tribes are in a minority, they could be outnumbered by the surrounding communities in the
decision-making process. To ensure that local comm unities do not influence the direction of a decision to
suit their particular needs, Federal protection provided either by trust or bylaw, would be necessary, Mr.
Williams said.

Ms. Kaplan then stated that it would be incorrect to refer to the community-based approach as a
paradigm shift because such work is ongoing at EPA. Ms. Espinosa clarified that the paradigm shift
refers to the entire agency as opposed to individual offices. Ms. Tucker pointed out that CBPR was not
being done; hence, this would be a new element. Mr. Prasad noted that this issue was a challenge in his
agency too, and although the agency had included the concept in its policy statements and had identified
specific action items, they were found to be ineffective over the last two years. He suggested addressing
the issue of community-based versus community-directed, as what an agency might think of as a
research focus may not correspond with community needs. In response, Ms. Tucker remarked that one
of the criteria for CBPR in the cumulative risk report is that it be community driven. Although it is not
reflected in the action item, community-driven is referred to in the report, so the action item should be
rephrased accordingly, she said.

Regarding the second action item, that EPA should adopt and expand the use of CBPR and intervention in
its training, outreach, and education programs, Ms. Tucker noted thatthis would be a short-term effort and
would then continue as an ongoing process. She stated that although a significant part of the training
would occur at the local level, training at the community and tribal levels is also important. She suggested

1-36 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

that for regulatory agencies, there ought to be an ongoing training program. Ms. Nelson reiterated the
need for consolidation of action items two, three (formulating and implementing a clear plan to utilize
CBPR), and four (requiring use of CBPR in guidelines) into one concise action item. Clarifying her remark
regarding action item three, she stated that CBPR should be part of the ten proposed multimedia and
cumulative risk pilot projects that would be initiated in the short term.

Ms. Harris noted that the current discussion of CBPR should be integrated into the recommendations for
the environmental justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model. The action item, she stated, would work
as a stand-alone as well as when integrated as part of an overall agenda, given the opportunity to
develop training and learn from the pilot projects. Ms. Tucker stated that she had made a similar
recommendation earlier; CBPR should be the first step toward the collaborative partnership process,
which at the local level would allow the community to identify local partners, and bcal experts whom they
want to be involved in the research agenda. Dr. Sawyers suggested studying complementary efforts in
other agencies like the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and CDC that
engage in CBPR; the recent grant commitments at NIEHS were of special interest Ms. Tucker
responded that CDC was one of the founders of CBPR.

Mr. Weinstock expressed concern about the requirement that a community-based project should always
have CBPR. He stated that this contradicted the bias for action theme. He cited an example in
Cleveland, Ohio, where a successlul airtoxics action-oriented projectwas implemented in two different
communities with little or no research agenda. Ms. Tucker responded that action is innate to CBPR and
that research does not have to be complete in order to initiate action. Secondly, she noted that the CBPR
process also identifies existing research data. It is for the community to determine whetherthe research
data is already in place. Dr. Fields clarified that the research that Ms. Tucker referred to was not the
classical research that is normal within EPA but the collection of data by the community, such as the
number of people who have developed different types of cancer in a community, how many have died,
and where hazardous m aterials may have been deposited. Ms. Tucker stated that in addition to
community knowledge, CBPR included traditional and quantitative research data. She noted that if CBPR
had been available ten years ago, the current understanding of cumulative risks and impacts in
communities would have been far advanced.

Ms. Harris stressed the need for a comm on understanding of the terms and concepts in the cum ulative
risk report, stating that EPA offices need to be re-educated and given an opportunity to re-process terms
such as CBPR and environmental justice. This approach would also be cost-effective in terms of the bias
for action, because itwould provide lessons learned as well as existing data, she added.

Mr. Lee joined in the discussion, stating that the situation varies for each community and that CBPR
should be incorporated to the extent practicable or needed. This determination would depend on multi
stakeholder processes such as planning and problem formulation selection of the methods to be used for
assessment. Mr. Gonzalez commented that CBPR ensures that the community is an equal partner in the
whole process. Mr. Handy suggested that the NEJAC work group expand on the definition of research.

The last actbn item states that EPA should provide educatbn to state and local governments, business
and industry, academia, and other institutional entities about CBPR. Dr. Sawyers stated that although he
advocated CBPR, in some cases research is not necessary and communities demand only intervention
and mitigatbn efforts. In response, Ms. Nelson emphasized that the major thrust of the action item is a
community-based approach, especially with regard to community-driven research. Mr. Williams agreed
with Ms. Nelson that CBPR is really about data collection. He also stated that some communities resist
having research done because a great deal of information is already available on issues that the
communities are not concerned about. Rather, communities are always interested in research that
addresses the future of their children.

Discussion of Action Items under Theme 6

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-37

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

Theme 6 recommends that EPA incorporate social, economic, cultural, and community health factors,
particular those involving vulnerability, in EPA decision-making.

The first action item states that EPA should develop a commitment to incorporate social, economic,
cultural, and community health factors in the EPA decision-making process, including decision-making
regarding risk assessments. Ms. Eady suggested clarifying that the action is to incorporate and not
develop a commitment. Ms. Nelson suggested consoidating the first and second action items stating
that the effort would be of an intermediate natu re.

Mr. Handy suggested a change in the format of the discussion. He suggested that the NEJAC discuss the
last three themes and related action items only enough to get an understanding of what they mean and
not tryto decipher whether they would be short-term, intermediate, or long-term. He further suggested
that they all be classified as toward the end of the discussion high-, medium-, or low-priority items.
Ms. Subra noted that the social and cultural issues were also raised under the topic of vulnerability and
that it would help to consolidate the two action items. She also suggested putting all the action items in
one listto avoid repetition. Mr. Williams suggested incorporating traditional knowledge verbiage
throughout the recommendations.

The next action item stated that EPA should integrate social, economic, cultural, and community health
factors into its environmental justice training program. Mr. Lee stated thatthis is beginning to be done at
EPA in terms of examining disproportionate impacts.

The next action item would require EPA to conduct a systematic review of the research literature in order
to identify and assess environmental health factors related to income, race, and ethnicity as a first step in
development of usable indicators. This action item would be patterned after EPAs recent development of
environmental health measures forchildren. Ms. Nelson and Ms. Subra reiterated the need to reduce the
redundancy in the action items.

Dr. Fields added that the action items could be consolidated to state that EPA should strengthen its
capacity for building bias for action by recruiting community health, environmental health, and social
scientists into the workforce; supporting community-based organizations and researchers; and
undertaking community-based pilot projects in all the regions. This could perhaps be achieved by
changing hiring patterns in the agency, he stated.

Mr. Weinstock stated that Dr. Fields s suggestion could be broadened by specifying the skills required
instead of specific credentials. Mr. Weinstock added that although EPA does need more social scientists,
it also needs more people who are trained or skilled in interacting with comm unities. Dr. Ramirez-Toro
concurred, stating that by clearly defining what capacity must be built, it will be easier to predict the
resources needed. Dr. Sawyers also agreed with Mr. Weinstock, emphasizing the need for the
nontechnical expertise to effectively communicate with impacted communities. Mr. Sanders requested
that the NEJAC work group make a more precise recommendation to the agency regarding the workforce
development initiative that is going on within the agency. Mr. Handy stated that the focus should also be
on developing strategic partnerships with state and local agencies in building capacity. Ms. Tucker
cautioned the work group againstthe use of language such as goal of action and social change, stating
that if EPA and other regulatory agencies do whatthey are supposed to do, they would nothave to bring
about social change.

Mr. Williams suggested that a group of experts within EPA form a short-term think tank and focus on
what the agency should do to generate further action. Dr. Fields replied that an earlier recommendation
called for an external advisory committee to be set up to generate similar results. Mr. Williams further
explained his point, stating that in dealing with the Pacific Sailing Commission, the tribes hired one person
to focus on contacting experts and gathering information. This persons efforts were one factor in the
development of a treaty between the United States and Canada.

1-38 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

Discussion of Action Items under Theme 7

Theme 7 concerns the development and implementation of efficient screening, targeting, and prioritization
methods and tools to identify communities needing immediate attention.

The first action item recommended that EPA identify, inventory, and review existing screening, targeting,
and prioritization methods and tools to ascertain the following: (1) strengths and weaknesses of existing
tools; (2) ways that these tools can be improved; and (3) steps to move forward, including guidance
regarding minimum criteria for selection and use of a particulartool. Dr. Sawyers observed that because
most of the tools are already available, the effort should be concentrated on methods to evaluate their
strengths, their weaknesses, and ways to improve them in the shortterm. He pointed out thatsome of the
tools, such as the environmental justice assessment framework, were included in the meeting materials.

Mr. Prasad noted that each of the action items under Theme 7 would require an intermediate effort, as
agreed by members of the NEJAC during the discussion of Theme 1. He recalled the discussion in which
it was decided that to m ake this item a short-term goal would interfere with bias for action, and hence, to
be consistent with the earlier decision, this action item should also be considered an intermediate effort.
Ms. Nelson stated that Appendix H of the cumulative risk report describes indices and tools that could be
used in this effort, making the use of existing tools a short-term effort. Identifying the strengths and
weaknesses of the existing tools and the ways that they can be improved would involve an intermediate
effort, she said.

Mr. Warren led the discussion to the next action item three, which called for EPA to incorporate indicators
into screening and targeting tools in the long term. He pointed out that, as discussed previously, some
indicators are already incorporated into existing tools, including indicators of health status such as
mortality and morbidity data and indicators of cultural factors in the Native American communities. He
suggested deleting the phrase in the bng term and suggested that EPA identify the indicator factors that
already exist and then consider adaptive management techniques consistent with the bias for action
whereby these indicators can be re-evaluated, refined, and modified over time. Dr. Fields supported the
suggestion that the action item be divided into activities that can be accomplished in the short term and
those that require intermediate effort. Ms. Nelson proposed that an ongoing category be added to the
three timeframe categories in order to reflect the iterative process.

The next action item stated that EPA should focus on training its staff to ensure effective, widespread
utilizatbn of the screening and targeting tools as well as outreach and education for stakeholders. These
efforts would ensure that this becomes a common framework among the scientific community, regulators,
the regulated community and impacted communities. Ms. Nelson again noted the redundancy and
emphas ized that similar action items should be consolidated throughout the cum ulative risk report. Dr.
Ramirez-Toro pointed out that the action item clarifies the concept of capacity-building within EPA
because training is a major capacity- building exercise.

The last actbn item under Theme 7 would require EPA to convene a series of multi stakeholder seminars,
workshops, and panels, including sessions of a peer review nature, in order to address existing screening,
targeting, and prioritization methods and tools in terms of cumulative risks and impacts. Mr. Weinstock
expressed the need to change the title of this action item because it is not clear whether the focus is on
identifying com munities or on more effective work in communities.

In response, Mr. Lee noted thatthe action item raised a complex issue. He explained thatthe concept
was first raised by Mr. Prasad in his capacity as a regulator and involved how to justify the picking of
certain targeted communities using screening methods. The issue is further complicated, Mr. Lee said,
by trying to identify what tools exist and what other tools need to be developed over time and by
addressing the need for training while remaining focused on the bias for action. Mr. Lee noted that
another complexity of this issue involved enlisting the participation and support of partners such as states,
local governments, business and industry, and impacted communities. He cited the example of the

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-39

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

environmental justice geographic assessment tool, which was based on the assumptions that
comm unities, government, and business and industry would eventually use the same set of param eters
and indicators. Ms. Eady concurred with Mr. Lee but also encouraged the rewording of the action item title
for clarity.

Discussion of Action Items under Theme 8

Theme 8 encouraged EPA to address capacity and resource issues within the agency, states, affected
communities, tribes, stakeholders, and local governments. Dr. Fields suggested including the private
sector in this effort.

The action items under Theme 8 included recommendations that EPA ensure that (1) adequate resources
are available to support meaningful community-based efforts to address cumulative risks and impacts as
part of a paradigm shift to community-based approaches and (2) environmental justice action plans have
adequ ate reso urce co mm itments to fully accom plish the se t of actions.

At this point, Mr. Lee summarized the previous discussbns, stating that all the action items could be
consolidated into ten action items spanning the eight interrelated themes. He recommended that the
original action items be consolidated into the following recommendations:

1. Initiate pilot projects to implement all 8 themes

2. Develop tools and capacity, especially in terms of use of statutory authorities, assessment tools,
policy tools, and others

3. Build consensus and develop a dialogue among stakeholders using stakeholder discussions,
scientific symposia, advisory panels, and think tanks, to ensure that there is a common
understanding of the process involved

4. Focus on the issue of vulnerability and its research and policy implications relevant literature
reviews, and the relationship of vulnerability to social and cultural factors and assessment
indicators

5. Training for EPA staff com munities, business and industry, and other stakeh olders

6. Develop capacity through personnel devebpment; targeted recruiting; and enhancement of skills,
social science capacity, expertise in dealing with communities, and understanding of traditional
knowledge

7. Develop strategic partnerships, which is related to some of the other action items

8. Encourage community-based approaches and CBPR to involve residents in decisbns regarding
their communities

9. Develop targeting and prioritization methods and tools to identify communities that require
immediate intervention

10. Develop ways to structure these action items into EPA action plans and allocate budgets for plan
implementation

Dr. Fields thanked Mr. Lee forthe consolidation ofthe action items and stated that the NEJAC work group
would focus on consolidating the action items before presenting them to the EPA. Ms. Espinosa proposed
that the work group put together one two-page matrix foreach of the eight themes and incorporate the
action items based on Mr. Lees recommendations. She suggested cross-listing the action items with the
eight themes for ready reference. She also recommended that to draw attention to the action items, the
work group should consider including them in a separate chapter in the cumulative risk report. Dr. Fields
supported Ms. Espinosa s suggestions and stated that having all the action items in one chapter would
avoid redundancy and would lend focus to the report.

Mr. Lee then highlighted the next steps for the NEJAC work group, noting that so far the work group had
completed about two-thirds of its work. He elaborated that for the next three to four months, the work
group would work on finalizing the cumulative risk report by September, taking into consideration the
discussions, deliberations, and public comments provided at the N EJAC meeting. The final report wouId

1-40 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

then be presented to the Executive Council of the NEJAC for deliberation and action, he added. He
announeed that for a period of 30 days following the NEJAC m eeting, the work group wouId continue to
accept written public comments on the report. Mr. Lee also stated that the work group would continue to
discuss the issues as well as comments received during the monthly conference calls until the publication
of the final report. He thanked M s. Harris, M r. San ders, Mr. W einstock, Mr. S tarfield, and Mr. Voltaggio
for providing a valuable EPA perspective to the discussion.

Mr. Handy expressed his appreciatbn for the efforts of the NEJAC work group, complimenting the group
members for putting together the cumulative risk report that led to this discussion. Ms. Harris also
commended the work group, noting that the discussion over the past two days had been very productive,
and she encouraged the work group to organize the actbn items using a matrix, as suggested by Ms.
Espinosa, in order to provide guidance to EPA regarding the action items of the highest priority. She
stated that it would be practical to consolidate the action items into no more than five priorities that could
be implemented in the 2005 time frame. Mr. Weinstock echoed Ms. Harris s comments, congratulating
the work group for putting together a seminal piece of work that will hugely impact the understanding of
issues related to cumulative risks and impacts. Mr. Sanders commended the work group and also
thanked Mr. Lee for his consolidation of the original actbn items, noting that a matrix format would be very
useful in promoting a clear understanding of EPA s responsibilities.

Ms. Nelson described the process of producing the cumulative risk report as a journey forthe NEJAC
work group that had been modified and enriched by the discussbns at the meeting. She noted that the
recommendations in the report are very different from prior NEJAC work because they are not just a set of
recomm endations to the EPA Adm inistrator but potential changes in the way of working at EPA. Dr.
Sawyers appreciated the structural work accomplished by the report, preparing the foundation for the
new way of doing business. He also thanked Ms. Tucker for dem onstrating continued comm itment toward
community participation over the years. Mr. Parras also thanked the work group for its efforts.

Mr. Lee then asked each member of the work group to reflect on the discussions of the cumulative risk
report.

Ms. Henneke expressed satisfaction that the discussions over the past two days had revolved around the
style of the cumulative risk report and not the substance of its recommendations. Ms. Tucker appreciated
the support of other members of the NEJAC work group during the entire process. She stated that she
would be happy to share the credit with all the communities across the country, especially communities of
color and lower-income people who are suffering from cumulative risks and impacts. She also expressed
satisfaction thatthe report would scientifically address the issues of cumulative risks and impacts that
have been overlooked for a long time. Mr. Prasad noted that it had been a privilege and a gratifying
experience to be part of the work group. Ms. Subra thanked Mr. Lee forputting together a work group that
supported diverse ideas and that possessed diverse opinions and experiences. She believed that the final
report would do more than improve the quality of life and the health of community members, and although
it would probably not be appreciated in the short term, in the long term it would be looked upon as a
turning point in dealing with environmental issues. Mr. Gonzalez praised the group members for their
expertise and teamwork and for realizing the significance of the task beyond their respective professbnal
agendas. He also thanked EPA for taking charge of the issue and for soliciting the support and
partners hip of othe r Federal, state, and local agen cies.

Ms. Espinosa appreciated the opportunity to co-chair the NEJAC work group. She also thanked Ms.
Briggum for her experience, herability to involve business and industry representatives in the process,
and her continued outreach efforts to bring attention to the issue atseminars and workshops. Ms.
Espinosa also recognized Ms. Tucker for her experience in working with communities and their issues for
many years. Finally, Ms. Espinosa thanked EPA for participating in the discussions and providing valuable
feedback and suggestions.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-41

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

Dr. Fields thanked the NEJAC Executive Council for providing helpful comments during the discussbns
and expressed confidence that the final cumulative risk report would be of very high quality in terms of
content and usefulness. He thanked EPA officials for their participation in the discussions and especially
Mr. Starfield and EPA Region 6 for hosting the NEJAC meeting. Dr. Fields also expressed gratitude to Mr.
Lee for p utting togeth er an effe ctive work group u nder the leadersh ip of Ms. Espinos a and M s. Briggu m.

4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS

This section summarizes the presentations made and reports submitted before the members of the
Executive Council on April 16, 2004.

4.1 Update on the Pollution Prevention Report by the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances

Mr. Hank Topper, EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), provided an
update on the Pollution Prevention Report, a draft of which had been discussed at the NEJAC meeting in
Baltimore, Maryland, in December 2002. Mr. Topper noted that following the presentation of the draft
report to the NEJAC in 2002, the final report was completed. It includes a promising collaborative
problem-solving model that could be adopted by other programs and offices in EPA, he said.

First, Mr. Topper focused on some key elements in the Pollution Prevention Report and the progress that
has been made of EPA in response to that report. In particular, he elaborated on the four key aspects of
the report, including the themes being developed based on the collaborative problem-solving model,
enhancing the ability to understand risks and priorities, working in communities and using pilot projects,
and us ing pollution p revention (P2) to red uce co mm unity risk.

Mr. Topper specified the developments regarding the collaborative problem-solving model since the
publication of the Pollution Prevention Report. He pointed out EPA Administrator Mark Levitts belief in the
EnLibra Doctrine; EnLibra means move toward balance and the doctrine is based on the dual concepts
of balance and stewardship and is built upon principles of flexibility, innovation, partnership, and
collaboration. He noted the possibility of synergy and cooperation with EPA leadership on the issue of
collaboration. He announced that the environmental justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Grant Program
is now in operation and is making significant contributions to developing the collaborative problem-solving
model emphasized in the report.

Mr. Topper stated that the collaborative model has been adopted in community projects run by EPA s Air
Program throughout the country, including the Urban Air Toxic Strategy, which calls for local assessments
of air quality based on the collaborative model. He elaborated on ongoing training efforts within EPA and
stated that OPPTS had planned a training panel on the collaborative problem-solving model forthe EPA
community involvement staff at the Denver National Community Involvement Conference. He also noted
that the model had been incorporated as a key component ofthe Community Air Screening How-To
Manual.

Mr. Topper then focused on the need for com munities to get a better understanding of risk and to have
access to screening assessment tools that enable them to understand and prioritize risk in a more
effective manner. He listed some screening tools that have been developed by OPPTS, such as the
Raimy Model; the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model; a toxic release inventory (TRI)-based
screening model that focuses on air quality; and the environmental justice Geographic Assessment Tool,
which would help communities set clear priorities. He furthermentioned that OPPTS would shortly publish
the Community Air Screening How-To Manual, a key tool that will enable communities to understand local
air quality. Mr. Topper also highlighted the comparative risk study conducted in Chelsea, Missouri, which
involved CBPR in the process of prioritizing risks.

1-42 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

Mr. Topper said that the Pollution Prevention Report emphasized the importance of conducting pilot
projects, working in communities, learning the use ofP2 methods, and using a collaborative problem-
solving P2 approach in communities. He mentioned several ongoing projects in communities in
Cleveland, Ohio; St. Louis, Missouri; and West Oakland, California, that address airquality issues in
particular. He also mentioned a multimedia toxic risk reduction project in south Phoenix, Arizona, and a
P2 project involving auto body shops and auto refinishing business(es) in Park Heights, Baltimore,
Maryland. He described the Clean Bus Program; the Diesel Retrofit Program and other EPA initiatives to
address risks to com munities from diesel particulates. The CARE program , he said, would put together a
resource kit to bring together different initiatives within the agency and to address multimedia toxics and
cumulative risk issues at the community level. These projects provide a perspective on the new initiatives
under the Environmental Results Program of O ECA, he said.

Next, Mr. Topperdescribed EPAs initiatives to make P2 resources more accessible to communities. He
noted that existing P2 resources focus on industry and small business, but the agency is beginning to take
steps to make those resources and tools available to communities. He also stated that OAR would soon
publish a series of community fact sheets on P2 for communities to enable them to identify potential
polluters such as auto refinishing businesses, understand ways to reduce exposures, and obtain available
P2 resources. The fact sheets would also include information for businesses to help them reduce
pollution.

Finally, Mr. Toppernoted thatas the Pollution Prevention Report is released, there is tremendous
enthusiasm and commitment for the new approach within the agency. Furthermore, he said that the
agency has taken real steps toward bringing good science and bias for action together at the community
level. However, he observed that this was only a start, and the real challenge and opportunity lie ahead.

Ms. Subra thanked Mr. Topperfor the update. She explained to new Executive Council members that the
Pollution Prevention Report had been presented at the lastNEJAC meeting in 2002 and that it was
important to get updates in order to better understand how NEJAC recommendations are applied within
the agency.

Ms. Nelson asked Mr. Topper how the scope of the Pollution Prevention Report can be expanded. Mr.
Topper replied that the cumulative risks report being discussed at the current meeting was an expansbn
of the recommendations included in the Pollution Prevention Report. He added that the forthcoming
CARE initiative would also be an important step toward scope expansion. Ms. Henneke thanked Mr.
Topper for the presentation.

4.2 OEJ s Response to the OIG Report on Environmental Justice

Mr. Hill made a presentation about OEJ s response to the Report on Environmental Justte, which was
issued by OIG in March 2004. Mr. Hills presentation addressed the following matters:

The history of environmental justice

Executive Order (EO) 12898 and the formation of the NEJAC

EPA s activities over the past few years that focus on issues related to environmental
justice

Various opinions among academicians, community organizers, and others about
achieving environmental justice through legal mechanisms such as the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and other environmental laws

Mr. H ill began by telling the audience that while talking about the OIG report, he would like to do a little bit
of preaching and, hopefully, a little bit of teaching and talk about civil rights law, environmental law,
executive orders (EO), and the history of environmental justice.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-43

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

He stated that his theme for the day was Separate but equal has no place in American society. Separate
is inherently unequal. He explained that he was referring not just to differential treatment in society but to
the use of EOs with respect to environmental laws and the application of different policies depending on
who lives in particular communities. Walls of discrimination have come tumbling down, he noted, in
public housing and accommodations, employment, economic development, and many other aspects of
American life. But these walls have not been completely eliminated, he added. Similar discrimination
exists in dealing with environmental law, Mr. Hill noted.

He stated thatthe facts that he would be presenting could be easily researched. He began by stating that
OIG was misinterpreting a 10-year-old document (EO 12898) that three people on OEJ s current staff had
a hand in reviewing and discussing. These three people were Mr. Robert Knox, Mr. Lee, and himself, he
stated. He then proceeded to describe the credentials of each of the three people involved. He revealed
that Mr. Knox has worked for EPA for almost 40 years and was involved with EO 12898 as it was being
drafted 1 0 years ago, which meant that at this point he has had 10 years of experience with the document.
Mr. Lee, he noted, is the arch itect of the environmental justice movement, has been working with
environmental justice issues since 1987, and was also involved in the drafting of EO 12898. Mr. Hill
stated that he too has been working with this document forthe past 10 years, thus leading to 30 years of
combined experience among the three of them. He expressed indignation that the OIG report was
published after only one year of review and that itdirected OEJ in the interpretation of a document that
OEJ has been working with for 1 0 years.

Second, he said that OIG refused to discuss its mistaken interpretation of EO 12898 with a third party or to
allow EPA to obtain an independent opinion of OIG s draft report. Third, he revealed that OIG refused to
get directly involved in the process in spite ofa requestfrom former EPA Assistant Administrator J.P.
Suarez. Mr. Suarez felt that the vastly different interpretations of EO 12898 by OIG and OEJ served no
useful purpose and that the situation would improve if OIG stepped in. Next, Mr. Hill stated that Ms. Harris
suggested that OEJ meet with OIG before the exit conference to see whether there was anyway they
could agree on a common interpretation of EO 12898. OIG refused this meeting, he added. Mr. Hill also
stated that he along with several others had been inaccurately quoted. He added that decisbns on major
environmental justice initiatives in the agency are made on a consensus basis by the Executive Steering
Com mittee, composed of Deputy Regional Administrators and Deputy Assistant Adm inistrators. This
process is important because OEJ does not issue permits or advisories. The process is left to the
discretion of the regions and offices, he noted, and was not followed in the publication of the OIG report.

Continuing, Mr. Hill stated that the real issue on hand is whether the agencys strategyfor incorporating
environmental justice consideratbns into decision-making process should be based on environmental
laws or on an EO. Further examining this issue, he stated that just like every movement, the
environmental justice movement had a chief theoretician, Professor Robert Bullard. He quoted Professor
Bullard, who said The solution to unequal protection lies in the realm of environmental justice for all
Americans. No community, rich or poor, black or white, should be allowed to become a sacrifice
zone ....There is a need fora Federal fair environmental protection act that would transform protection
from a privilege to a right. Mr. Hill noted that if the environmental justice movement was created because
there was environmental injustice in communities, it makes sense that environmental justice would ensure
that these communities have clean land, air, and water. Thus, he stated, the work being done within OEJ
is consistent with what the chief theoretician of the environmental justice movement had envisioned.
Professor Bullard also insisted, Mr. Hill continued, that there be a law to provide greater assurance that
the rights and privileges of the communities would be protected. Explaining further, Mr. Hill made a
distinction between a privilege and a right, stating that a right belongs to you as a member of this society
and as a citizen of this country, in contrast to a privilege that can be taken away from someone.

Mr. Hill then described the five principles of environmental justice taken from the First Natbnal People of
Color Environmental Leadership Summit held in 1991 in Washington, DC. He quoted the five principles
as follows:

1-44 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

1. Environm ental justice calls for un iversal protection from nuclear testing and the extraction,
production, and disposal of toxic/hazardous waste and poisons the threaten the fundamental right
to clean air, water, and food.

2. Environmental justice affirms a fundamental right to political, economic, cultural and
environmental self-determination for aII peoples.

3. Environmental justice demands the right to participate as equal partners at every level of
decision-making, including needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement, and
evaluation.

4. Environm ental justice affirms the right of all workers to a safe and healthy work environment,
without being forced to choose between unsafe livelihood and unemployment. It also affirms the
right of those who work at home to be free from environmental hazards.

5. Environmental justice protects the right of victims of environmental injustice to receive full
com pensa tion and re parations for dam ages a s well as q uality health ca re.

In each of the five principles, Mr. Hill noted the use of the word right as opposed to privilege. Next, he
questioned whether the rights can be protected, secured, or ensured using an EO or environmental laws.
He explained that an EO is simplya policy statement made by the President forhis administration and can
be changed by either that President orany subsequent administration. So it would be improper to base
critical environ men tal justice de cisions o n an EO, he adde d.

Mr. Hill noted that Section 6-609 of EO 12898 states that This order is intended only to improve the
internal management of the Executive Branch and is not intended to, nor does it create any right, benefit,
or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United
States, its agencies, its officers, orany person (emphasis added). Furthermore, he quoted Section 1-101
of EO 12898 as follows: To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.... each Federal Agency
shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies and activities on minority populatbns and low-income populations.... (emphasis added).

Continuing, Mr. Hill stated that a presidential memorandum further explained the language in EO 12898 as
follows: Environmental and civil rights statutes provide many opportunities to address environmental
hazards in minority comm unities and low-income com munities. Application of these existing statutory
provisions is an important part ofthis administration s efforts to prevent those minority and low-income
communities from being subject to disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects. He further
commented that the EPA Administrators memorandum of August 9, 2001, presented a similar view as
follows: Environmental statutes provide many opportunities to address environmental risks and hazards
in minority communities and/orlow-income communities. Application of these existing statutory provisions
is an important part ofthis Agency s effort to prevent those communities from being subject to
disproportionately high and adverse impacts, and environmental effects. Mr. Hill stated that he was
responsible for drafting both of these statements.

OEJ has carried outa number of activities overthe past few years to put the words in EO 12898 and the
presidential memorandum into effect, Mr. Hill said. He listed some of OEJ s activities as follows:

In December 2000, Mr. Gary Guzy, OGC, issued a General Counsel Memorandum titled EPA
Statutory and Regulatory Authorities Under Which Environmental Justice Issues May Be
Addressed in Permitting to EPA employees in order to identify laws that could be used to address
the concerns of minority and low-income communities.

In November 2001, ELI issued Opportunitbs for Advancing Environmental Justice: An Analysis of
U.S. EPA Statutory Authorities at the behest of OEJ.

In June 2002, OEJ asked ELI to issue A Citizen s Guide to Using Federal Environmental Laws to
Secure Environmental Justice in order to enable communities to better understand provisions of
various environmental laws related to environmental justice.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-45

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

In October 2003, ELI, in partnership with the United Church of Christ and the Southwest Network
for Economic and Environmental Justice, published a DVD titled Communities and Environmental
Laws.

In April 2004, the Environmental Justice Toolkit was released and Appendix B of the toolkit
contained all the statutory provisions that could be useful in addressing environmental justice
issues.

Finally, OEJ has enlisted ELI, in partnership with the Southwest Network for Economic and
Environmental Justice, the Southeast Community Research Center, and ADR Associates, to
conduct training on environmental laws and ADR every yearstarting in September 2004 and
continuing in 2005 and 2006.

Mr. Hill noted that these OEJ-directed activities were in complete contradiction to OIGs claim that OEJ
lacked the strategy and determination to implement environmental justice in all communities.

Mr. Hill went on to explain the difference between the use of civil rights laws and environmental laws, also
noting the overlap between Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title VI) and environmental law. Title VI
states that Federal funds cannot be used to discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin,
whereas environmental law protects the rights of all Americans, including minority and low-income
communities, he added. Furthermore, civil rights law creates a suspect class based on race and
ethnicity (not income) for whose protection that law was created, whereas environmental law does not
require a suspect class because it ensures justice for all without regard to race, ethnicity, culture,
income, or educatbn, Mr. Hill continued. He concluded that trying to fit a civil rights paradigm into an
environmental law paradigm is like trying to fit a round object into a square hole. He then referred to an
article that he had published in June 2002 titled Lemons into Lemonade, which appeared in The
Environmental Forum. The article expressed his indignation at certain parties encouraging communities
to use civil rig hts laws to address issues of environmental justice. The article also explained why the Title
VI approach would not work for impacted com mu nities but why environm ental law, with a twist, would
addres s environ men tal justice co ncerns.

Mr. Hill then quoted Mr. Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Lazard Freres Co., whose keynote address on February
26, 2004, was titled The Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education: Reflections on the Last Fifty Years
(1954-2004). Mr. Jordan said The case presented byThurgood Marshall and his team was legally and
morally irrefutable. Brown exposed the widening gap between State and local laws and long-neglected

constitutional rights Brown is a milestone in America s continuing battle to reconcile the letter of the law

with the spiritof the American dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness forall. Mr. Hill then
explained that the civil rights movement taught an important lesson that separate policies, separate
standards, and separate EOs cannot be used for one group of people and different laws foreveryone
else.

This lesson is clearly understood within OEJ, Mr. Hill noted. He summarized the five sequential steps
used by OEJ to integrate environmental justice as follows: (1) advice and recommendations through the
NEJAC reports; (2) analysis by NAPA; (3) training using the environmental justice 101 workshops in all the
EPA regions; (4) conduct an implementation phase using the EPA Administrators memorandum,
environmental justice steering committee, and the OEJ toolkit; and (5) conduct an evaluation involving the
OIG review and management accountability and responsibility.

Mr. Hill emphasized that the mission of O EJ is to assist the agency in integrating environmental justice.
To accomplish this mission, he stated, OEJ is involved in myriad activities such as:

Training - EJ basic training, EJ media-specific training for permit writers, ADR community training,
and inspectortraining

Stakeholder Communication - EJ regional listening sessions, Federal interagency working group
(IWG) revitalization projects, the NEJAC public policy meeting, EJ communication strategies, EJ

1-46 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

community dialogues (conference calls), indigenous community outreach, and the OEJ web site
portal

Tool Making - OGC and ELI statutory reviews, regional and Headquarters EJ actbn plans, the EJ
toolkit, Citizens Guide to Environmental Law, EJ mapper, and the EJ/GIS work group
Support - the Environmental Careers Organization (ECO) Intern Program and the small grants
program

Studies and Preparation of Reports - the NAPA report (Phase I: Federal; Phase II: state; and
Phase III: local/municipal), industry best practices report, and NEJAC reports (advice and
recommendations)

Finally, Mr. Hill read from the eulogy for Mr. Thurgood Marshall (the attorney who represented Brown in
Brown v. Board of Education in 1954) delivered by Mr. Jordan in 1993:

To those of my generatbn growing up in the segregated south, Thurgood Marshall was
more than a crusader for justice. More than a torch bearer of liberty. More than a wise
and learned man of the law. He was a teacher who taught us to believe in the shield of
justice and the sword of truth. A role model whose career made us dream large dreams
and work to secure them. An agent of cha nge who transform ed the way an entire
generation thought of itself, of its place in our society, and of the law itself. Picture, if you
will, the inescapable power of the beacon light Thurgood Marshall beamed into our
cramped and constricted community, a community in which the law ordained that we
could only attend segregated inferior schools, a community in which the law ordained that
our parents be denied the right to vote, a community in which the law ordained
segregation in the courtroom and exclusion of our parents from the jury box. It was
Thurgood Marshalls mission to turn these laws against themselves. To cleanse our
tattered Constitution and our besmirched legal system of the filth of oppressive racism.

To restore to al Americans a Constitution and a legal system newly alive to the
requirements of justice. By demonstrating that the law could be an instrument of
liberation, he recruited a new generation of lawyers who had been brought up to think of
the law as an instrument of oppression. Those of us who grew up under the heel of Jim
Crow were inspired to set our sights on the law as a career to try to follow him on his
journey of justice and equality.

Mr. Hill concluded his presentatbn by stating that OEJ firmly believes thatenvironmental law can be used
as an instrument for change in communities that are exposed to disproportionate environmental risks. He
encouraged EPA staff to continue to move forward, continue to address community concerns, and not be
demoralized by the OIG report.

Mr. Collette acknowledged that as a new member of the Executive Council, he was not aware of all the
history but had nonetheless been offended by the OIG report. He offered his support to Mr. Hill and noted
that 60 years before Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Yick Wo v. Hopkins
(1886) that the Constitution is color-blind. This, he stated, clearly suggested equal rights for all. He
further noted that if the methodology of the OIG report were to be adopted, it would eviscerate the idea of
effectively addressing cumulative risks and impacts. He encouraged the NEJAC to unanimously reaffirm
the position of the agency and the position of OEJ in response to the OIG report.

Mr. Hill thanked M r. Collette for his words of support and agreed that this was a watershed event with
respect to environmental justice programs in the agency. Mr. H ill indicated that he refused to agree with
the flawed notion expressed in the OIG report, both on the personal and professional levels.

Mr. Philip Hillman, Polaroid Corporation and acting chair of the International Subcommittee, thanked Mr.
Hill for the tutorial and inquired about the availability of his presentatbn for distribution to a larger
audience. Mr. Hill responded that it would be available both electronically and on hard copy, to anyone
who wants it.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-47

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

Mr. Williams stated that having been selected as a representative for the Tulalip Tribes early on albwed
him to have an early involvement with the NEJAC. He wholeheartedly supported Mr. Hill and made a
commitment to elicit support from tribal communities for OEJ s efforts.

Mr. Parras agreed with Mr. Hill about the misinterpretation of environmental justice in the OIG report. He
expressed concern that OIG refused to discuss its mistaken interpretation with other parties or to allow
anyone outside EPA to review the report. He criticized the lack of community awareness of or input in the
drafting of the OIG report, which in fact touched upon several community-related issues. He suggested
that the draft letter prepared by the chair of the Executive Council in response to the OIG report not be
delivered to EPA Administrator just yet. He suggested that the letter be delayed to allow communities to
provide input and su pport for O EJ s work.

Ms. Kingfisher thought that there was some truth in the OIG report because sponsoring agencies such as
ORD and OPPTS still have difficulties in understanding environmental justice communities, indicators for
environmental justice com mu nities, and how to effectively resolve environmental justice issues. She said
that indigenous people still look to EO 12898 in addition to the environmental laws to achieve
environmental justice. She declared that she had more questions regarding the signing of the draft letter
now than before the presentation.

Mr. Lee joined the discussbn to present another perspective on Mr. Hill s presentatbn in the context of the
OIG report. He noted that the issues being discussed are fundamental in nature. He added that most
people agree in principle with the OIG report because superficially it would seemthatthe report was well
motivated. However, certain issues that are not apparent in the report have to be teased out, he added.
First, he noted that this is a watershed moment.

Second, Mr. Lee pointed out that environmental justbe is a complex topic because it addresses issues
such as race, class, equality, and justice in society not just in the present but over an extended period of
time, as in the case of cumulative risk and impact issues. These issues, if notaddressed and understood
accurately, would end up being marginalized.

Third, Mr. Lee explained that although the issues of environmental justbe have been around forhundreds
of years, the concept of environmental justice in a systematic way has only existed since the 1980s. So
the understanding of the environmental justice concept is still an evolving issue, and there is a learning
curve for all those involved with it, he continued. He pointed to a text box on page eight of the OIG report
that quoted Section 1-101 of EO 1 2898 with added emphasis on certain phrases of the section that OIG
wished to highlight. However, the most important point is that OIG did not emphasize the phrases to the
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law and disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects, Mr. Lee stated. He continued that this omission indicates that OIG is imposing
civil rights concepts on an environmental law paradigm. The civil rights laws afford certain rights and
measures of protection to a protected class, whereas environmental law is intended to provide equal rights
for everyone, he continued. This misinterpretation limits the effectiveness of the environmental justice
movement by limiting the communities that can be helped, said Mr. Lee.

Mr. Lee then related a conversation with former EPA Administrator Bill Riley in 1992, when EPA was about
to announce the establishment of the Office of Environmental Equity, the precursor to OEJ. Mr. Riley was
asked how EPA would ensure that the Office of Environmental Equity did not become marginalized like
the Civil Rights Office did. The answer to thatquestion lies in the fact that although civil rights laws and
environm ental laws are both important, they each have their own place, he concluded.

Mr. Ken Manaster, Santa Clara University School of Law and acting chairof the Airand Water
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, noted that the controversy with respect to the OIG report ies in definition-
related problems such as the difficulty in coming up with the precise definitions of important concepts like
disproportionate effects, disproportionate impact, and an environmental justice community, among
others. He pointed out that it would be illegal for the agency to provide definitions for these terms based

1-48 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

on the EO alone. The other problem that Mr. Manaster described was the term environmental justice
itself, which had two different usages. One is the general usage, as in Dr. Bullards statement that
environmental justice is for everyone, which cannot be disagreed with, he continued. The second usage
refers to the focus on the problem of disproportionate, unfair, inequitable effects on certain vulnerable
populatbns that the EO addresses, added Mr. Manaster. He suggested that the agencys response to the
OIG report clearaway all doubts regarding the definition of environmental justice and emphasize that the
agency s comm itment to environmental justice lies in addressing the concerns of the vulnerable
populations that the EO refers to.

Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Manasters comments, stating that the letter drafted by Ms. Eady to respond to
the OIG report adequately addresses the issues. He also elaborated on the two most important issues
related to environmental justice: (1) the idea that low-income and tribal communities and people of color
are in need of justice and equality and (2) the question of adopting an effective implementation strategy for
this agenda within the agency and integrating it in the decision-ma king process within the agency.

Ms. Henneke thanked Mr. Hill for his presentation and suggested making the draft letterto the EPA
Administrator more relevant to the earlier discussions of the OIG report, including Mr. Lee s comments on
the text box on page eight of the OIG report. She also expressed concern that the OIG is concentrating
on identifying minority and low-income populations geographically and spatially, which is not in accordance
with the EO and should be part of the response letter. She also stated that the letter should specifically
mention the cumulative risk report discussed atthe current NEJAC meeting, which discusses
disproportionality and the social and health sciences associated with that concept. She referred to the
spatial segregation of impacted communities in the OIG report as environmental racism and not
environm ental justice.

Dr. Ramirez-Toro agreed with Ms. Henneke and revealed that her first reaction to the OIG report was that
it reflects a backward trend. She explained that in 1952, Puerto Rico adopted a liberal constitution that
included the rightto a safe environment for all people regardless of race ortheir ethnicity. But social
disparities that exist to this day were not addressed in that constitution, she said. She expressed the need
for a better Federal law that would ensure environmental justice for all in Puerto Rico, especially in the
dual system of governance.

Dr. Sawyers revealed thatin his three and a halfyears as the environmental justice Coordinatorfor the
State of Maryland, no discussion was based on using the EO; rather, communities always wanted to know
which environmental law could apply. The EO is used only as a guidance, he said. He suggested that the
response to the OIG report be treated as a platform and an opportunity to clearly define the controversial
terms mentioned earlier by Mr. Manaster.

Ms. Nelson expressed an interest in the next steps that the NEJAC planned to take in ensuring a timely
response to the OIG report. She suggested including the cumulative risk report with the letter to the EPA
Adm inistrator.

Ms. Eady responded to Ms. Nelson by saying thatthe NEJAC did not yet have a consensus and that the
comments of Ms. Kingfisher and Mr. Parras would need to be addressed before the letter is sent to the
EPA Administrator.

Mr. Handy emphasized that the letter to the EPA Administrator should highlight the theme of the
discussion and should focus on the advantages of EO 12898 in addition to environmental law. He added
that the EO was an early step in the process of focusing attentbn on the issue of environmental justice
and with limited resources, it was important to have that focus.

Mr. Parras indicated that he supported the NEJAC and its agenda. However, he was concerned that
communities were being excluded from the process. He recommended writing a generic letter stating all
the facts from a community perspective and then obtaining the signatures of community members. This

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-49

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

action would provide much-needed community support for the NEJAC and for the agencys position on the
issue.

Ms. Kingfisher thanked Mr. Manasterfor his earlier clarification ofthe issue ofthe EO and environmental
law. She added that it would be helpful to prepare a cover letter to accompany the OIG report when it
goes out to the communities in orderto help them better understand the background and history ofthe
environm ental justice process.

Mr. Lee noted that the NEJAC needs to be cognizant of some important process issues that need to be
addressed. He continued that the first question is whether the N EJAC as an advisory committee would
like to issue a quick response or a perfect response, noting that a perfect response would require a longer
time frame. Second, as members of different communities, the members ofthe NEJAC would have to
decide what other community outreach steps they would like to pursue in an individual capacity, Mr. Lee
added. This task should be separate from the formal response of the advisory body, he clarified. Third,
Mr. Lee addressed the matter of encouraging com munities to think about the issues. This process is
supported byOEJ and the NEJAC, he continued, and OEJ would be willing to help educate communities
about these issues.

Ms. Espinosa stated that it is important to send the letter to the EPA Administrator after reaching a
consensus and redrafting the letter it based on comments from the NEJAC members. She also supported
Mr. Parrass request fora letter from the communities. This would be an important method of educating
the communities and obtaining their supportfor environmental justice work, she added. Finally, Ms.
Espinosa noted that a simple factsheet explaining the highlights of the OIG report would be usefulfor the
communities.

Mr. Lee asked the NEJAC members to study the draft letter to the EPA Administrator providing OEJ s
response to the OIG report and to submit comments and suggestions for improvement to communicate a
complex message effectively. Ms. Nelson replied that the current response letter is too complicated and
should be condensed to address not more than three critical issues. Ms. Espinosa agreed with Ms.

Nelson about identifying the three issues of concern and asked Mr. Hill about the deadline for the
submittal ofthe response. Mr. Hill stated that the agency has to respond to the final OIG report by June 1,
2004, and would base its response on the draft letterhanded outearlierto the NEJAC members. He
assured the members that the official response would not deviate from the existing format.

Mr. Collette once again emphasized that the response should stress that if the recommendations in the
OIG report are implemented, environmental justice issues would be marginalized and minimized in this
country forever. Finally, Mr. Lee asked the NEJAC mem bers to provide their input on the definition of
environmental justice communities and encouraged them to continue to think aboutthis issue even after
the end ofthe meeting.

4.3 Presentation by the Federal Facilities Work Group of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee ofthe NEJAC

Mr. Lee introduced the draft report titled Environmental Justice and Federal Facilities: Recommendations
for Improving Stakeholder Relations between Federal Facilities and Environmental Justte Communities,
which was submitted to the Executive Council by the Federal Facilities Work Group of the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee ofthe NEJAC. He explained that this draft report was a result of an issue
raised at the NEJAC m eeting in 2000 regarding Federal facilities and environmental justice. The work
group was chaired by Dr. Mildred McClain, Harambee House Inc., and was supported by the EPA Federal
Facilities Reuse and Restoration Office (FFRRO), which is part of the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), Mr. Lee continued. He thanked Ms. Trina Martynowicz, EPA OSWER,
for her service as DFO ofthe work group and for her commitment and dedication to the effort.

1-50 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

Dr. McClain and Mr. James Woolford, Director, EPA Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office,
presented findings and recommendations from the draft report.

Dr. McClain began by thanking Mr. Kent Benjamin, OSWER and DFO for the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee of the NEJAC; Ms. Martynowicz; and Dr. Sawyers for theirsupport to the Federal Facilities
Work Group. She stated that eversince the inception ofthe NEJAC, communities across the country that
have been impacted by Federal facilities have looked to the NEJAC for guidance, support, and help in
improving relations between the communities and the authorities in charge ofthe facilities. Dr. McClain
noted that the draft report is historical in nature and is the first substantive document on Federal facilities
and the complex issues existing around these facilities.

Dr. McClain then outlined the recommendations in the draft report. She explained that all the
recommendations reflect the needs of five communities in close proximity to five Federal facilities: Kelly
AFB, Fort Wingate Army Depot, DOE Hanford site, the Memphis Depot site (a former Department of
Defense [DoD] facility), and the DOE Savannah River site. The first recommendation addresses
enhanced community assessments and communication methods needed to improve cultural sensitivity for
environmental justice, she said. Dr. McClain stated thatthe second recommendation concerns
community access to adequate health services and the third recommendation reflects the need for
additional resources for capacity-building. She hoped that these recommendations would enable the
communities impacted by the Federal facilities to substantively participate in the decision-making
processes for these sites. The fourth recommendation focuses on the need for improved and effective
communication between the facilities the regulators, and in environmental justice communities, and the
final recommendation expresses the need for new and consistent opportunities to help members of
environmental justice communities influence decisions that impact their daily lives.

Dr. McClain added that although the recommendations are not radical in themselves, they are important to
the communities because they may improve community living conditions. She then placed three
considerations before the Executive Council for deliberation: (1) establishing a work group specifically
tasked to review Federal facilities in Alaska, as budget constraints did not allow case studies for Alaska to
be included in the draft report; (2) designating a seatfor Federal facilities on the Executive Council of the
NEJAC; and (3) setting up a Federal advisory committee to examine all issues related to Federal facilities.

Mr. Woolford encouraged the NEJAC to provide a critical review of comments on the draftreport. He
thanked Dr. McClain for her dedication in addressing critical environmental justice issues at Federal
facilities. He recalled his first meeting with Dr. McClain at a session of another FACA group 10 years ago,
the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoratbn Dialogue Committee, which made several critical
recommendations about improving community involvement and public participation in Federal facilities.
He pointed out that the draft report clearly indicates that there is still room for improvement. He thanked
Mr. Benjamin and Ms. Martynowicz for representing EPA in the effort.

Ms. Nelson commended the Federal Facilities Work Group for its effort in bringing out the draft report.
She inquired as to how the NEJAC would ensure folbw-up on the recommendations and who would be
authorized to establish a work group to review Federal facilities in Alaska.

Mr. Lee responded to Ms. Nelson, stating that EPA would be required to review the five recommendations
in the draft report in addition to the three specific considerations with respect to their implementabiity. He
also said that the NEJAC cannot establish work groups because it is not an independent body but a body
established under a charter by the agency. Hence, he stated, the agency would have to establish a new
work group. The same is true with respect to a seat dedicated to Federal facilities on the Executive
Council, he added. Furthermore, Mr. Lee explained thatthe creatbn of a Federal advisory committee
would require the agency to establish a charter.

Ms. Nelson farther inquired whether the NEJAC would need to endorse the recommendations to the EPA
Administrator. Mr. Lee explained thatthe process requires the Federal Facilities WorkGroup to formally

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-51

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

transmit the draft report to the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee, which after its review would
submit it to the Executive Council for comments and deliberations. At this point, it would be the
responsibility of the Executive Council to deliberate and vote on the draft report and transmit it to the EPA
Administrator.

Ms. Eady inquired whether the process of incorporating comments and revisions would be ongoing during
the balloting process, to which Mr. Lee replied in the affirmative.

Dr. Sawyers thanked the Federal Facilities Work Group and the DFO for their hard work during the
preparatbn of the draft report and requested that members of the Executive Council submit additional
comments in writing to members of the work group within two weeks following the NEJAC meeting. Mr.
Lee agreed to delay the OEJ balbt for two weeks to allow all comments to be addressed, but he reminded
the Executive Council members to be cognizant of the resource expenditures involved in extending
timelines. Dr. Sawyers concurred with Mr. Lee and noted that the minor deviation from the rules would
allow certain concerns about the draft reportto be effectively addressed. Ms. Eady clarified the that
Executive Council would communicate with the work group and give it an additional two weeks. Dr.
Sawyers added that in the formal process, all members of the work group would be notified of the new
deadline; comments would be accepted until May 15, 2004, and immediately addressed; and the draft
report would be handed over to the Executive Council.

Ms. Nelson pointed out that the NEJAC commended the draft report, and she recommended that the
ballot process occur during the two-week comm ent period to allow timely release of the report. Mr.
Woolford indicated that he would prefer to focus the agency s resources on responding to the thrust of the
draft report, which includes the five communities referred to in the report and their issues in addition to the
five recommendations.

4.4 Presentation by the Meaningful Involvement and Fair Treatment Work Group of the
Indigeno us Peo pies Sub comm ittee of the N EJAC

Mr. W illiams, acting chair of the Indigenous Peoples Subcom mittee of the NEJAC, and Mr. Daniel Gogal,
EPA OEJ and DFO for the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee, presented action items from the
preliminary working draft report titled Meaningful Involvement and Fair Treatment by Tribal Environmental
Regulatory Programs, which had been prepared by the Meaningful Involvement and Fair Treatment Work
Group of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee.

Mr. Gogal began the discussion by stating that the working draft report clearly reflects two fundamental
concepts related to environmental justice: meaningful involvement and fair treatment. He noted that this
issue has been before the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee eversince the subcommittee was instituted
in 1996. He then introduced Mr. Williams, highlighting his vast experience relative to this issue, including
being the first Director of EPAs American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) and his current role as the
Comm issionerfor Natural Resources for the Tulalip Tribes. He asked Mr. Williams to talk about the
evolution of the issue of meaningfu I involvement and fair treatment for indigenous peoples and his
understanding of the importance of the Indigenous Peoples Subcom mittee and agency focus on this
issue. Mr. Gogal continued that it was important to understand that three sovereign governments exist in
the United States: Federal, state, and tribal governments.

Taking over from Mr. Gogal, Mr. Williams stated that Indian country, its jurisdiction, and its sovereignty are
underattack, especially over land and resource issues within the boundaries of Indian reservations. He
added that Indian country was significantly challenged in the mid-1990s by a State of Washington senator
on the issue of non-Indian ownership of lands within reservatbn boundaries, which are referred to as
checkerboard lands between the United States and the tribes. This senator wanted to demonstrate that
tribes could not successfully manage and lacked the appropriate jurisdiction to control these checkerboard
areas and wished to impose Federal or state law because due process was unavailable to nontribal
residents within reservation bou ndaries, M r. Williams continued, adding that this attack was based purely

1-52 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

on an economic agenda involving procurement and management of water resources within the
boundaries of tribal lands. The tribes countered this challenge in Congress by presenting evidence and
succeeded in convincing the committee that the issue was more complex than it was being portrayed, Mr.
Williams stated. He continued that the commitments made to Congress at that time, including thorough
review of due process in Indian country, are still in the process of being fulfilled. The working draft report
is a step in that direction, he noted, and added that it provides an avenue through EPA to demonstrate that
a review has been done to address relevant issues and role of the tribes.

Mr. Williams recalled thatwhen AIEO was first opened under EPA Administrator Carol Browner, tribal
members wished to address issues of meaningful involvement and due process on Indian lands. At that
point, he continued, his response was similar to that of former EPA Administrator Bill Ruckleshouse, who
believed that the priority was to secure the governmental role of the tribes and establish their jurisdiction
on issues of air, water, and other resources before pursuing meaningful involvement and due process
issues. This priority was important, he continued, because many states, including Arizona, Utah,

Montana, and Wyoming, challenged tribal jurisdiction over airand water. Eventually the agency and
tribes did succeed in securing tribal rights, he added, and it is now time that the issue of meaningful
involvement and due process be resolved.

Mr. Williams stated that many tribes are offended that the subject is being reviewed too late, and in his
opinion, had meaningful involvement and due process been available to the tribes in 1776, the country
would be different both in terms of government and land ownership. He noted that the Bureau of Indian
Affairs in the Department of Interior lost billions of dollars on trust resources, leading the courts to rule that
the United States has failed the tribes and to call for internment of certain authorities for withholding and
destroying evidence.

Mr. Williams said that the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee discussed the working draft report and
received comments on it from tribes across the country, including four presentations from Alaskan
Natives; a presentation from the Director of the Natbnal Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC), which had
representatives from 115 tribes; and a presentation from the representative ofthe Makah Tribe in the
State of Washington. The Director of NTEC told the subcommittee that many members ofthe tribe could
not read beyond the first page of the working draft report because they were offended by the EPA charge
to the issue and by its description of Indian country and Indian governance, Mr. Williams stated.

Mr. Williams pointed out that many subtle differences exist in traditional tribal ways. For example, he said,
the consensus-based process for decision-making that exists in the Tulalip Tribes, may be different in
other tribes trying to accommodate the requirements under NE PA or the Tribal Environmental Policy Acts
(TEPA). The working draft report articulates this communication process not only within tribes but also
between tribes and nontribal residents on tribal lands and presents models of current tribal practices, he
said. He revealed that the members ofthe subcommittee intended to meet with several tribal
organizations to explain the contents of the working draft report.

Furthermore, discussions in the subcommittee meeting revolved around cumulative risk and impact
issues and how to incorporate the discussions in the Executive Council meeting as well as the public
comments offered on the working draft report, Mr. Williams reported. He outlined the actbn items that the
subcommittee worked on, such as clearly defining cultural and spiritual tribal traditions, procuring
comments on the working draft report and setting a timeline for com pletion ofthe report, and working with
Alaskan Natives to nominate a representative to mediate with the NEJAC and the subcommittee. He
stated that Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird, North Dakota Intertribal Retirement Committee, has offered to help
refine the definitions in the working draft report.

Mr. Gogal then reported on the deadlines for obtaining comments on the working draft reportand on
expectations for the report. He stated that an initial letter of intent had been sent to all Federally
recognized tribes and the tribal chiefs as well as the environmental directors of the tribes in November
2003. The letter indicated that the subcommittee would focus on the issue of meaningful involvement of

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-53

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

tribes and requested input and suggestions to be included in the working draft report. He also encouraged
the NEJAC members to provide their comments to further refine the working draft report. He requested
that comments be submitted by June 1 5, 2004, which would allow time for the subcommittee to
incorporate the comments into the working draft report. The final draft report would be submitted to the
Executive Council for review, and the final report would be ready in September 2004, he added.

Finally, Mr. Williams thanked Ms. Jeanette Wolfley, tribal attorney, for assisting with the preparation of the
working draft report.

Ms. Nelson recom mended that the work group consider including an executive summary or graphically
highlighting the specific recommendations in the working draft report, and Mr. Williams concurred. Ms.
Eady suggested that the recommendations be summarized in the introduction section. She also asked
how much time was available for commenting on the working draft report. Mr. Gogal replied that June 15,
2004, is the deadline for comments and that a revised working draft report would be available by July 15,
2004, for submittal to the Executive Council.

Ms. Espinosa thanked Mr. Williams for the working draft report, which defined the relationship between
environmental justice, EPA, and the indigenous peoples in this country. She stated that this was an
attempt to clearly define environmental justice communities, in contrast to the OIG report finding that such
an effort was lacking at OEJ. She also suggested using some of the discussions in the working draft
report in the cumulative risks report to further strengthen the section on tribal issues. Mr. Williams agreed
to work with Ms. Espinosa on expanding the section on tribes in the cumulative risk report, especially
regarding use of collaborative processes in decision-making. He cited the example of the Tulalip Tribes
and their collaboration with nontribal residents of the reservation. He stated that within the boundaries of
the reservation, the population includes about 3,50 0 tribal members and over 6,00 0 nontribal residents.
Historically these communities had a poor relationship, especially with respectto land control, Mr. Williams
added. As the Tulalip Tribes became more adept at instituting regulatory controls, they invited nontribal
residents to participate in the Land Use Planning Committee meeting, which reduced the conflict and won
the support of the nontribal residents.

4.5 Presentation by the Air and

Water S ubcom mittee of th e NEJAC

Ms. Subra discussed the draft report titled Guide and Recommendations for Improving the Integration of
Environmental Justice into Environmental Permitting, which was prepared by the Air and Water
Subcommittee of the NEJAC. She also presented highlights from the meeting of the subcommittee.

Beginning with the highlights of the Air and Water Subcomm ittee meeting, Ms. Subra stated that Mr.
Weinstock described the CARE program and agreed to consider using the draft permitting guide as a
resource for the CARE program. She reported that Mr. Mike Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Administrator,
EPA Office of Water, focused his presentation on two ongoing efforts in the Office of Water relating to
communities: (1) the establishment of national measurements to improve permitting, including monitoring
the status of noncom pliance and water discharge perm its, and (2) the establishment of a state self-
assessment process. Both these efforts are currently undergoing internal review, Ms. Subra noted. She
continued by discussing another ongoing effort at the Office of W ater, the establishment of a smarter
perm itting process that sets a goal that 95 percent of the h ighest-priority permits and 9 0 percent of all
other permits be current. The State of Louisiana, she noted, had a huge backlog because of expired
permits, and thousands of new permits are waiting to be reviewed and issued.

Ms. Subra then reported that Ms. Elizabeth Cotsworth, EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, gave a
presentation on indoor air triggers, including cockroaches, dust mites, petdander, and second-hand
smoke, for conditbns such as asthma in children and other reactionary diseases. Ms. Cotsworth also
gave an advance notice of rule-making that would allow 20 permitted RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste

1-54 New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004

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

landfills to accept low-level radioactive waste, which at present only three facilities in the United States are
allowed to accept, Ms. Subra stated.

Ms. Subra also reported that Mr. Bob Harnett, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, gave a
presentation on an air quality index that EPA would use on a national level to electronically notify
interested community members and organizations of unhealthy air quality in their area. She then briefly
touched on the draft permitting guide effort headed by Mr. Manaster, which would provide
recommendations for integration of environmental justice into the environmental permitting process. The
subcommittee had identified three main categories for the draft permitting guide, which include siting,
public participation, and the permitting process itself, Ms. Subra added. She stated that public
participation would be encouraged in the permitting process, including the siting, the actual permitting
process, and enforcement and compliance. The draft permitting guide would be completed by June 2004
and would be available to the Executive Council for consideration, review, and comment after a technical
review with in the age ncy, Ms. S ubra co ncluded.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 through 16, 2004 1-55

-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the

AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
of the

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

April 15, 2004
New Orleans, Louisiana

Meeting Summary Accepted By:

Alice Walker	Wilma Subra

Co-Designated Federal Official	Acting Chair

Dr. Wil Wilson

Co-Designated Federal Official

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

Air and Water Subcommittee

CHAPTER THREE
MEETING OF THE
AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Air and Water Subcommittee of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) conducted
a one-day meeting on Thursday, April 15, 2004, during a four-day meeting of the NEJAC in New Orleans,
Louisiana. Ms. Wilma Subra, Representative of Louisiana Environmental Action Network, continues to serve
as acting chair of the subcommittee. Ms. Alice Walker, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office
of Water (OW), and Dr. Wil Wlson, EPA Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), continue to serve jointly as the
Designated Federal Officials (DFO) for the subcommittee. Exhibit 3-1 presents a list of the members who
attended the meeting and identifies the members who were unable to attend.

This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Air and Water Subcommittee, is
organized in four sections, including this Introduction.

Section 2.0, Discussion of Recommended Practices
Guide on Permitting, provides a summary of the working
session held by members of the subcommittee to
complete, "The Guide and Recommendations for
Improving the Integrating of Environmental Justice into
Environmental Permitting." Section 3.0, Presentations
and Reports, presents an overview of each presentation
and report received by the subcommittee during its
meeting, as well as a summary of relevant questions and
comments offered by the members of the subcommittee.

Section 4.0, Significant Action Item, summarizes the
significant action item adopted by the subcommittee.

2.0 DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED
PRACTICES GUIDE ON PERMITTING

This section provides a summary of the working session
held by the members of the subcommittee to complete, "Guide and Recommendations for Improving the
Integration of Environmental Justice into Environmental Permitting."

Mr. Kenneth Manaster, Santa Clara University School of Law, led the discussion to reorganize and improve
the current draft of "The Guide and Recommendations for Improving the Integration of Environmental Justice
into Environmental Permitting." According to Mr. Manaster, the document has been a work-in-progress for
two and half years. Mr. Manaster guided the members of the subcommittee through a detailed discussion on
the three sections of the document that include, Introduction, Flashpoints, and Recommended Practices. He
requested that the members provide comments on the document and track revisions accordingly.

Comments on the Introduction Section

During the discussion on the Introduction section of the guide, Mr. Michael Shapiro, Deputy Assistant
Administrator, EPA OW, asked the members of the subcommittee who they envisioned as the primary
audience of the guide. Mr. Manaster explained that, following the adoption of the document by the Executive
Council of the NEJAC, the subcommittee would like to forward the guide to state and local government
agencies responsible for issuing environmental permits. Mr. Shapiro, then asked for clarification, if the
intended audience would be permit reviewers or permit writers. Mr. Manaster replied that the guide would be
for both audiences. Ms. Jody Henneke, member of the Air and Water Subcommittee and Director, Office of
Public Assistance, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, cautioned that reviewers of permits currently
have legal guidelines that must be followed; therefore, the guide may not be applicable to reviewers. Mr.

Exhibit 3-1

AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE

Members Who Attended the Meeting
April 15, 2004

Ms. Wilma Subra, Acting Chair
Ms. Alice Walker, co-DFO
Dr. Wil Wilson, co-DFO

Ms. Jody Henneke
Mr. Robert Sharpe

Members
Who Were Unable To Attend

Ms. Carolyn Green
Mr. Jason Grumet

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

3-1

-------
Air and Water Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Shapiro agreed and added that the presentation of the document and defining the target audience are
important considerations for the subcommittee. Mr. Manaster acknowledged the comments and stated that
there will be revisions to the document. In addition, he views the document as a guide to assist permit writers
to consider environmental justice concerns when completing a permit.

Mr. Harvey Minnigh, REAP Solutions, Inc., commented that the document does not have a clear mission
statement. He proposed the following revisions, (1) state the purpose of document and (2) define the
audience. In addition, he recommended that the document not be too detailed. Mr. Robert Sharpe, member
of the Air and Waste Subcommittee and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, pointed out that if the
audience is a permit writer, then the second paragraph of the Introduction section does not acknowledge the
set of laws or guidelines permit reviewers use to approve or disprove permits. In addition, he questioned the
extent of the NEJAC's authority to develop guidelines to write permits. Mr. Minnigh addressed Mr. Sharpe's

comment by stating line 28 of the document," case-by-case basis, distinguishing carefully among what the

law requires, allows, or prohibits," believes addresses the concern raised. The goal of the document, Mr.
Manaster reminded the members, is to provide a concise guideline forgovernment agencies that issue permits
to ensure that environmental justice concerns are addressed in permits. Mr. Minnigh added that the document
should not contradict what applicable laws and regulations require, allow, or prohibit. Ms. Henneke agreed
and added that the document focuses too much on the permit writers, whom in her agency do not have the
authority to deviate from the law. The members of the subcommittee agreed that the Introduction section
needs to be improved, specifically on defining the target audience.

Comments on the Flashpoints Section

Mr. Manaster then directed the members to the next section of the document, Flashpoints. Questions were
raised, among the members, on what is the definition of "Flashpoints." Under siting determinations, Ms.
Henneke pointed out that each state agency might have different authorities related to siting, for example
Texas, does not have zoning authority. Mr. Chris Elias, Santa Clara Valley Water District, suggested including
local planning boards in the document. Mr. Sharpe pointed out the need for the document to address
environmental justice issues that occur when a source does not require permit review, as stated in line 91 of

document, " are considered under applicable law to produce emissions or other environmental

impairments that are too low or insightful to require permits."

Mr. Elias again questioned the definition of "Flashpoints" and the goal the Flashpoint section. The members
discussed the validity of the current definition of "Flashpoints," which is "triggers for early warning where
environmental justice issue might arise at certain stages in permitting processes." Mr. Elias recommended
revising the name to "Early Warning," and Ms. Henneke suggested "Decision Point." Ms. Cynthia Larramore,
Active Citizens Together Improving Our Neighborhoods, Inc., echoed the need forthe subcommittee to define
the term flashpoint clearly and the criteria it includes.

Comments on Recommended Practices

Ms. Henneke began the discussion on this section by suggesting reviewing the establishment and authority
of Citizen Advisory Boards (CAB) written in the document. Mr. Minnigh explained that the CABs are for public
participation and have no authority. Mr. Sharpe suggested addressing the funding source for CABs and Mr.
Manaster disagreed. Mr. Shapiro questioned the definition of "authority" used in the document related to
CABs. Mr. Sharpe agreed and cautioned that using the word "authority" could be interpreted by the public has
having the authority to approve or deny a permit. Mr. Minnigh stated that the emphasis for public participation
is to ensure meaningful public participation. Another potential issue under CABs, Ms. Henneke noted, is the
site specific issues involved. She suggested emphasizing the involvement of grassroot organizations in CABs.
The members concluded two important points under CABs: (1) the need to have public participation and (2)
how to select members of a CAB.

3-2

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

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

Air and Water Subcommittee

Overall Comments on the Document

The document, Ms. Henneke noted, comes across as overly simplified as a "step-by-step" process. In Texas,
she pointed out, the permit process is much more extensive and tedious. Mr. Minnigh clarified that the
document is not intended for every permitting project. Mr. Elias suggested developing a disclaimer statement
for potential users of the document. Mr. Sharpe expressed concern that environmental justice communities
often do not receive information in a timely manner to be able to effectively participate in the permit process.

In conclusion, Mr. Sharpe, suggested the need to define the audience, specifically if the audience is the permit
reviewer or the decision maker, the definition of Flashpoints, and the overall purpose of the document. He
noted that the document currently does not include criteria for acceptance or denial of the recommended
practices. Mr. Elias requested the members to consider how the recommended practices would be
incorporated by the EPA. Ms. Walker reminded the members to consider having the document reviewed by
technical experts.

3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS

This section summarizes the presentations made and reports submitted to the members of the Air and Water
Subcommittee.

3.1 Community Actions for a Renewed Environment Program

Mr. Larry Weinstock, EPA OAR, presented
information on Community Actions for a Renewed
Environment (CARE), a community-based toxic
reduction initiative program. Exhibit 3-2 provides
a description of the CARE program. He
emphasized that the program is designed to
provide education to communities to help them
play a role in reducing toxic emissions in their local
neighborhoods. CARE, Mr. Weinstock pointed out,
also is a program to introduce communities to
government volunteer programs. Mr. Weinstock
noted that the CARE program will be successful
because unlike other EPA programs, CARE does
not focus on just one type of exposure and
communities examine all toxic risks they face and
select the voluntary solutions that they believe best
fit their needs. However, Mr. Weinstock stressed
that the CARE program is designed only as a
supplement and is not intended to replace existing
environmental programs.

Exhibit 3-2

COMMUNITY ACTION FOR A RENEWED
ENVIRONMENT

The new Community Action for a Renewed Environment
(CARE) is a competitive grant program that offers an innovative
way for communities to take action to reduce toxic pollution.
Through CARE, communities can create local collaborative
partnerships that implement local solutions to reduce releases of
toxic pollutants and minimize exposure to toxic pollutants.
CARE will empower communities to help them assess the
pollution risks they face while also providing funding and access
to EPA's and other voluntary programs to address local
environmental priorities. In addition, EPA offers support for
communities to develop their own approach to reduce toxics.
Examples of some of the EPA voluntary programs that reduce
exposure to toxics and create safer communities include:
reduced emissions from diesel engines, clean abandoned
industrial sites, reduce emissions from small business operations
while reducing costs, improve the indoor environment in
schools, and use pollution prevention to protect drinking water
supplies.

For further information on the CARE program, visit
www.epa.gov/CARE.

Mr. Weinstock then stated that there are future
plans to sponsor conferences to bring together
communities involved in the program. He also
stated EPA's plan to create a central team to
develop a database to track training and other
related CARE initiatives. The database, he stated,

would allow regional teams to interact and link related programs together, as well as provide question and
answer sessions. He concluded with presenting a resource guide on the CARE program.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

3-3

-------
Air and Water Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

3.2 Office of Water Permitting Programs

Mr. Shapiro presented information on permitting programs administered by EPA OWs Office of Wastewater
Management, specifically the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES
permitting program Mr.Shapiro noted, controls waster pollution by regulating point sources that discharge
pollutants into waters of the U.S. Exhibit 3-3 provides a summary of NPDES permits. He added that currently,
the program has focused on animal feed discharge as a result of the revised Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFO) regulation. The revised
CAFO regulation, he noted, requires many
CAFOs to have NPDES permit coverage. Mr.

Shapiro explained that the revision has
authorized many states to revise their
regulations to include the new provisions.

Mr. Shapiro also discussed the Permitting for
Environmental Results (PER) initiative, which
is a multi-year effort by EPA and the states to
improve the overall integrity and performance
of the NPDES program. Since most states
are authorized to implement the NPDES
program, Mr. Shapiro stated that the PER
initiative is based on a partnership between
the states and EPA. The purpose of PER, he
added, is to promote collaborative effort to
develop a set of national measures that can
be applied state by state, and be used as key
measure of success or failure. He noted that
EPA and the states are focusing on identifying
permits with the highest environmental
significance to ensure betterstate and Federal
resources allocation.

Another area of interest, Mr. Shapiro shared with the members, is the development and use ofelectronictools
to streamline the permit process. He provided an example, electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI), which is an
electronic storm water notice of intent application designed for use by construction sites and industrial facilities
that need to apply for coverage under EPA's Construction General Permit (CGP) or Multi-Sector General
Permit (MSGP-2000). He also highlighted the permit scanning program to increase public access to permits.
In addition, he noted a mapping tool developed by EPA to link water program data from multiple offices that
allow users to screen permitted facilities for discharges.

An important focus of OW, Mr. Shapiro concluded, is in its commitment to support communities. He
commented on the difficulty often experienced by communities and Tribes in achieving the goals of the Clean
Water Act. Therefore, Mr. Shapiro explained, the OW programs focus on supporting these communities to
operate small wastewater system to meet national standard develop capacity to meet complex environ mental
standard, as well as to provide adequate financing and technology through a "Small Communities Team."

3.3 Indoor Air Quality Program

Ms. Elizabeth Cotsworth, EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), presented information on the
prevention of indoor air pollution. Ms. Cotsworth explained that indoor air pollution sources that release gases
or particles into the air are the primary cause of indoor air quality problems in homes. Inadequate ventilation,
she continued, can increase indoor pollutant levels by not bringing in enough outdoor air to dilute emissions
from indoor sources and by not carrying indoor air pollutants out of the home. High temperature and humidity
levels, she stated, also can increase concentrations of some pollutants. Ms. Cotsworth stated that there are
many sources of indoor air pollution in any home. For example, she noted, combustion sources such as oil,

Exhibit 3-3

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)

Water pollution degrades surface waters making them unsafe for
drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities. As authorized
by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water
pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants
into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete
conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Individual
homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic
system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an
NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other
facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to
surface waters. In most cases, the NPDES permit program is
administered by authorized states. Since its introduction in 1972,
the NPDES permit program is responsible for significant
improvements to our Nation's water quality.

For further information on NPDES, visit www.epa.gov/npdes.

3-4

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

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

Air and Water Subcommittee

gas, kerosene, coal, wood, and tobacco products; building materials and furnishings as diverse as
deteriorated, asbestos-containing insulation, wet or damp carpet, and cabinetry or furniture made of certain
pressed wood products; products for household cleaning and maintenance, personal care, or hobbies; central
heating and cooling systems and humidification devices; as well as outdoorsources such as radon, pesticides,
and outdoor air pollution.

Ms. Cotsworth continued her presentation by discussing the health effects from indoor air pollutants that may
be experienced soon after exposure or, possibly, years later. She explained that several immediate effects
that may show up after a single exposure or repeated exposures, include: irritation of the eyes, nose, and
throat, headaches, dizziness, and fatigue, which are usually short-term and treatable. She noted that
sometimes the treatment is simply to eliminate the person's exposure to the source of the pollution, if it can
be identified. Symptoms of some diseases, including asthma, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, and humidifier
fever, also may show up after exposure to some indoor air pollutants, she noted. In addition, other health
effects that may show up years after exposure or only after long or repeated periods of exposure, include:
respiratory diseases, heart disease, and cancer. She stated that studies are showing that Hispanic and
African-American communities are suffering a higher rate of indoor air pollution, primarily from second-hand
smoke and biological contaminants (body parts from insects and rodents).

To provide education on the effects of indoor air pollution, Ms. Cotsworth stated that EPA and the Advertising
Council have launched media campaigns to increase national awareness of the serious health effects caused
by indoorair pollution. One such campaign, Ms. Cotsworth noted, included the to increase awareness related
to asthma and indoor air pollution is the Goldfish Campaign, which features a child who describes feeling like
a fish with no water when he has an asthma attack. She noted that grants may be available for communities
related to indoor air pollution through ORIA's community-based air toxics projects. She explained that
communities across the U.S. are taking an active role in improving air quality and finding solutions to other
environmental concerns they face. EPA, she noted, is providing financial and technical assistance for
community-based projects to resolve health and environmental issues cause by indoor air pollution.

Ms. Cotsworth concluded her presentation by discussing EPA's Clean School Bus USA, which is a public-
private environmental partnership, that seeks to reduce children's exposure to air pollution from diesel school
buses. The program emphasizes three ways to reduce public school bus emissions through anti-idling
strategies, engine retrofit and clean fuels, and bus replacement. The goal of Clean School Bus USA, Ms.
Cotsworth explained, is to reduce both children's exposure to diesel exhaust and the amount of air pollution
created by diesel school buses. She stated that EPA is working aggressively to reduce pollution from new
heavy-duty diesel trucks and buses by requiring them to meet tougher and tougher emission standards in the
future. Clean School Bus USA, she continued, is designed to jump-start the process of upgrading the nation's
public school bus fleet so that this generation of school children can reap the benefits of technologies that are
available now to reduce emissions.

Mr. Bill Harnet, EPA OAR, continued the discussion on air quality issues by presenting, A Guide to Air Quality
and Your Health. The Air Quality Index (AQI), Mr. Harnet explained, is an index for reporting daily air quality
and informs the public how clean or polluted the air is and what associated health effects might be of concern.
The guide, he stated, also has been translated into Spanish and is available to the public. Mr. Harnet noted
the balanced representation of the Clean Air Act advisory group, with inclusion of members from the
environmental groups, industry, and grassroots organizations. He explained that the primary purpose of the
advisory group is to review the Clean Air Act and to receive feedback from the communities.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

3-5

-------
Air and Water Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

4.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS

This section summarizes the significant action item adopted by the subcommittee.

/ Beginning May 18, 2004, conduct a conference call every three weeks to focus on revising the "Guide
and Recommendations for Improving the Integration of Environmental Justice into Environmental
Permitting."

Ms. Henneke and Mr. Sharpe will work on Section 3a (Public Participation) and Section 3b (Permit
and Terms)

Mr. Manaster will focus on the Introduction and Flashpoint sections.

The goal of the subcommittee is to produce a final document by June 29, 2004 and then decide when
to seek technical advice from subject matter experts.

3-6

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the

ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
of the

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

April 15, 2004
New Orleans, Louisiana

Meeting Summary Accepted By:

Vicki Simons	Juan Parras

Acting Designated Federal Official Acting Chair

-------
Enforcement Peoples Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

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 Thursday, April 15, 2004, during a four-day meeting of the NEJAC in
New Orleans, Louisiana. Mr. Juan Parras, De Madres a Madres, Inc., served as acting chair of the
subcommittee. Ms. Vicki Simons, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Enforcement
Compliance Assurance (OECA), served as the acting Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the
subcommittee. Exhibit 4-1 lists the members who attended the meeting and identifies those members
who were unable to attend.

This chapter provides a summary of the deliberations of the Enforcement Subcommittee, is organized
in five sections, including this Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks, summarizes the opening remarks of
the acting chair; the acting DFO; and Ms. Phyllis Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA
OECA. Section 3.0, Facilitated Discussion of OECA's National Program Priorities, summarizes the
discussion of OECA's national program priorities. Section 4.0, Presentations, provides an overview of
each presentation as well as a summary of questions
asked and comments offered by the members of the
subcommittee. Section 5.0, Action Items, identifies
the action items adopted by the subcommittee.

2.0 REMARKS

Mr. Parras, acting chair of the Enforcement
Subcommittee, opened the meeting by welcoming the
members and Ms. Simons, the acting DFO. Ms.

Simons then introduced Mr. Rey Riveria,

Environmental Justice and Tribal Coordinator, EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER), Office of Brownfields Cleanup, who will
serve as the permanent DFO for the subcommittee.

Ms. Simons also announced the new members of the
subcommittee, Mr. James Huffman, Lewis and Clarke Law School, and Mr. Benjamin Wilson, Beveridge
and Diamond. She explained that their appointments to the subcommittee were not finalized soon
enough for them to attend the meeting. Ms. Simons then introduced Ms. Harris.

Ms. Harris began by thanking the members of the subcommittee for their commitment to attending and
participating in the meetings of the NEJAC. She stated that she enjoyed the dialogue about cumulative
risks and impacts that took place during the Executive Council meeting held on the two previous days
and looked forward to hearing the thoughts of the subcommittee members about that session.

Ms. Harris then reminded the members of the subcommittee that OECA had asked the subcommittee
to provide comments on OECA's national program priorities and to identify mechanisms that EPA could
use to effectively integrate principles of environmental justice into its enforcement and compliance
assistance programs. Exhibit 4-2 provides background information on OECA's national program
priorities.

Exhibit 4-1

ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE

Members Who Attended the Meeting
April 15, 2004

Mr. Juan Parras, Acting Chair

Mr. Vicki Simons, Acting DFO I

Ms. Susana Almanza
Mr. Charles "Chip" Collette

Members Who Were Unable To Attend

Mr. Kenneth Warren, Chair

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

4-1

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

Enforcement Subcommittee

In a memorandum dated August
11, 2003, from Ms. Harris to the
members of the subcommittee, she
had presented the following
questions to the subcommittee:

•	What are the most significant
human heath or environmental
problems that you are seeing
in environmental justice
communities which can be
addressed effectively through
enforcement actions or
compliance assistance
activities?

•	Are there particular industries
located near environmental
justice communities that have
disproportionate impacts on
those communities?

•	Can you direct EPA to specific
environmental justice
communities that are at risk
from the cumulative impacts of
multiple sources of pollution?

The subcommittee members used
these questions as a starting point
at their meeting on September 17,

2003, and identified several areas
of concern that included, lead,
accidental releases, the toxic
release inventory (TRI), oversight
of state and local enforcement

programs, Federal facilities, water quality, and air quality issues.

Exhibit 4-2
	

OECA NATIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITIES

On October 1, 2003, EPA issued its new strategic plan that describes how the agency
will use its resources to accomplish EPA's mission. The new plan covers fiscal years
(FY) 2003 through 2008 and consists of five goals with the OECA's activities
contained in Goal 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship. Therefore, OECA
has aligned its FY 2005 through 2007 work planning cycle to align with EPA's
strategic planning cycle.

The enforcement and compliance assurance programs have selected national program
priorities by considering patterns of noncompliance and environmental or public health
risk associated with regulated sectors, particular pollutants, or specific regulatory
requirements. Priorities usually are national in scope and must be appropriate for
Federal attention and response.

During Summer 2003, OECA asked each EPA regional office to

•	Conduct internal discussions about existing and potential national program
priorities

•	Engage state and tribal regulatory partners in discussions of existing and potential
national program priorities for FY 2005 through 2007

In addition, EPA conducted outreach related to priorities at a meeting of the
Enforcement Subcommittee of the NEJAC on September 17, 2003.

OECA selected its national program priorities using the following criteria:

•	Significant environmental benefit: In what specific areas can the Federal
enforcement and compliance assurance programs produce a significant positive
impact on human health or the environment? What are the known or estimated
public health or environmental risks?

•	Noncompliance: Are there particular economic or industrial sectors, geographic
areas, or facility operations where regulated entities have demonstrated serious
patterns of noncompliance?

•	EPA responsibility: What identified national problem areas or programs are better
addressed through EPA's Federal capabilities in enforcement or compliance
assistance?

Ms. Harris informed the subcommittee members that although environmental justice was not selected
as a stand-alone priority, OECA senior managers determined that environmental justice concerns are
broad and cross-cutting. Therefore, she stated, these managers decided that such concerns should be
incorporated into each national priority area and that specific performance measures should be
established within each priority area to ensure that principles of environmental justice are integrated.

The following priorities were selected:

Wet weather
Air toxics

New source review (NSR) and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements under the

Clean Air Act (CAA)

Mineral processing

Tribal compliance

Petroleum refining

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and microbials
Financial responsibility

Detailed descriptions of the priority areas are provided in Section 3.0 of this chapter.

4-2

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

-------
Enforcement Peoples Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Ms. Harris expressed her appreciation to the subcommittee for developing and submitting papers on its
proposed priority issues. She then explained that although not all the recommendations of the
subcommittee were selected as National Program Priorities, OECA continues to address the remaining
issues. For example, she stated, lead in water continues to be a serious issue, and OECA is working
closely with the local agencies of the District of Columbia to address the lead issues that face the
residents of Washington, DC. In addition, OECA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement is working with
regional offices to monitor lead levels at schools in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland;
Boston, Massachusetts; and New York City and Syracuse, New York. OECA also is partnering with the
EPA Office of Water to compile data about cities that have lead levels in their drinking water that are
reaching action levels.

In addition, Ms. Harris explained that EPA, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are working on a joint initiative to investigate and
promote compliance with the Federal Lead-based Paint Disclosure Rule. This initiative includes a strong
environmental justice component because the focus is on low-income communities, which often have
a high incidence of childhood blood-lead poisoning that is associated with older, substandard housing.
A number of settlements reached so far have required property owners and managers to inspect and
test housing forthe presence of lead-based paint, she stated. A priority also has been placed on abating
hazards in residential units occupied by children. Ms. Harris stated that settlements have resulted in
commitments to inspect and test more than 160,000 housing units and in collection of more than
$350,000 in penalties.

Continuing, Ms. Harris proceeded to update the members on activities related to the TRI. Ms. Harris
stated that based on the most recent publicly available TRI data, over 3,000 facilities failed to submit
approximately 8,000 reporting forms under the TRI on time during reporting years 2000 and 2001. In
addition, releases of about 1.3 billion pounds of materials were reported late; therefore, that information
could not be included in the public data release reports, depriving people of information on chemicals
being released near the locations where they live. To address this problem, OECA's Office of
Regulatory Enforcement has started a new initiative to target companies that submit TRI forms late.
Under the initiative, OECA developed a three-tiered enforcement response:

Tier one applies to facilities that reported too late for 2000 and 2001. Under this scenario,
companies will receive an opportunity to either dispute the violation or settle in accordance with with
EPA's penalty policy.

Tier two applies to facilities that reported too late for the public data release report for one of the two
years. Under this scenario, companies will receive either an opportunity to dispute violations or an
an offer to settle for a flat penalty of $5,000 per facility.

Tierthree applies to facilities that reported late but whose information was included in the public data
release report. These facilities will receive a notice of noncompliance.

Ms. Harris explained that the purpose of the initiative is to help ensure that the public has timely access
to information about releases of chemicals in the community by providing a stronger incentive for
facilities to report on time. She concluded by stating that to measure the initiative's success, EPA will
compare late reporting rates before and after the initiative.

Ms. Harris then discussed issues related to accidental releases and explained that OECA's Resource
Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Enforcement Division has the lead on enforcing the Chemical
Accident Prevention Provisions of the CAA. These regulations require companies that use toxic
substances to develop a risk management program. The components of a risk management plan
include:

• A hazard assessment of the potential effects of an accidental release, an accident history forthe last
five years, and an evaluation of worst-case and alternative accidental releases

• A prevention program that includes safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring, and employee
training measures

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

4-3

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

Enforcement Subcommittee

•	An emergency response program that identifies emergency healthcare facilities, employee training
measures, and procedures for informing the public and response agencies should an accident occur

Since the regulations went into effect in 1999, EPA has taken more than 150 enforcement actions
against violators. Most recently, OECA issued an Expedited Settlement Approach Policy to streamline
the administrative enforcement process for easily correctable violations.

In areas related to providing oversight of state and local enforcement programs, Ms. Harris stated that
OECA, with the assistance of the EPA regions, states, and the Environmental Council of States (ECOS),
is developing a new tool to assess state performance in enforcement and compliance assurance
activities. The purpose of the assessment is for states to determine performance standards in
collaboration with the EPA regions. Under the framework, 13 areas are identified for evaluation of state
performance, including timely reporting of violations, inclusion of injunctive relief and return to
compliance, and timely initiation of enforcement actions. Over the next eight months, EPA will conduct
a pilot assessment of one state in each region. Upon completion and evaluation of the pilot
assessments, OECA will work with the regions to establish schedules for completing assessments with
all the states. Ms. Harris stated that the lessons learned will be shared with the members of the
subcommittee and their comments will be requested. She then asked for suggestions on how to engage
the public in with this process.

Ms. Susana Almanza, People Organized in Defense of Earth and Her Resources (PODER) and a
member of the Enforcement Subcommittee, asked whether the public currently is involved. Ms. Harris
responded that currently OECA is focusing on the states agreeing to the assessments. She explained
that not all states have agreed to them. Mr. Chip Collette, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) and a member of the Enforcement Subcommittee, agreed with Ms. Harris. He
explained that the states need to be in agreement, and then EPA can request comments from the public.
Ms. Almanza asked whether this process is voluntary for the states. Ms. Harris explained that EPA has
the authority to assess the states at any time; however, EPA has not done this consistently. Ms. Harris
referred to the 1986 memorandum titled Policy Framework for State and EPA Enforcement Agreements,
which outlines the process for establishing and maintaining the state and EPA relationship for
enforcement and compliance assurance.

Ms. Harris continued by discussing issues related to Federal facilities. She explained that OECA's
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) has developed an inspection and enforcement initiative
to provide support and resources to EPA regional offices in order to help them conduct multimedia
inspections at Federal facilities and provide follow-up case support when appropriate. The initiative, she
explained, follows OECA's "smart enforcement principles":

•	Address significant environmental, public health, and compliance problems

•	Use data to make strategic decisions for better utilization of resources

•	Use the most appropriate tool to achieve the best outcome

•	Assess the effectiveness of program activities to ensure continuous program improvement

•	Effectively communicate the environmental, public health, and compliance outcomes

•	Consider environmental justice as a factor in determining inspection targets

She concluded her update on issues related to Federal facilities by stressing that environmental justice
factors will be critical in identifying targets for inspection and that preference will be given to facilities in
environmental justice communities.

Ms. Harris concluded her remarks by emphasizing that environmental justice will be an integral part of
OECA's national program priorities. She stated that each program office in OECA has developed an
environmental justice action plan that includes performance goals and outcomes for the next two years.
In addition, OECA senior managers recently developed a Concept Paper for Environmental Targeting
that will assist OECA in identifying a consistent set of parameters that can be used to define

4-4

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

-------
Enforcement Peoples Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

environmental justice communities and to help develop a targeting tool to identify disproportionate
impacts in such communities. In 2003, she stated, 600 million pounds of potential pollutants were
reduced because of enforcement actions, but OECA cannot identify what percentage of this reduction
was in environmental justice communities and is trying to better quantify this achievement.

Ms. Almanza expressed concern that environmental justice was not selected as a stand-alone priority.
She asked how OECA senior managers will ensure that environmental justice is taken seriously. Ms.
Harris responded that every program in OECA had to develop performance measures in this area.

Mr. Parras stated that the siting of schools next to hazardous facilities or on brownfields-type properties
is a major concern that had not yet been addressed during the meeting. Mr. Parras expressed the
importance of examining the decisions to locate schools on such properties. In his community, a school
was located in the middle of a group of petrochemical plants. The affected community had no resources
or political clout to protest the siting. He explained that this type of problem is occurring throughout the
United States. Ms. Harris suggested that the subcommittee follow up with Mr. Bill Sanders, Director of
the Office of Children's Health. Ms. Marva King, EPA Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), also
suggested that the subcommittee talk with Mr. Kent Benjamin, Environmental Justice Coordinator for
EPA OSWER and the DFO for the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee.

In closing, Ms. Harris thanked the subcommittee members for all their efforts.

3.0 FACILITATED DISCUSSION OF OECA's NATIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITIES

This section summarizes the subcommittee's facilitated discussion of OECA's national program
priorities. Ms. Tinka Hyde, Enforcement Coordinator, EPA Region 5, began this session by explaining
the nature of the concerns related to each national priority. OECA's national program priorities are
summarized in Exhibit 4-3.

Ms. Simons then explained that performance-based strategy teams at OECA are beginning to develop
goal statements to address each national priority. She informed the subcommittee members that this
would be an opportune time for them to offer their comments on the selected national priorities and to
make recommendations on how OECA could integrate environmental justice into the goal statements.

Ms. Simons encouraged the subcommittee members to consider how OECA could address
environmental justice in its national priorities by using the following factors:

Outreach, education, and communication
Collaborative problem-solving
Coordination among Federal, state, and tribal partners
Tools, targeting, and assessment

Through a facilitated discussion, the members of the subcommittee then offered comments and
recommendations on each national priority. The discussion is summarized below.

3.1 Wet Weather Issues under the CWA

Regarding wet weather issues, Mr. Collette said that most states operate their own National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs under the CWA. He expressed concern that
individual facilities are not applying for NPDES permits. He explained that the effects of not complying
with NPDES usually are very broad, and he asked whether EPA has mechanisms to identify
environmental justice communities that may be impacted. Mr. Collette continued by saying that states
need to be involved when EPA addresses this priority area. He concluded by saying that at a state level

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

4-5

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

Enforcement Subcommittee

Exhibit 4-3

OECA'S NATIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITIES
FOR 2005 THROUGH 2007

OECA has selected the following national program priorities for FY 2005 through 2007.

Vilioiiiil l'ro<>r;iiii

I'liuiiiN

Viliirc o|'( oiii'tTii l<> In*

FY 2005 Priority

Petroleum Refinery
Sector

Reduce air emissions and eliminate unpermitted releases from an estimated 162 operable domestic refineries
throughout the United States

FY2005 through 2007Priorities

Wet Weather Issues
under the Clean

Water Act (CWA)

Ensure compliance with CWA requirements to address storm water runoff, overflows from combined and
sanitary sewers, and concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) discharges. These discharges can contain
bacteria, pathogens, and other pollutants that may cause illnesses in humans; lead to water quality impairments,
including beach and shellfish bed closures; and harm the nation's water resources.

NSR/PSD
requirements under

the CAA

Ensure that NSR and PSD requirements under the CAA are implemented. Failure to comply with NSR and
PSD requirements may lead to inadequate control of emissions result in the release of thousands of tons of
pollution to the air each year, particularly nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds, and particulate
matter.

Air Toxics and the

CAA

Reduce public exposure to toxic air emissions by using directed monitoring and enforcement to enure
compliance with the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. This is the second phase
of this priority following four years of compliance assistance and development of implementation tools.

Tribal Compliance

In Indian country and tribal areas in Alaska, address significant human health and environmental problems
associated with drinking water, hazardous waste management, and environmental risks in tribal schools (such
as lead-based paint risks); ensure compliance within targeted areas, and address adjacent, noncomplying
facilities impacting Indian Country and tribal areas.

Mineral Processing
under RCRA

Address unpermitted mineral processing facilities. Evidence gathered in recent inspections indicates that
mineral processing facilities are failing to obtain the necessary permits and adequately manage their wastes.
EPA has found that mishandling of mineral processing wastes has caused significant environmental damage
and resulted in costly cleanups. These highly acidic wastes have caused fish kills, and the arsenic and cadmium
that these wastes often contain have been found at elevated levels in residential drinking water wells.

Financial
Responsibility

(To begin in FY 2006) Strengthen compliance with financial responsibility requirements under various
environmental laws to ensure that individuals or companies handling hazardous waste, hazardous substances,
toxic materials, or pollutants have adequate funds to close their facilities, clean up any releases, and
compensate any parties affected by their actions.

(at least in Florida), concerns related to environmental justice are not considered during the process of
issuing NPDES permits.

Ms. Hyde responded that facilities may not have NPDES permits for a variety of reasons; for example,
a permit could have expired, or a permit did not address long-term problems. For combined sewer
overflows, EPA Region 5 works closely with the states. Ms. Harris added that most states have
geographic information systems (GIS) similarto EPA's that could assist the states in identifing potential
environmental justice communities. Most of the EPA regions are generally familiar with the issues, and
several regions assist the states in analyzing permit applications, Ms. Harris stated. Ms. Almanza asked
how EPA can ensure that a state addresses environmental justice concerns when considering whether
to issue a permit. Ms. Harris explained that it often depends on a state's ability to establish an
environmental justice program. She added that the EPA regions will continue to stress that states
should address environmental justice concerns during the permitting process.

4-6

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

-------
Enforcement Peoples Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Members of the subcommittee also inquired about additional approaches that EPA could use to improve
its ability to identify communities with significant environmental and public health problems. Ms.
Almanza recommended reviewing complaints submitted to EPA under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 or using GIS mapping tools. She commented that most wastewater treatment plants are located
in communities of color; for example, in Austin, Texas, 90 percent of industrial zoning is in communities
of color. Continuing, Ms. Almanza stated that development of a Federal policy on zoning also should
be considered. Ms. Harris then added that in Atlanta, Georgia, all wastewater treatment plants currently
are located in communities that have environmental justice concerns. Ms. Hyde offered to provide the
subcommittee with a report that identifies the locations of all combined sewer overflows in the United
States.

Ms. Simons then summarized the recommendations of the subcommittee related to wet weather issues:
Review complaints submitted to EPA under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in order to identify
communities with environmental and public health problems

Ensure that states consider environmental justice concerns when issuing citations for wet weather
violations

Use GIS mapping tools to identify wastewater facilities in environmental justice communities
Examine the compliance of Federal facilities with the CWA by requesting additional information on
targeting

Examine the wet weather impacts on colonias (Follow up with Ms. Wendy Graham, Environmental
Justice Coordinator for the EPA Office of International Affairs and the DFO for the International
Subcommittee.)

3.2 Air Toxics and the CAA

Beginning the discussion of air toxics, Ms. Almanza recommended that EPA determine whether if states
are conducting air monitoring in communities of color. In addition, she stated that the air toxics need
to be considered in relation to cumulative impacts on high-risk communities. Ms. Harris explained that
there also are attainment issues to consider. She suggested that the members of the subcommittee
follow up with the Air and Water Subcommittee on this issue. She also recommended inviting an EPA
region that conducts air monitoring in high-risk communities to report its findings to the subcommittee
at a future meeting.

Continuing, Mr. Parras described a program in Houston, Texas, that trained members of an impacted
community how to collect air samples with the assistance of EPA, the state, and the city. The next step
was to place air monitors in the community; however, the program ran out of funding. The state was
asked to provide the air monitors but never did so because of the cost. Ms. Hyde clarified that EPA is
not focusing on placing air monitors but on collecting data that already exists to identify highly impacted
areas. Ms. Harris stated that placing air monitors in communities would be a good supplemental
environmental project (SEP) for noncompliant industries. Ms. Almanza recommended that the
information that EPA collects for the Concept Paper for Environmental Targeting be used to identify
highly impacted areas and then to ensure that no other facilities are sited in these areas. She hopes
that the states also will use this information.

Mr. Parras suggested that mercury contamination also should be included in the air toxics priority area.
In Texas, he stated, numerous coal-burning facilities for specific chemicals cause excessive mercury
contamination of the air.

Ms. Simons summarized the recommendations of the subcommittee related to air toxics:

Conduct air monitoring for specific chemicals in communities
Consider air toxics in relation to cumulative impacts

Invite an EPA region to present a report on toxics monitoring (Mr. Mark Hansen, EPA Region
6, was recommended as a potential presenter.)

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

4-7

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

Enforcement Subcommittee

Continue funding citizen air sampling in Houston, Texas (Mr. Doug Liptka, EPA Region 6,

currently is working on a request for additional funding.)

Recommend air monitoring as a SEP

Include mercury contamination in the priority area

Coordinate with Mr. Wil Wilson, Environmental Justice Coordinator for the EPA Office of Airand
Radiation and the DFO for the Air and Water Subcommittee

Recommend that states use GIS mapping and other data collection methods before siting
facilities in highly impacted communities

3.3 NSR/PSD Requirements under the CAA

Ms. Harris began the discussion of NSR/PSD requirements by informing the subcommittee members
that EPA has proposed new rules to clarify NSR. In addition, she explained that the Equipment
Placement Rule (EPR) has been stayed by EPA. There is an existing rule, however, that places
limitations on the resources that EPA can use. Because of these limitations, Ms. Harris stated, it has
become important for EPA to ensure that OECA is addressing the appropriate issues (for example,
pollution prevention). She explained that OECA continues to enforce the existing law despite the current
stay on the proposed EPR.

Mr. Parras then referred to a report issued by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) on nonattainment
areas. He asked whether OECA could take any action to address these nonattainment areas. Ms.
Harris explained that OECA does not have the authority to enforce the CAA; however, she stated, OAR
currently is working with the states to address such issues. Mr. Collette also pointed out that addressing
ozone in terms of attainment is an environmental justice issues for all because it impacts everyone. Ms.
King recommended that the Enforcement Subcommittee coordinate with the Air and Water
Subcommittee to address these issues. Also, the Enforcement Subcommittee members requested that
Ms. Simons ask Mr. Wilson to provide information on nonattainment and ozone issues. Ms. Almanza
stated that it is important to examine the cumulative impacts of nonattainment on environmental justice
communities.

Ms. Harris added that as a mechanism for enforcing the requirements of the CAA, state governments
often distribute or refuse to distribute transportation funding based on attainment or nonattainment. For
example, in Atlanta, legal authorities were used to dispute a transportation conformity plan.

3.4 Mineral Processing under RCRA

Ms. Harris explained that mineral processing as regulated under RCRA was selected as a national
priority because many mineral processing facilities have been operating as though they are exempt from
RCRA. Mishandling of mineral processing wastes has caused significant environmental damage and
is resulting in costly cleanups, she explained. For example, in discussions with the regulated
community, EPA Region 4 was led to believe that waste from mineral processing plants was exempt.
It is now known that exempt waste was mixed with nonexempt waste, and the region is revisiting these
issues.

Continuing, Mr. Collette stated that Florida has problems with phosphate mining and gypsum stacks
associated with ongoing coal-firing operations. Mr. Collette explained that gypsum is the by-product of
a pollution control process at power plants and that the low-income, rural communities that live near the
plants have little capacity or ability to address the problems with gypsum stacks. He expressed his
belief that regulators need to be more proactive in identifying what needs to be done to address such
problems. Mr. Parras asked how gypsum stacks can be eliminated. Ms. Harris responded that there
are opportunities for enforcement when violations are cited. For example, facilities can be made to
conduct pollution prevention activities through SEPs. The subcommittee requested a compliance and
enforcement update on this issue in the future.

4-8

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

-------
Enforcement Peoples Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

3.5 Tribal Compliance

The members of the Enforcement Subcommittee agreed that the tribal compliance priority area should
be addressed by the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee. The Enforcement Subcommittee then decided
to coordinate with Mr. Daniel Gogal, EPA OEJ and the DFO for the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee,
regarding recommendations for OECA's tribal compliance national priority.

Ms. Harris explained that OECA is identifying issues that are unique to specific tribes. It is important
to note, she said, that some tribes are very sophisticated and are operating facilities that are causing
significant environmental impacts. Ms. Teresa Cooks, Communication Specialist, EPA Region 6, stated
that in Region 6, the Mescalero Tribe has 14 water systems, and for the first time, all 14 systems are
in compliance. Mr. Parras indicated that low-level radioactive waste also should be addressed as part
of the priority area.

3.6 Financial Responsibility

Ms. Harris explained that financial assurance requirements under environmental laws ensure that
persons or companies handling hazardous or toxic materials have adequate funds to close facilities,
clean up releases, and compensate anyone harmed by releases. EPA is now aware, she continued,
that many companies may not have been honest about having adequate funding to close their facilities.
When these facilities close and the required funding is not in place, EPA will need to fund the cleanup
and have no ability to pursue recovery costs.

4.0 PRESENTATIONS

This section summarizes the presentations made and reports submitted to the Enforcement
Subcommittee.

4.1 Facilitated Discussion: Office of the Inspector General's Report: EPA Needs to
Consistently Implement the Intent of the Executive Order on Environmental Justice

Mr. Charles Lee, Associate Director, EPA OEJ, discussed the Office of the Inspector General's Report:
EPA Needs to Consistently Implement the Intent of the Executive Order on Environmental Justice (IG
report) and the areas in which EPA differs with the Office of the Inspector General's (OIG) findings. Mr.
Lee explained that although OEJ disagrees with some findings in the report, OEJ believes that the report
has provided an opportunity for EPA to focus on environmental justice. He went on to say that
environmental justice is a complex issue and that it is important to have discussions about the concepts
of environmental justice and the values associated with it.

Mr. Lee then offered the members of the subcommittee a brief history of the origins of the environmental
justice movement. He noted that environmental justice became a nationally recognized issue in 1982
and that in 1983, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that three of four commercial
hazardous waste facilities in EPA Region 4 were in minority areas and that the fourth was in a low-
income area. Mr. Lee explained that EPA responded by forming the Environmental Equity Workgroup
in 1990. In June 1992, the workgroup noted that minority and low-income populations bear a higher
environmental risk burden than the general population, and in November 1992, EPA established the
Office of Environmental Equity (which was renamed the Office of Environmental Justice in 1994). The
next major milestone, Mr. Lee stated, was on February 11, 1994, when President Clinton issued
Executive Order 12898, "Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations." Mr. Lee also commented that he and Mr. Barry Hill, Director of EPA OEJ,
participated in the effort to develop the language that became Executive Order 12898.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

4-9

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

Enforcement Subcommittee

Mr. Lee then explained that the IG report sought to answer the following questions:

• How has EPA implemented Executive Order 12898 and integrated its concepts into EPA's regional
and program offices?

• How are environmental justice areas defined at the regional levels, and what is the impact?

Mr. Lee explained that OIG believes that EPA has not fully implemented Executive Order 12898 and has
not consistently integrated environmental justice into its day-to-day operations. In addition, the IG report
states that "EPA has not identified minority and low-income, nor identified populations addressed in the
executive order, and has neither defined nor developed criteria for determining disproportionately
impacted." Mr. Lee then summarized the three recommendations of the IG report:

• Develop a standard strategy that limits variations related to GIS applications, including use of
census information, determination of minority status, determination of income threshold, and all other
criteria necessary to provide regions with information for environmental justice decisions

• Require that the selected strategy for determining an environmental justice community be consistent
for all EPA program and regional offices

• Develop a clear and comprehensive policy on actions that will benefit and protect identified minority
and low-income communities, and strive to include this policy in states' Performance Partnership
Agreements and Performance Partnership Grants

Mr. Lee, however, expressed his belief that it is critical to continue to address disproportionate impacts
even though the definition of such impacts may vary among EPA and the states.

Mr. Lee informed the subcommittee members that throughout EPA ,a new approach to addressing
environmental justice has begun to link social and public health factors. For example, OECA has
developed the Concept Paper for Environmental Targeting.

Continuing, Mr. Lee explained that the premise of the IG report would require the development of a
uniform, quantitative, national standard for defining an environmental justice community. The
recommendations in the IG report flow from this premise. He explained that other Federal agencies,
such as the White House Council of Environmental Quality, the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), and DOJ, have developed definitions for environmental justice communities; however, the
definitions vary from simplistic to complicated. Mr. Lee stated that each community is unique and should
be treated as such. Mr. Lee expressed OEJ's belief that by defining environmental justice, salient issues
may be missed. For example, Mr. Lee stated that setting thresholds will create real problems. If "24.9"
is established as a threshold, communities with a score of "24.8" would be excluded.

Mr. Lee then noted that one of the most significant parts of the IG report appears on page eight. The
report quotes the executive order:

To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set
forth in the report on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency shall make
achieving environmentaljustice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States
and its territories and possessions...(emphasis added)

He explained that EPA has not been able to address this section of the executive order because the
phrase is a transposition of civil rights legal concepts regarding environmental law. The problem with
this transposition is that environmental law does not address a protected class, he stated. The more
precise analytical method to use, Mr. Lee explained, is to address environmental justice issues that
include adverse impacts on human health, unique exposure pathways, sensitive populations, and
multiple cumulative impacts. Mr. Lee stated that human health and environmental effects are a nexus
and explained that it is important to determine how to integrate civil rights with social concepts.

4-10

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

-------
Enforcement Peoples Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Mr. Collette commented that he had conceptual problems with the IG report. He explained that he was
most disturbed by OIG's assumption that "disproportionate impact" can be easily handled or identified.
He continued by explaining that "disproportionate impact" analysis looks at issues in isolation and would
not allow for a cumulative analysis. He also stated that statistical analysis is costly and that EPA
probably does not have the resources to apply it.

Ms. Almanza asked what prompted OIG to conduct the evaluation. Mr. Lee explained that OIG asked
to investigate the environmental justice implications of air emission trading and as the OIG was
collecting this data, it believed that there also was a need to examine EPA's overall implementation of
the executive order.

Ms. Almanza expressed agreement with Mr. Lee that environmental justice should not be limited by a
single definition. She continued that a definition should not be so concise that some communities will
be overlooked. Mr. Lee added that the more fundamental fear is that once environmental justice
communities are defined, the issue will be marginalized because enforcement of environmental justice
cannot be directly linked to environmental laws. Mr. Lee identified three conundrums of environmental
justice: (1) problem-solving, (2) the meaning of "disproportionate impacts", and (3) the conflict between
civil rights law and environmental law.

Mr. Parras stated that communities are unaware of the IG report and therefore have not provided any
comments. He continued by stating that those who know about environmental justice often view it as
an affirmative action program intended to address environmental problems. He then asked whether
EPA will request that communities comments on the IG report. Mr. Lee reiterated that EPA's response
is dictated by the statute and must be provided within 90 days; however, communities are welcome to
provide report comments to OIG.

Mr. Lee also pointed out that most communities do not understand the challenges involved in promoting
their cases. Most communities read the executive order and then ask EPA to designate them as
environmental justice communities in order to solve their problems. This approach often leads to
frustration.

Mr. Parras suggested conducting an outreach campaign for communities about the IG report and EPA's
response to assure them that the scope and agenda for environmental justice have not changed. Mr.
Lee agreed that there needs to be communication with communities. He also stressed that there needs
to be a better understanding of the limits of environmental laws. Ms. King said that OEJ will be
distributing 10,000 copies of a DVD titled, Communities and Environmental Laws and Citizens Guide
to Environmental Justice. Ms. King stated that OEJ is excited about distributing the DVD titled to
communities in an effort to educate them about the use of environmental laws. She continued by
explaining that OEJ will be providing training on the DVD in the near future.

Ms. Almanza stated that communities do not understand the difference between civil rights and
environmental justice. Mr. Lee agreed and stated that most community and advocacy groups have yet
to make a distinction between the two concepts. Ms. Almanza also stated that the IG report does not
change anything for the communities including the need to still respond to their requests for help. She
stated that it is important not to get caught up in "paperwork." Communities, she explained, will try all
avenues, including civil rights laws, education, and other Federal agencies, to seek relief from their
environmental problems.

4.2 Presentation and Discussion: Concept Paper for Environmental Targeting: Policy and
Technical Issues

Ms. Hyde explained that the Concept Paper for Environmental Targeting: Policy and Technical Issues
is the result of an effort that started in May 2003. OECA, she stated, identified a need for

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

4-11

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

Enforcement Subcommittee

•	A consistent set of parameters that can be used to define an environmental justice community

•	A proactive targeting tool to assist EPA regions and headquarters program offices in identifying the
potential for disproportionate impacts on communities

As a result, a small workgroup was developed to work with OEJ in order to develop a targeting tool,
stated Ms. Hyde. The concept
paper, Ms. Hyde stated,
focuses on work within OECA,
but other EPA program offices
may be able to adopt some of
the concepts presented.

Continuing, she explained that
the workgroup recommends
that OECA apply a nationally
consistent set of environmental,
health, and demographic
factors to identify and set
priorities among communities
with environmental and public
health problems as well as to
evaluate OECA's national
priority sectors to determine
which facilities are located in
geographic areas of concern.

In addition, Ms. Hyde noted that
existing health vulnerabilities
and environmental conditions
will be used as threshold criteria
to allow the workgroup to first
identify geographic areas of
concern with environmental and
public health issues. Once
areas of environmental and
public health issues are
identified, community
demographic indicators will be
used to help prioritize the
areaswhere resources will be
deployed. Exhibit 4-4 provides
additional information on the
indicators for the study.

Exhibit 4-4

	

CONCEPT PAPER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETING:
IDENTIFICATION OF INDICATORS

The recommendations identified in the Concept Paper for Environmental Targeting
recommends that the OECA apply a nationally consistent set of environmental,
health, and demographic factors to identify and set priorities among communities
with environmental and public health problems as well as to evaluate OECA's
national priority sectors in order to determine which facilities are located in
geographic areas of concern. To accomplish these goals, the following approach is
recommended:

Existing Health Vulnerabilities and Environmental Conditions: The following
indicators are recommended for use as threshold criteria, to allow EPA to first
identify geographic areas of concern with environmental and public health issues.

•	Environmental Compliance Factors

•	Facility density

•	Frequency of compliance monitoring

•	Compliance history of facilities an area

•	Flealth (Vulnerability) Factors

•	Nationally available (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) health
data (for example, cancer mortality, cancer incidence, infant mortality, and
low birth weight rates)

•	Available local data (for example, asthma, childhood lead poisoning, and
birth defects)

•	Environmental Factors

•	TRI emissions using Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Program

•	EPA emission data and ambient environmental data (nonattainment and
305(b) stream data)

•	Available local data (such as beach closures or fish advisories)

Community Demographics Once areas with environmental and public health issues
are identified, the following community demographic indicators should be used to set
priorities for areas where EPA should deploy its resources:

•	Locations where minority populations (defined as all races, except non-Flispanic
whites) reside at higher than the state averages

•	Locations where the percentage of children (six years of age or younger) and
older Americans (65 years of age or older) higher than the state averages

•	Locations where the percentage of individuals (or families) whose median
household income is at or below the U.S. Department of Fluman Flealth
Services-defined poverty level is higher than the state average

Ms. Hyde stated that OECA

should develop, maintain, and use the recommended environmental justice targeting tool to prioritize
geographic areas with environmental and public health issues and to assist in making resource
deployment decisions. Ms. Hyde said that the next steps will be to finalize the concept paper, establish
a task team to develop a targeting tool, and apply the tool to the national priorities. She stated that she
hopes this approach will be applied to the national priorities for FY 2005.

Mr. Parras asked whether the members of the Enforcement Subcommittee would be given the
opportunity to comment on the concept paper. Ms. Hyde stated that she would be happy to receive
recommendations from the subcommittee. Ms. Simons asked whether the concept paper would result

4-12

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

-------
Enforcement Peoples Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

in a new database. Ms. Hyde responded that the information collected is to be integrated into existing
databases. Ms. King commented that the communication and translation of this information will be
important. Communities need to understand what the targeting tool is and how it may affect them. Ms.
Simons asked whether the workgroup has considered how communities will access the information.
Ms. Hyde stated that this is a dilemma for the Enforcement Program because some of the information
may be confidential. Overall, the subcommittee members stated that they are happy that OECA has
taken the initial steps to develop a targeting tool.

5.0 ACTION ITEMS

This section summarizes the action items adopted by the subcommittee.

/ Develop recommendations for community outreach concerning the IG report:

~ Establish immediate communication with communities about EPA's response to the report

~ Focus ongoing outreach on training and resources

~ Use the Enforcement Subcommittee as a vehicle to review and help implement the
communication strategy

/ Coordinate with other subcommittees of the NEJAC regarding OECA's national program priorities:

~ Coordinate with Mr. Wilson for recommendations related to OECA's air toxics national priority

~ Coordinate with Mr. Gogal for recommendations related to OECA's tribal compliance national
priority

/ Coordinate with Mr. Sanders regarding the issues of schools being located in highly industrialized
and potentially toxic areas

/ Provide the members of the subcommittee with a report that identifies locations of combined sewer
overflows (Ms. Hyde)

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

4-13

-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the

HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE

of the

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

April 15, 2004
New Orleans, Louisiana

Meeting Summary Accepted By:

Sam Williams

Co-Designated Federal Official

Pamela Kingfisher
Acting Chair

-------
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 Thursday, April 15, 2004, during a four-day meeting of the
NEJAC in New Orleans, Louisiana. Ms. Pamela Kingfisher, Shining Waters, continues to serve as the
acting chair of the subcommittee. Mr. Sam Williams, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Office of Research and Development (ORD), and Mr. Gary Carroll, EPA Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT), continue to serve as the Co-Designated Federal Officials (DFO) for the
subcommittee. Exhibit 5-1 lists 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, Remarks, summarizes
the opening remarks of the Co-DFO and the chair.

Section 3.0, Presentations and Reports, provides an
overview of each presentation provided and report
discussed during the subcommittee meeting as well
as a summary of majorquestions and comments from
the subcommittee. Section 4.0, Activities of the
Subcommittee, summarizes the activities of the
subcommittee, including the discussion of the
subcommittee's Strategic Plan and reports. Section
5.0, Action Items, identifies the action items adopted
by the subcommittee.

2.0 REMARKS

Mr. Williams, Co-DFO of the Health and Research
Subcommittee, opened the meeting by providing an
overview of the guidelines of the NEJAC and the
protocol to be followed during the subcommittee
meeting. Mr. Wlliams indicated that the NEJAC was created in accordance with the requirements under
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and that the subcommittee, as part of the NEJAC, must follow
the same FACA requirements as the Executive Council of the NEJAC. Mr. Wlliams explained that
although the meeting was open to the public, a public comment period was not scheduled for the
subcommittee meeting. However, questions from the audience would be taken if time permitted. Mr.
Wlliams also pointed out that the subcommittee meeting was being recorded and that a meeting
summary would be prepared and made available to the public in the future. Mr. Wlliams announced
that a revised subcommittee agenda was available and asked all members of the audience to sign in.
Finally, Mr. Wlliams stated that Mr. Richard Garnas, EPA ORD, would be taking over as Co-DFO as
the representative from ORD following the April 2004 meeting.

Ms. Kingfisher, acting chair of the Health and Research Subcommittee, welcomed the members of the
subcommittee and the audience. Ms. Kingfisher indicated that since September 2003, members of the
subcommittee had worked on the draft report titled, Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with
Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risk/Impacts, which was submitted in
January 2004 to Mr. Charles Lee, Associate Director, EPA Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), and
DFO for the Executive Council of the NEJAC. Ms. Kingfisher encouraged the members of the
subcommittee to provide comments on the draft report. Ms. Kingfisher provided a brief overview of the
agenda and thanked Mr. Williams for his work as Co-DFO over the last year and for developing the
meeting agenda. At the request of Ms. Kingfisher, the members of the subcommittee, presenters, and
members of the audience introduced themselves.

Exhibit 5-1

HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE

Members Who Attended the Meeting
on April 15,2004

Ms. Pamela Kingfisher, Acting Chair
Mr. Sam Williams, Co-DFO

Ms. Mark Armentrout
Ms. Valery Jo Bradley
Ms. Jan Marie Fritz
Mr. Walter Handy
Ms. Lori Kaplan
Ms. Laura Luster
Mr. Mark Mitchell

Members
Who Were Unable To Attend

Mr. Gary Carroll, Co-DFO
Mr. Richard Gragg
Ms. Dorothy Powell

5-2

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

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

Health and Research Subcommittee

3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS

This section provides a summary of the presentations provided to and reports discussed with the
members of the Health and Research Subcommittee. Presentations were provided by EPA personnel
representing ORD and OPPT, the two EPA offices that sponsorthe Health and Research Subcommittee.
A panel discussion also was conducted with community members who discussed environmental and
health threats in Mossville, Louisiana.

3.1 Health and Research Activities of EPA ORD

Mr. Williams provided an update on ORD's health and research activities. He began by stating that ORD
is composed of approximately 1,950 employees working in 13 laboratories and various research facilities
across the United States. Mr. Williams explained the primary mission and activities of ORD as follows:

The primary mission of ORD is to provide credible, relevant, and timely research results and
technical support to inform EPA policy decisions.

ORD makes decisions that are "scientifically sound" using relevant, high-quality, and cutting-edge
research in the areas of human health, ecology, pollution control and prevention, and economics.

ORD ensures proper characterization of scientific findings and the appropriate use of science in
EPA's decision-making process.

ORD also uses computational toxicology, which is the integration of modern computing and
information technology with molecular biology and chemistry. The objectives of computational
toxicology are to (1) improve linkages among environmental release data, fate and transport data,
exposure data, health effect data, and data regarding adverse outcomes; (2) provide predictive
models that can be used for screening and testing; and (3) enhance quantitative risk assessments,
particularly in terms of being able to use risk assessments as predictive tools while also meeting the
specific needs of EPA program and regional offices.

During his presentation, Mr. Wlliams explained that ORD has several ongoing, high-priority research
projects involving human health, particulate matter, drinking water, clean water, global change,
endocrine disruptors, ecological risk, pollution prevention, and homeland security. As part of these
projects, ORD also is identifying susceptible subpopulations. Susceptible subpopulations are those
populations (for example, children and older adults) within a group who are differentially affected by
exposure to environmental pollutants.

Mr. Wlliams explained that the majorgoals of ORD are to identify and determine the basis forthe health
effects of environmental pollutants on susceptible subpopulations and to develop tools that can be used
to predict how these subpopulations will respond to various environmental pollutants.

Mr. Wlliams went on to explain that ORD also is focusing research on EPA's Border 2012 Program.
The goal of the Border 2012 Program is to reduce the highest public health risks and to preserve and
restore the natural environment along the U.S.-Mexico border. Examples of work done underthe Border
2012 Program include lead surveillance in several border communities, introduction of folic acid
supplement programs for women to reduce the risk of birth defects, and assessment of transboundary
transport of air emissions originating in Mexico. Currently, ORD is working on Border 2012 Program
projects that address children's health issues, such as respiratory health, asthma cases resulting from
air pollution, and multipathway and multipesticide exposures.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

5-3

-------
Health and Research Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Mr. Williams also provided an update on ORD's multiyear plans for research projects over a five- to
eight-year time frame. The multiyear plans are living documents that focus on key research questions
and significant outputs, communicate the direction of ORD's research program both internally and
externally, and demonstrate how ORD's research programs contribute to EPA's goals. Exhibit 5-2
provides a list of web sites on how to get
additional information on ORD research
and upcoming activities.

Following Mr. Williams' presentation,
members of the subcommittee asked
whether ORD's research process provides
opportunities for public comment. EPA
ORD staff members explained that all ORD
research undergoes a review process by a
review board and that public comment
periods are part of that process. The Board
of Scientific Counselors, an independent
advisory board, provides advice to EPA on
matters related to research.

3.2 Environmental Justice Priorities
and Activities of EPA Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances

Mr. Bryan Symmes, Associate Director,

National Program Chemicals Division, EPA
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS), provided information
on OPPTS' research priorities and activities
related to environmental justice issues.

OPPTS is composed of three offices, which
include OPPT, the Office of Pesticide
Program (OPP), and the Office of Science
Coordination and Policy (OSCP). OPPTS'
goal related to environmental justice is "to
achieve environmental justice by decreasing the burden of environmental risk to all communities by
promoting pollution prevention, safer chemicals, and reduced chemical exposures." Mr. Symmes
explained that to accomplish this goal, OPPTS developed an Environmental Justice Action Plan that
includes the following key commitments:

Further incorporate environmental justice principles in all program areas

Provide training to all personnel in order to impart a basic knowledge of the principles of
environmental justice (The goal is to train 25 percent of OPPTS employees within two years and all
employees eventually.)

Set expectations for staff and management

Incorporate specific objectives and activities into divisional work plans
Ensure effective public participation processes

Exhibit 5-2

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT'S (ORD)
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

Border 2012 Program

Environmental Health Workgroup Home Page:

http://www. epa.gov/orsearth/index. html

EPA's Border 2012 and the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention's Public Health Tracking Home Page:

www.cdc.gov/tracking/

Multiyear Plans

Synopses of ORD's multiyear plans can be obtained from
the web site: www.epa.gov/osp/

Science Inventory

Agency-wide database of 4,000 scientific and technical
work products on EPA's science activities:
www.epa.gov/si/

Science of Environmental Justice Workshop

May 25 and 26, 2004, Boston University, George Sherman
Union, Boston, Massachusetts
www. namsinc. org/EJWorkshop/

EPA Science Forum 2004

June 1 through 3, 2004, Mandarin Oriental Hotel,

Washington, DC

http://www.epa.gov/ord/scienceforum/2004/index.htm

5-4

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

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

Health and Research Subcommittee

According to Mr. Symmes, OPPTS expects that its action plan will assist EPA in being proactive and
in making every effort to identify areas where risks are disproportionate. Also, where pollution
prevention is not possible, OPPTS will take appropriate steps to minimize or eliminate unreasonable
environmental risks.

Mr. Symmes pointed out that EPA will "hold management accountable" for carrying out the objectives
and activities specified in the action plan. Managers and environmental justice coordinators and teams
have been designated, and they are accountable for ensuring that employee training is conducted and
that principles of environmental justice are incorporated into program initiatives. Mr. Symmes stated that
OPPTS is facing challenges in trying to actively involve stakeholders and in making its operations
"transparent." To facilitate stakeholder input at OPPTS, the following groups have been created (in
addition to the Health and Research Subcommittee of the NEJAC) and efforts have been made:

Environmental Justice Coordinating Council

Environmental Justice Team

National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee

Forum on State and Tribal Toxics Action

National Pollution Prevention Roundtable

Mr. Symmes also provided an overview of other components of the OPPTS Environmental Justice
Action Plan, including review of registration and re-registration processes for pesticides; worker
protection standard improvements; the Hispanic Radio Network, which will provide information in
Spanish for the Hispanic community; environmental justice brown bags for OPPTS staff; small
environmental justice grants for communities; and improvement of integrated pest management (IPM)
practices in both rural and urban schools. In addition to IPM, OPPTS is looking at issues related to lead
and asbestos in schools. Mr. Symmes indicated that asbestos is a re-emerging priority for the Agency.

The Health and Research Subcommittee discussed integration of environmental justice principles into
OPPTS programs. The discussion focused on the lack of or diminished attention to principles of
environmental justice in the day-to-day program activities of OPPTS. During the discussion, OPPTS
personnel expressed interest in obtaining suggestions from the subcommittee on ways to integrate
principles of environmental justice into their programs, especially programs related to research. OPPTS
personnel also asked for ideas and suggestions about ways that EPA can better engage communities,
states, and tribes.

Mr. Mark Mitchell, President, Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice and member of the Health
and Research Subcommittee, asked about testing and reporting of high-production-volume (HPV)
chemicals. Mr. Symmes explained that all HPV chemicals are regulated by the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). Mr. Symmes indicated that OPPTS is working on basic screening levels for such
chemicals and has determined through the Voluntary Children's Program that a small number (about
20 to 30) of these chemicals cause developmental effects in children. Mr. Symmes stated that industry
is providing data on the toxicity of HPV chemicals and that EPA is working on providing the data to the
public. Mr. Symmes agreed to provide a list of the chemicals to Mr. Mitchell.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

5-5

-------
Health and Research Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Exhibit 5-3 contains information about the
HPV chemical testing program.

Mr. Mitchell also asked Mr. Symmes how to
obtain funding for lead programs on the
local level, pointing out that there are
Federal funding programs but no local ones.

Mr. Mitchell went on to say that information
is needed to educate local communities
about lead poisoning. Mr. Symmes replied
that OPPTS has relevant outreach
programs but that data needs to be
gathered on the effectiveness of those
programs. Mr. Symmes indicated that
OPPTS needs input on outlining a "new
direction" for the lead program.

Ms. Artensie Flowers, Environmental
Justice Coordinator, EPAOPP, provided an
update on some of the activities of OPP.

Ms. Flowers indicated that as part of
OPPTS' action plan OPP is conducting IPM
in schools in rural areas and in New York
City. OPP successfully completed IPM in all
the schools in Auburn, Alabama, and is
planning IPM initiatives in Texas. OPP also is in the process of preparing the scope of work (SOW) for
the OPP Environmental Justice Small Grants Program. OPP plans to award a grant to one community
group in each EPA region in the amount of $15,000. The objective for the environmental justice small
grants is to provide education on safe use of pesticides in residential areas, safety information for people
working with pesticides, and information on illegal uses of pesticides. Ms. Flowers expressed an interest
in having the members of the Health and Research Subcommittee provide assistance to OPP in writing
the SOW for the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program request for proposals. Mr. Mitchell
indicated that some community groups are locked out of small grants programs if the groups are
affiliated with larger organizations. Mr. Mitchell went on to say that in Connecticut, community groups
are associated with state programs so that the groups can receive funding from the state.

Ms. Jan Marie Fritz, Associate Professor of Planning and Health Policy, University of Cincinnati and
member of the Health and Research Subcommittee, commented that OPP should consider reducing
the grant award amounts to $5,000 in order to reach more community groups. She added that
community groups often can "make a little go a long way." Mr. Marty Halper, Senior Science Advisor,
EPA OEJ, indicated that OEJ often uses discretionary funds to supplement small grants that already
have been awarded to community groups. Ms. Flowers indicated that the OEJ Small Grants Program
is being used as the model for OPP's Environmental Justice Small Grants Program.

Shifting focus to another area of concern, Ms. Bradley asked which office of EPA was addressing air
sampling issues in lower Manhattan, New York, as a result of the terrorist attack of September 11,2001.
Ms. Bradley indicated that odors were present there up to two weeks after the tragedy. She also pointed
out that air sampling immediately following the tragedy was focused on the lower Manhattan area;
although surrounding communities were affected, attention was not given to those areas. Mr. Symmes
replied that OPPTS was not involved in air sampling issues in lower Manhattan; however, he indicated
that he would find out who Ms. Bradley should contact about her concerns.

Mr. Symmes also indicated that the OPPTS Exposure Assessment Branch is working to develop Internet
access tools, and a "how-to screening manual" is scheduled to be published soon. These tools are
designed to assist communities in understanding and prioritizing health risks. Mr. Henry Topper, OPPT,

Exhibit 5-3

HIGH-PRODUC TION-VOLUME (HPV)
CHEMICAL TESTING PROGRAM

HPV chemicals are those chemicals that are produced in or
imported into the United States in quantities that exceed 1 million
pounds per year. The HPV chemical testing program was
developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
in consultation with the Environmental Defense Fund and the
Chemical Manufacturers Association. The objective of the HPV
chemical testing program is for the chemical industry to generate
a complete set of baseline health and environmental effect data
on chemicals for which no data is available and to make currently
available data accessible to the public.

Thus far, the HPV chemical testing program includes
2,167 chemicals
333 manufacturers of chemicals
97 consortia of companies
• As of October 2003, data on 1,081 chemicals submitted to
EPA by the chemical manufacturers and consortia
Of the 1,081 chemicals for which data has been submitted,
there are 928 chemicals in 96 different categories and 153
individual chemicals

5-6

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

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

Health and Research Subcommittee

explained that the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Tool provides toxic release inventory
information for large facilities, and the National Air Toxics Assessment can provide risk information
based on the census tracks of the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Mr. Topper said that he would provide
Mr. Williams with the Internet web site addresses for these screening tools.

Lastly, the members of the Health and Research Subcommittee and OPPT personnel discussed the
need to decide how the subcommittee could provide assistance to EPA in integrating principles of
environmental justice and issues of susceptibility and vulnerability into OPPT activities and in targeting
risk reduction efforts. In particular, Mr. Topper indicated that OPPT needs assistance in incorporating
vulnerability elements into the Community Action for Renewed Environmental (CARE) Grants Program.

Mr. Symmes added that for some programs, such as those addressing exposure to mercury and lead,
EPA is coordinating with other Federal agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). Finally, Mr. Symmes discussed areas in which OPPTS would like further feedback
and comments from the NEJAC. Those areas include tribal strategy development, greater stakeholder
involvement, and mercury and lead research and programs.

3.3 Research to Empower Communities to Participate More Effectively in
Environmental Cleanups

Dr. Kevin Garrahan, Ph.D., EPA ORD, provided information on EPA's research efforts to empower
communities to participate more effectively in environmental cleanups. This initiative originated in 2001
during the review process forthe National Research Council report titled Risk Management Strategy for
PCB-Contaminated Sediments. In its review comments, EPA recommended that risk communication
research be included in the risk management strategy for contaminated sediments.

EPA's ultimate objective is to develop improved methods, models, and research approaches that include
meaningful participation by community members. To achieve this objective, ORD solicited research
proposals in June 2002 and received 27 responses. ORD awarded two research grants based on the
proposals received: (1) a grant of $175,000 was awarded to Michigan State University (MSU) and (2)
a $375,000 grant was awarded to the Social and Environmental Research Institute (SERI).

The MSU study is designed to evaluate the effectiveness of public issue forums as a means of
enhancing the involvement of "ordinary" citizens in decision-making. The study is expected to last two
years and will examine how resident participation changes pre-existing attitudes, knowledge, and
choices; it also will identify the strengths and weaknesses of public forums. The MSU study is being
conducted in two phases. During Phase I of the study, a guide will be developed for a site to describe
conditions and several cleanup options. During Phase II of the study, the guide will be used in focus
groups made up of unaligned citizens to determine the usefulness of the guide to the citizens in making
informed choices. Dr. Garrahan indicated that the public issue forums will be conducted throughout the
study to determine whether the choices of the community members have changed. Dr. Garrahan
explained that the status of the MSU study as of April 2004 was as follows:

MSU has evaluated several candidate sites and selected the Tittabawasee River in Michigan; the
site selected has contaminated sediments, unaligned citizens and environmental justice concerns
and is in the early stages of the cleanup process.

MSU has developed an interview guide.

MSU has interviewed state officials; interviews with EPA and DowChemical personnel are pending.

The SERI study is titled A Comparative Analysis of Three Tools to Evaluate Community Involvement,
and its goal is to evaluate the usefulness of three tools that measure community preferences and the
effectiveness of community involvement: questionnaires, focus groups, and "Q" methodology. The "Q"
methodology is a process in which statements are assigned values and are subsequently ranked and

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

5-7

-------
Health and Research Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

sorted based on the values assigned. The objectives of the SERI study are to (1) develop and apply
three real-time methods to measure community preferences for cleanup methods and satisfaction with
the community involvement process and (2) identify strengths, weaknesses, and the best context for
each tool. The SERI research study has three phases. Phase I involves selecting a case study site,
gathering background information by interviewing stakeholders, developing criteria for success, selecting
an advisory panel, developing and applying the three methods of measuring community preferences and
satisfaction, and evaluating the results. During Phase II of the study, SERI will select a second case
study site and repeat the Phase I tasks for that site. Phase III will entail comparing the results of the two
case studies and identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each tool. Dr. Garrahan indicated that
the status of the SERI study as of April 2004 was as follows:

SERI has evaluated several candidate sites and selected the Ciba-Geigy site in Toms River, New

Jersey; the site selected has contaminated sediments, has environmental justice concerns, and is

in the early stages of the cleanup process.

SERI is preparing to interview stakeholders.

During the discussion following Dr. Garrahan's presentation, he indicated that one of the challenges
encountered in the studies was the selection of case study sites with similar issues. Mr. Kyle Bryant,
Special Consultant, Community-Tribal Subcommittee (CTS), Agency forToxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR), asked whether different learning styles, such as the Meyers-Briggs and True Colors
styles of learning, were factored into the methods for measuring community involvement, as opinions
obtained can be based on learning styles.

Dr. Garrahan replied that different learning
styles form one of the issues that the
studies are designed to evaluate; therefore,
different learning styles are factored into the
measures to obtain community involvement.

Exhibit 5-4 contains contact information for
the MSU and SERI research studies.

3.4 Overview of EPA's Draft Report
on the Environment, Human
Health Chapter

Ms. Rebecca Calderon, Acting Division
Director, Human Studies Division, EPA
ORD, informed the members of the
subcommittee about the process and
approach that ORD used to develop the
Draft Report on the Environment Technical
Document, Human Health Chapter, as well
as the feedback that ORD obtained on the
document during a review process by the
Agency's Science Advisory Board. Ms. Calderon indicated that ORD was tasked to prepare the report
by former EPA Administrator, Governor Christine Todd Whitman. The draft report contains information
on four topics: air, land, human health, and the environment. The draft report discusses national
environmental conditions and trends and, where possible, their effects on human health and the
environment. It also discusses environmental measures and indicators and the challenges that the
United States faces with respect to improving those measures and indicators. Ms. Calderon pointed out
that EPA is not a health agency; therefore, it faces the challenge of having to rely on health data
reported by others. EPA's ultimate goal is to have health data available on a web site where individuals
can quickly access information that is relevant to their health issues.

Exhibit 5-4

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (EPA)

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD)
RESEARCH GRANTS

EPA ORD awarded two research grants in 2002 to develop methods,
models, and research approaches that include meaningful
participation by community members related to risk management
strategies for PCB-contaminated sediments. Included below are the
points of contact for each grant.

Public Issues Forums as a Mechanism for Empowering Communities
in Environmental Cleanups by Michigan State University
Principal Investigator: Dr. JoAnn Beckwith

Phone Number: (517) 432-7733

A Comparative Analysis of Three Tools to Evaluate
Community Involvement by Social and Environmental Research
Institute

Principal Investigator: Dr. Seth Tuler

Phone Number: (413) 387-9320

5-8

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

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

Health and Research Subcommittee

Ms. Calderon's presentation focused on the human health chapter of the draft report. The goals for the
human health chapter were to determine how human health is measured, the causes of death,
susceptible populations, and emerging issues facing human health. To achieve the goals set forth for
the chapter, ORD evaluated three case studies in which indicators were used to determine the links
between health effects and the environment.

The human health chapter concludes that the health of the U.S. population is generally good and is
improving, life expectancy has increased, and infant mortality has decreased but is still among the
highest for developed countries. Also, the death rates for cancer, heart disease, and strokes are
declining. Ms. Calderon noted that the increase in life expectancy may be affected in the future by high
obesity rates in the United States. The chapter also concludes that susceptibility varies from person to
person and that issues other than the indicator exposures may have an effect on health. Some of these
other issues or factors include genetics, age, lifestyle, and general health.

Ms. Calderon urged the members of the subcommittee to keep in mind that many studies have
demonstrated an association between environmental exposures and diseases or health problems;
however, she said, "association" is not the same as "cause and effect." Ms. Calderon went on to say
that factors such as race and ethnicity were not included in the study. Also, environmental justice issues
were not included in the study because there was no consensus among the ORD staff members working
on the project on how to integrate principles of environmental justice in the report.

The Science Advisory Board reviewed the human health chapter of the draft report and provided
recommendations, including the following:

Criteria for environmental data and disease have a specific bias for acute effects; therefore, focus
more on chronic effects

Include more discussion of the relationship between disease and air, land, and water, particularly
with respect to causality

Expand the discussion of susceptibility with respect to the elderly, gender, and genetics
Include diet as part of exposure

Look further at linkages between health and ecosystems

Include an examination of environmental justice issues

Ms. Calderon indicated that although the draft report on the environment will not be finalized, another
report on the environment will be prepared and is expected to be completed in January 2006. The next
report will attempt to address some of the challenges faced in developing the current draft report. Some
challenges for the next report involve the need to be "all things to all people;" clarification of the primary
intent and audience of the report; mortality versus morbidity; and the relationships among national,
regional, and state communities.

ORD anticipates that the human health chapter of the next report on the environment will include better
explanations of linkages, innovative methodologies, accountability, and sensitive subpopulations; more
case studies; better integration of issues related to air, land, and water; and the results of partnering with
other agencies and institutions, such as CDC's Environmental Public Health Tracking Network and the
National Children's Study.

At the end of the presentation, Ms. Calderon answered questions from members of the Health and
Research Subcommittee. Several members were concerned that the report is a draft and is not
expected to be finalized. Members also asked whether there was a press release notifying the public

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

5-9

-------
Health and Research Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

of the availability of the draft report and whether there was a public comment period to obtain feedback
on the draft report. Members also asked about the usefulness of a draft report and why the report was
not going to be finalized. Ms. Calderon explained that a press release was issued to notify the public
of the availability of the draft report, and EPA obtained feedback from the public primarily through the
Science Advisory Board and academia. She also explained that a report that provides information on
health issues is valuable regardless of whether the report is "draft" or "final." Ms. Calderon indicated that
although the report is a draft, it does not contain the disclaimer "do not cite or quote."

Members of the Health and Research Subcommittee and Ms. Calderon then discussed ways that the
subcommittee could become involved in the review process for EPA's Draft Report on the Environment
Technical Document that is scheduled to be released in January 2006 as well as additional components
that could be added to the January 2006 report. These components include principles of environmental
justice indicators such as ethnicity and socioeconomic factors along with mechanisms to engage states,
tribes, and communities in the preparation of the report. Mr. Walter Handy, Assistant Commissioner,
Cincinnati Department of Health and memberofthe Health and Research Subcommittee, asked whether
a discussion of cumulative risks will be included in the January 2006 report. Ms. Calderon indicated that
the discussion of exposures will likely be expanded and that a discussion of cumulative risk as it relates
to regulatory programs will be added. Mr. Handy expressed concern about cumulative risk having an
impact on regulatory decision-making. Forexample, he said, Mossville is exposed to permitted releases
that are affecting the community.

The members of the subcommittee expressed interest in obtaining regular updates on the progress of
the draft report. Ms. Calderon agreed to discuss the subcommittee's request to be included in the
review process for the draft report with ORD, and she will notify the subcommittee of ORD's response
through Mr. Williams.

3.5 Mossville: What Worked, What Did Not Work, and What the Community Learned

Ms. Eranica Jackson, Representative, Mossville Environmental Action Now (MEAN); Ms. Monique
Harden, Co-Director and Attorney, Advocate for Environmental Human Rights; and Ms. Wilma Subra,
Representative, Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), provided an overview of issues facing
the community of Mossville, Louisiana. The presentation focused on the historical challenges that
community members have faced in their attempts for Federal agencies to address health issues as well
as the successes that the community has achieved in creating awareness of the issues despite the
continued permitted and nonpermitted air emissions that still affect the Mossville community.

Ms. Jackson said that in 1998, at the urging of MEAN, local residents, and environmental organizations,
ATSDR collected blood samples from 28 Mossville residents for dioxin analysis. In April 1999, analytical
results for the blood samples indicated that the dioxin concentrations in the blood of Mossville residents
were two to three times higher than the national average for the general public. In May 2000, MEAN
first reported to the NEJAC about the issues facing residents of Mossville, particularly the lack of
response that Mossville received from EPA, ATSDR, and the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) about the high levels of dioxins in residents' blood. The high levels of dioxins are
attributed to local sources of exposure. Ms. Jackson also noted that because of the large number of
industrial facilities in the area, dioxins probably are not the only contaminants to which Mossville
residents are exposed.

Ms. Jackson indicated that MEAN urged the appropriate government agencies to work with Mossville
residents to accomplish:

Reduce industrial pollution

Clean up contaminated areas in the Mossville community

Assist residents in obtaining health services to address the contaminants to which they are exposed

5-10

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

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

Health and Research Subcommittee

Assist consenting residents with relocation

Despite the community's urging, its recommendations and requests were rejected by both state and
Federal agencies. Subsequently, MEAN gained support from the NEJAC as well as numerous
environmental justice organizations and health advocates. These parties assisted MEAN in demanding
that agencies take action to address the environmental and health protection needs of Mossville
residents. As a result, ATSDR took the lead in addressing the dioxin crisis in Mossville; however,
Mossville residents believe that ATSDR has not acted in accordance with the Executive order on
environmental justice. In particular, Mossville residents believe that they have not been afforded
meaningful participation in activities of ATSDR related to the Mossville situation. Ms. Jackson went on
to say that ATSDR has shown a pattern of delays and of cancelling meetings with Mossville residents.
Most troubling to the residents, however, was ATSDR's attempts to mislead them by proclaiming that
based on a new study, local blood levels of dioxins had decreased below the national average.

Ms. Jackson further explained that ATSDR had conducted two studies. One was a follow-up to the 1998
study in Mossville, and the other was a new study in Calcasieu Parish that included few or possibly none
of Mossville's residents. (Mossville is located in Calcasieu Parish.) The new study in Calcasieu Parish
indicated that blood levels of dioxins were below the national average. Ms. Jackson went on to say that
ATSDR sided with industry representatives in saying that dioxins are not a problem in Calcasieu Parish;
however, no information was provided to indicate that dioxins remained a problem in Mossville. As a
result, MEAN took on the responsibility of educating the public about the misconception and the
misleading information about dioxin exposure. Ms. Jackson explained that in fall 2003, ATSDR was to
release a report summarizing the results of the two studies; however, as of April 2004, the report had
not yet been released.

Therefore, MEAN recommended that the Health and Research Subcommittee of the NEJAC contact
ATSDR and ask it to provide information that Dr. Henry Faulk, Deputy Administrator of ATSDR,
promised to Mossville residents. This information includes a PowerPoint presentation on the Mossville
follow-up study preliminary test results and information regarding contaminant levels required to justify
resident relocation. MEAN also requested that the subcommittee help Mossville residents to obtain
meaningful participation in ATSDR investigations of the community. According to Ms. Jackson, ATSDR
currently is conducting a study of a vinyl plant owned by Georgia Gulf. MEAN has requested that
ATSDR include the Mossville community in the research efforts; however, the community has not been
allowed to participate in a meaningful way to date. In her closing statements, Ms. Jackson
acknowledged and thanked Dr. Reuben Warren, Urban Affairs Office, ATSDR, for the support that he
has provided to the local health clinic in Mossville.

Ms. Subra then gave a presentation on the community-based airtoxics initiatives in Mossville, Louisiana.
The presentation focused on five issues: fugitive emissions, ambient air concentrations exceeding
regulatory criteria, ambient air monitoring programs that fail to analyze for released chemicals, frequent
accidental releases and upset conditions, and excessive flaring. Ms. Subra was part of the NEJAC
Work Group on Cumulative Risk and has worked with the Mossville community and Calcasieu Parish
since 1997.

In her presentation, Ms. Subra indicated that although data from local industry indicates that pollutant
release rates are declining, they actually are increasing. Contaminants of concern in the Calcasieu
Parish include volatile organic compounds (VOC) such as vinyl chloride; trichloroethylene; 1,2-
dichloroethane; and chloroform. Two of the major problems are fugitive emissions and accidental
releases. Fugitive emissions are leaks from valves and other nonregulated or unmonitored areas rather
than releases from stacks. Often fugitive emissions are closer to communities and have greater effects
on them. Accidental releases are not illegal, Ms. Subra stated, as long as they are reported. Ms. Subra
stated that the concentrations of 1,2-dichloroethane in Calcasieu Parish were higherthan anywhere else
in the nation. As a result, in 1996 and 1998, the community conducted its own studies; it was able to

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

5-11

-------
Health and Research Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

document that the VOC concentrations in ambient air in the community were above the national
average. EPA subsequently took the data to local industry and made the facilities take steps to reduce
air emissions. Because of community involvement, air monitoring stations were placed in Calcasieu
Parish, and monitoring is conducted every six days for a 24-hour period. This monitoring has indicated
that concentration of VOCs in ambient air have decreased in Calcasieu Parish, but Ms. Subra explained
that the data is misleading. She pointed out that local industry knows the monitoring cycle and ensures
that releases do not occur on the day when monitoring occurs. However, on the days when monitoring
does not occur, there are accidental releases. Because accidental releases are reported but not
regulated, the contaminants released into ambient air continue to magnify exposure in the community
and represent a cumulative risk issue. Ms. Subra also indicated that work needs to be done to
determine whether exposure occurs during sampling as well as to identify the best days for sampling.
She also said that more emphasis be given to selecting proper background sampling locations.

Finally, Ms. Harden discussed the concerns of Mossville residents regarding meaningful community
participation, particularly participation in ATSDR-led activities. Ms. Harden expressed concern about
ATSDR's continued lack of responsiveness to the Mossville community. Ms. Harden requested that the
Health and Research Subcommittee assist the local community in becoming involved in meaningful
ways in ATSDR's ongoing investigations of Mossville. Ms. Harden indicated that MEAN also is
interested in information regarding ATSDR's relocation policy in general and particularly with respect
to contaminant concentrations and conditions that would trigger relocation efforts. Ms. Harden indicated
that under the leadership of Mr. Jerry Clifford, former Deputy Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6,
quarterly meetings were held to inform Mossville residents and discuss their concerns. Ms. Harden went
on to say that it was under Mr. Clifford's leadership that air monitoring began in the Mossville community;
however, there have been staff changes at EPA, and the Mossville community is not receiving the type
of Agency support or involvement that it formerly did.

Following the presentation, Ms. Kingfisher indicated that the NEJAC is not tired of hearing from
Mossville but rather is tired of the lack of action and change. Ms. Kingfisher further stated that the
Health and Research Subcommittee is committed to helping Mossville residents. Ms. Valery Jo Bradley,
Executive Director, Mount Morris Park Community Improvement Association and member of Health and
Research Subcommittee, asked what the subcommittee could do to get EPA to support Mossville. Mr.
Mike Callahan, Scientist, EPA Region 6, indicated that he would talk with Mr. Larry Starfield, Deputy
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6, about the issues facing the Mossville community. Ms. Harden
indicated that there were several things that EPA could do in the short term to help the community,
including:

Resuming the quarterly meetings to discuss monitoring and enforcement

Preparing newsletters to keep the community informed

Conducting public or small group meetings

Encouraging ATSDR to discuss its dioxin testing with the community

Ms. Harden indicated that simply stated, the community needs to be at the table providing advice on
issues affecting it.

After a brief break, Ms. Kingfisher announced thatMr. JamesTullos, National Centerfor Environmental
Health, ATSDR, was present and that he had contacted his agency and communicated the issues
brought up during the Mossville discussion. She said that Mr. Tullos indicated that the information will
be transferred to the persons within ATSDR who are directly responsible for addressing the issues. It
was agreed that the Health and Research Subcommittee will contact MEAN to provide an update. Ms.
Kingfisher indicated that the subcommittee will "take Mossville under its wings;" however, the
subcommittee cannot be a "go between" for Mossville and ATSDR. Mr. Tullos indicated that he will stay
in contact with the subcommittee regarding issues facing the Mossville community.

5-12

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

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

Health and Research Subcommittee

4.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE

This section discusses the activities of the Health and Research Subcommittee, the draft document
Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative
Risk/Impacts; and the subcommittee's Strategic Plan for 2005 and 2006.

4.1 Discussion of Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors:
Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risk/Impacts

The members of the subcommittee discussed the draft report titled Ensuring Risk Reduction in
Communities with Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risk/Impacts (cumulative
risk report), which was prepared by the Cumulative Risk/Impact Work Group of the NEJAC. In
particular, the members discussed the need to clarify terminology used in the report (such as "research"
and "community-based research") to make sure that it is understood by those reading the report. Ms.
Fritz indicated that definitions forand differentiation between"participatory" and "collaborative" research
and "qualitative" and "quantitative" research are needed in the cumulative risk report. The members of
the subcommittee discussed drafting a letter to the Work Group, that would outline specific concerns
and recommendations regarding the draft report.

In addition, the members of the subcommittee invited representatives of ATSDR and the Community-
Tribal Subcommittee of ATSDR to participate in future subcommittee meetings and conference calls in
order to provide input on ongoing environmental justice research. The discussion focused on how to
effectively collaborate on health issues and how to make this collaboration an ongoing activity of the
Health and Research Subcommittee and the ATSDR's advisory committee. The Health and Research
Subcommittee members were invited to join monthly conference calls held by the Community-Tribal
Subcommittee of ATSDR. The members of the Health and Research Subcommittee encouraged
members of the Community-Tribal Subcommittee to provide comments on the draft cumulative risk
report during the 30-day comment period. Ms. Kingfisherthanked ATSDR, especially Mr. Jamie Purvis,
for providing support to the Health and Research Subcommittee during summer and fall 2003.

4.2 The Health and Research Subcommittee Strategic Plan for 2005 and 2006

Members of the subcommittee discussed the subcommittee's Strategic Plan for 2005 and 2006. The
members of the subcommittee indicated that several activities in the current plan have been
accomplished and that this should be reflected in the new plan. Items that will be included in the
Strategic Plan for 2005 and 2006 include reviewing documents and providing technical support for ORD
and OPPTS.

Ms. Kingfisher recognized Ms. Brenda Washington, EPA ORD, for her work in helping to coordinate the
activities of the Health and Research Subcommittee. Ms. Kingfisher went on to explain that the terms
for many of the subcommittee members expire at the end of December 2004. Ms. Kingfisher took a poll
of the current subcommittee members to find out which of the members are interested in serving another
term. Subcommittee members who are interested in serving another term include Mr. Mitchell, Mr.
Handy, Ms. Laura Luster, Mr. Fritz, and Ms. Lori Kaplan. Ms. Laura Luster, Program Manager, Training
and Community Development, Luster National, Inc. and members of the Health and Research
Subcommittee, suggested that youth be a factor in selecting new members for the subcommittee. Ms.
Luster went on to say that younger people will bring energy to the subcommittee. Ms. Fritz indicated
that an Alaskan Native also should be considered. Ms. Lori Kaplan, Commissioner, Indiana Department
of Environmental Management and members of the Health and Research Subcommittee, added that
someone with a background in children's issues also should be considered. Mr. Williams indicated that
the current members of the subcommittee should provide nominations for new members because the
subcommittee needs a balance of persons with different skills and organizational backgrounds. Mr.
Wlliams added that he and Mr. Garnas will meet with Ms. Victoria Robinson, NEJAC National Program

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

5-13

-------
Health and Research Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Manager, EPA OEJ, to discuss selection of new subcommittee members in accordance with FACA
guidelines.

Ms. Kingfisher also indicated that for the Health and Research Subcommittee to be successful, support
is needed from its EPA sponsor agencies, ORD and OPPTS. She mentioned that administrative support
is needed for such activities as preparing meeting minutes, tracking action items and assignments, and
coordinating communication with EPA program offices. She also commented that an extra telephone
call with the Co-DFOs is needed before subcommittee meetings. Ms. Kingfisher thanked Mr. Williams
for his efforts in putting the current meeting together and for his support to the Health and Research
Subcommittee. She also thanked the audience and presenters for attending the meeting.

5.0 ACTION ITEMS

This section summarizes the action items adopted by the subcommittee.

/ Prepare a "white paper" on efforts being undertaken by state and Federal agencies to incorporate
environmental justice indicators into their research. The paper will be shared with ORD. The Health
and Research Subcommittee also will recommend that the Executive Council reviewthe white paper
and discuss ways that the NEJAC can influence the inclusion of environmental justice indicators in
future research conducted by EPA.

/ Develop guidelines forconducting research, especially community-based participatory research, that
researchers and communities can use. Existing similar documents of this nature developed by
Federal agencies, such as the National Center for Environmental Health, will be consulted as
resources in developing the guidelines.

/ Assist ORD in making environmental justice principles a focused element of its multiyear plan. The
multiyear plan discusses environmental justice issues in a broad sense; however, specific issues
related to environmental justice principles are not identified. The subcommittee also will focus on
identifying vulnerability elements in the multiyear plan.

/ Review ORD research grants and explore ways that research grants, specifically small grants, can
be used to effectively engage communities, states, and tribes.

/ Provide advice to the OPP Environmental Justice Small Grants Program regarding howthe program
can be used to engage communities, states, and tribes. The subcommittee also agreed to review
the program SOW and request for proposals and to be included in future document reviews as
needed.

/ Help OPPTS determine a new direction for the lead program.

/ Assist OPPTS by reviewing the CARE Grants Program to provide information for the targeting of risk
reduction efforts in CARE communities. The subcommittee also will assist in identifying ways to
incorporate vulnerability elements into OPPTS activities.

/ Follow up with MEAN and the Mossville community regarding efforts to re-establish a dialogue
between ATSDR and the community.

5-14

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

-------
MEETING SUMMARY

of the

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE

of the

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

April 15, 2004
New Orleans, Louisiana

Meeting Summary Accepted By:

Daniel Gogal	Terry Williams

Designated Federal Official	Chair

-------
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 Thursday, April 15, 2004, during a four-day meeting of the NEJAC in New
Orleans, Louisiana. Mr. Terry Williams, Tulalip Tribes, 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 lists the members who
attended the meeting and identifies those members who were unable to attend.

This chapter, which summarizes 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, Activities of the
Subcommittee, summarizes the activities of the
subcommittee, which included discussions of
recommendations on the draft Meaningful Involvement
and Fair Treatment by Tribal Environmental Regulatory
Programs; for a document prepared by the
subcommittee, a report prepared by the NEJAC, and
the process for applying to serve on the subcommittee.

Section 4.0, Presentations, provides an overview of
each presentation as well as a summary of relevant
questions and comments from the members of the
subcommittee. Section 5.0, Action Items, summarizes
the action items adopted by the subcommittee.

2.0 REMARKS

Mr. Williams, chair of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee, opened the meeting by welcoming the members of the subcommittee and Mr. Gogal, the
DFO. Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), presented a traditional invocation to
begin the meeting. During the invocation, Mr. Goldtooth asked for peace and safety for all attendees of the
meeting and their families. Following the invocation, Mr. Gogal welcomed all visitors and provided reviews
of two documents for the members of the subcommittee to discuss during the meeting: (1) a preliminary draft
document written by members of the subcommittee, Meaningful Involvement and Fair Treatment by Tribal
Environmental Regulatory Programs (the meaningful involvement document) and (2) a draft NEJAC report,
Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative
Risks/Impacts (the cumulative risk report).

3.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE

This section discusses the activities of the subcommittee, which included discussions of (1) comments and
recommendations provided by tribal organizations with regard to the meaningful involvement document, (2)
how the NEJAC cumulative risk report can better address tribal issues, and (3) the application process for
serving on the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee.

3.1 Discussion of Recommendations for the Subcommittee's Meaningful Involvement Document

Mr. Gogal provided a brief description of the process that the subcommittee followed when developing the
meaningful involvement document. He stated that a Meaningful Involvement and Fair Treatment WorkGroup
was created that consists of several members of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee, as well as
Mr. Goldtooth; Ms. Anna Frazier, Dine CARE; and Ms. Jeanette Wolfley, Shashone-Bannock Tribes.
Ms. Wolfley prepared the text of the document under the guidance of the other members of the Meaningful
Involvement and Fair Treatment Work Group. Mr. Gogal explained that the purpose of the document is to
provide advice to EPA about how to most effectively work with tribes in order to ensure their meaningful

Exhibit 6-1

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE

Members
Who Attended the Meeting
on April 15, 2004

Mr. Terry Williams, Chair
Mr. Daniel Gogal, DFO

Mr. Stephen Etsitty, Proxy
Dr. Doo Jung Jin
Mr. John Roanhorse
Ms. Karen Wilde Rogers
Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird

Members
Who Were Unable To Attend

Mr. Calvert Curley
Ms. Coleen Poler, Vice Chair
Mr. Bob Smith, Alternate DFO

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

6-1

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

Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee

involvement and fair treatment in the development and implementation of Federally authorized tribal
environmental programs. He added that the issues addressed in the document about public participation and
due process, have been contentious issues within tribal organizations for several years. During deliberations
with members of the subcommittee over the past year, Mr. Gogal explained, members of some tribal
grassroots organizations debated the degree to which the Federal government should impose public
participation requirements and due process on tribal governments that have very different ways of governing
their people.

Mr. Gogal emphasized the importance of talking about "participation" rather than "consultation" during
deliberations because the two words have different meanings. Issues involving public participation have
caused several tribal organizations to view the meaningful involvement document as fuel for organizations
that wish to diminish tribal sovereignty. Mr. Gogal stated that the members of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee agree that tribes should be sovereign and should be allowed to participate in and manage
Federal environmental programs. Mr. Gogal said that it is an appropriate time for the subcommittee to
address the issue of public participation in written format.

Mr. Gogal reviewed the tentative timeline for finalizing the meaningful involvement document (see Exhibit 6-
2). He stated that the timeline is flexible but emphasized the importance of receiving comments as soon as
possible. Anyone with comments was encouraged to send them to Mr. Gogal within the next month. His e-
mail and mailing addresses are provided on the first page of the preliminary working draft of the meaningful
involvement document. Members of the
subcommittee will revise the document during the
next few months and will provide copies of the
revised draft to the individuals who submitted
comments. Those individuals will be given
approximately 30 days to verify that their comments
were adequately addressed and to submit any
additional comments. Members of the
subcommittee then will revise the document by
August 2004 and submit it to the members of the
NEJAC for their review and comment. After all
comments are addressed and the Executive Council
approves the document, Mr. Gogal explained, the
NEJAC will submit the final document to the EPA
Administrator for consideration.

Mr. Goldtooth and Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird, North
Dakota Intertribal Retirement Committee and
member of the Indigenous People Subcommittee,
expressed their thanks to Ms. Wolfley for preparing
the meaningful involvement document. They
requested that Ms. Wolfley tell the group about the process used to develop the draft document. Ms. Wolfley
began by saying that she was hired by EPA to assist the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee to write the
document and that she worked with the members of the Meaningful Involvement and Fair Treatment Work
Group to develop the concepts for the document. Members of the work group developed the framework of
the document and defined the charge in Attachment A of the document. The charge to EPA states that the
document discusses short- and long-term actions that EPA should take to help tribes address meaningful
involvement and fair treatment issues related to development and implementation of Federally authorized or
approved tribal environmental programs. Ms. Wolfley stated that it was her task to expand on the ideas and
concepts in writing and that she made every effort to capture the perspectives of those in the work group.
She stated that Chapter 2 was the most difficult to prepare because it was challenging to condense the
history of tribal policy into a few pages. She stated that she had to compromise between giving credit to the
tribal governments and showing respect for the rights of non-natives in terms of public participation. Ms.
Wolfley stated that there seems to be an assumption that all tribal governments reject public participation,
which is not the case.

Exhibit 6-2

	

TENTATIVE TIMELINE FOR FINALIZING THE
MEANINGFUL INVOLVEMENT DOCUMENT

May - June 2004 Members of the subcommittee

address comments and revise the
draft document

June - July 2004 Individuals who submitted

comments have 30 days to submit
any additional comments

August 2004 Revised draft is submitted to the
members of the NEJAC

September 2004 Final draft is submitted to the EPA
Administrator

6-2

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Members of the subcommittee then discussed comments submitted by various tribal organizations and made
recommendations for incorporating the comments into the meaningful involvement document. A summary
of the subcommittee's discussion is provided below. Recommendations are presented according to the
chapter of the document, followed by a general discussion of the purpose and focus of the document.

General Comments on the Meaningful Involvement Document

This section provides a summary of general comments about the document:

Mr. John Roanhorse, Institute of Tribal Environmental Professionals and member of the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee, recommended that the document include an example of successful
implementation of due process or public participation in Alaska.

Mr. Gogal recommended that the members of the Meaningful Involvement and Fair Treatment Work
Group consider articulating recommendations in the document and make a distinction between actions
and recommendations. He also recommended that the document be formatted in such a way that
recommendations stand out. In addition, Mr. Gogal suggested that the members of the Meaningful
Involvement and Fair Treatment Work Group add a discussion about EPA's providing public
participation training to tribes and that the members include language emphasizing that EPA should
continue to conduct outreach to tribes and inform them that they are welcome to participate in the
decision-making processes.

Ms. Yellow Bird recommended adding a discussion of natural resources as described on page 3 of Mr.
Dean Suagee, Director of the First Nations Environmental Law Program, Vermont Law School and
former member of the Indigenous People Subcommittee, paper titled Dimensions of Environmental
Justice in Indian Country and Native Alaska.

Mr. Roanhorse recommended including the perspective of academia in the document. He agreed to
provide the members of the subcommittee with several Harvard University reports and other academic
reports that exhibit an unbiased perspective on the issues. The issues presented in the reports should
be included in the subcommittee's document in a concise, unbiased way that tribal members can
understand. Members of the subcommittee agreed that tribal communities are divided between those
who support environmental justice issues and those who do not and that the document must appeal
to both bodies of opinion.

Mr. Goldtooth requested that an example from the work of Mr. Chris Peters, Seventh Generation Fund,
be included in the document. Mr. Peters has developed methods that tribal communities can use to
develop sustainable communities based on traditional values within a modern society.

Chapter 2

This section provides a summary of the comments discussed related to chapter two of the meaningful
involvement document.

Chapter 2, Background - Members of the subcommittee agreed to include a discussion of the court cases
cited on pages 1 and 2 from comments submitted by the Pueblo Laguna (Nevada v. Hicks; Atkinson
Trading Company, Inc. v. Shirley; United States v. Lara; and Curo v. Reina). Mr. Roanhorse stated that
including a description of the court decisions is important because they demonstrate that the position of
tribal communities has become more challenging to enforce in the past 10 years. Mr. Stephen Etsitty,
Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency and proxy member of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee, agreed with Mr. Roanhorse and added that it is difficult to condense the history of tribal
governments into a few pages of a document. Mr. Etsitty also stated that the four court cases should be
reflected in the background paragraph of the document because the cases demonstrate how some state
governments are beginning to encroach on tribal government regulatory actions. He added that the
document should mention emerging issues that apply to tribes conducting meaningful public participation
and due process, even though he recognized that it will not be possible for the document to include
references to the most current issues.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

6-3

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

Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee

Chapter 2, Section B, Environmental Jurisdiction on Tribal Lands-Mr. Gogal confirmed that the members
of the subcommittee wish to create a paragraph titled "Emerging Issues" as the first item in Section B of
chapter two and that the text will discuss recent court cases. The text will serve as a placeholder and
will require further discussion on the part of the work group. Mr. Etsitty recommended incorporating
references to court cases throughout the document as appropriate. The discussion of court cases
presently is limited to the first full paragraph on page 16. Ms. Wolfley stated that the discussion of court
cases currently is limited to discourage tribes from structuring their programs according to court cases.

Chapter 2, Section B, Subsection 1, Development Impacting Indian Lands - Mr. Roanhorse requested
that language be added about (1) the impact of urban sprawl on reservations, (2) specific issues raised
by individuals in Alaska, and (3) the clash between economic and industrial development and traditional
values. Mr. Roanhorse requested that the subcommittee consider including examples from industry in
this section.

Chapter 3

This section provides a summary of the comments discussed related to chapter three of the meaningful
involvement document.

Chapter 3, Section A, Subsection 2, Respecting Interests of Community, first paragraph - Mr. Goldtooth
recommended that Ms. Wolfley reword the following sentence to avoid focusing on the negative
aspects of tribal government and to focus more on obtaining input from native people.

"Some tribal leaders, in addressing the myriad of important issues pertaining to running a
government appear to overlook the traditional tribal values of respect, reciprocity, humility,
and connectedness as these relate to land and tribal members."

Mr. Gogal reviewed a comment submitted by the Pueblo of Laguna suggesting that the word "religious"
be added to the following sentence:

"Tribal environmental program decisions affect the entire social, [religious], and political
fabric of a community because such decisions impact the communal rights to live on, use,
harvest, conserve, and transfer lands within the reservation, and the land, itself, as
community."

Members of the subcommittee reached a consensus not to include the word "religious" in the sentence.
Rather, they agreed to develop appropriate language that refers to tribal cultural and spiritual beliefs.
The language will be approved by all members of the subcommittee and then will be included
throughout the document, where appropriate. Ms. Yellow Bird will work with Ms. Wolfley to develop
the language and will e-mail it to the members of the subcommittee. Ms. Yellow Bird and Ms. Wolfley
will refer to Mr. Suagee's paper and previous documents generated by the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee for sample language.

Another comment submitted by the Pueblo of Laguna suggests adding the term "land bases" to the
following sentence found in the first sentence of third paragraph:

"Given the history of neglect by the Federal government in protecting tribal [land bases],
waters, soils, air, and placing the health of tribal members at risk, tribal community members
are keenly aware of the long term consequences of uninformed decision-making and
over-exploiting resources."

Members of the subcommittee reached a consensus to add the term "land bases" but agreed that
additional discussion is needed about how the term applies to Alaskan Natives.

Members of the subcommittee agreed to expand the text in order to address the comment regarding
the term "in their own vision" on page 4 of the Pueblo Laguna comments on the last paragraph of this

6-4

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

subsection. The members agreed that the quote provided in the comment should be cited in the
document. Ms. Wolfley will ask Pueblo Laguna to identify the source of the quote.

Additional Discussion on the Meaningful Involvement Document

Mr. Williams stated that many of the members of the subcommittee are reviewing the comments on the
meaningful involvement document forthe first time. He encouraged the members to review these comments
in more detail during conference calls in the near future.

Mr. Goldtooth inquired whether EPA's American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) or the National Tribal
Environmental Council (NTEC) were approached about providing comments. Mr. Gogal responded that he
had attended several meetings with AIEO during which the work group developed the charge that is clearly
stated in Attachment A of the document. Mr. Gogal said that AIEO believes that this document addresses
a sensitive issue but recognizes that it is an appropriate issue for the NEJAC to address. Mr. Gogal also
stated that he has been in contact with individuals at NTEC as well as othertribal organizations to obtain their
input on the document. Mr. Gogal added that he was scheduled to participate in a meeting with NTEC in the
next week to discuss the document further.

Mr. Roanhorse described an example of one tribe that created a separate company to focus on public
participation and implementation of environmental programs, thus alleviating the burden on the tribe. Mr.
Gogal agreed that this approach should be considered as an option for tribes.

Mr. Gogal noted that the document has three audiences: (1) EPA and the NEJAC, (2) tribal organizations,
and (3) nontribal organizations. He added that the purpose of the document is to describe the fundamental
rights of the tribes and advise EPA about how to enforce those rights but that its additional purpose is to
promote understanding and appreciation of the tribal system among nontribal organizations.

Ms. Yellow Bird responded that the document should not have nontribal individuals as a target audience. She
emphasized the importance of focusing on receiving feedback from native individuals. Ms. Yellow Bird later
clarified that it is not her intention to exclude nontribal people from discussions with the tribes but that the
subcommittee should make the concerns of tribal people its priority and that the ultimate goal of the document
should be to preserve tribal culture. Ms. Yellow Bird emphasized the importance of focusing "on the
resource" when writing the document and when providing advice to EPA. Given the fact that the issues
involve resources that fall under tribal control, Ms. Yellow Bird said, it is very important that the subcommittee
focus on tribal cultures and needs. She clarified that it is not her intention to exclude anyone from having a
voice but rather to focus on gathering public comments from tribal members.

Mr. Gogal stated that the issues of public participation requirements and due process become critical when
tribes seek to participate in Federal environmental programs because any organization participating in a
Federal program must follow a process of public participation and fair treatment. However, the mechanisms
by which tribes seek to conduct public participation can vary from those of other government entities as long
as the tribal mechanisms have the fundamental components. Mr. Williams responded by saying that tribes
must follow a process of public participation to a reasonable extent but also have the right to develop their
own environmental policies rather than "mirror" the processes of the Federal government.

3.2 Discussion of Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors: Environmental
Justice and Cumulative Risks/Impacts

Mr. Charles Lee, Associate Director for EPA OEJ, joined the members of the subcommittee along with Dr.
Hector Gonzalez, City of Laredo. Mr. Lee provided background about the NEJAC's draft report on cumulative
risks and impacts. He explained that two indigenous representatives participated in a work group that
developed the draft cumulative risk report. He described the eight themes used to organize the
recommendations in the report and added that the report will serve as guidance for EPA to make changes
over the next several years. Mr. Lee said that he welcomes comments from the tribal members about their
perspective on cumulative risks. He explained that the report lacks discussion of ecological restoration and
recovery concepts, which are different from traditional risk assessment methods.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

6-5

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

Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee

Mr. Williams stated that members of tribal communities have been aware of the issues surrounding
cumulative risks for many years and have responded to EPA by providing information and comments. Mr.
Williams also stated that tribal communities that have subsistence lifestyles are most affected by cumulative
risks. As an example, Mr. Williams explained that tribal women in the Tulalip Tribes collect grasses and chew
on them to soften them for basket weaving. Some of these grasses have been sprayed with chemicals that
cause adverse health effects for those women. Mr. Williams went on to explain that the tribal government
was able to stop the spraying of an area of grasses that the women can now use for basket weaving without
the risk of negative health effects. He also cited scientific studies proving that subsistence-lifestyle tribal
members who change to a diet of processed food exhibit higher risks of developing diabetes, cancer, and
heart disease. He stated that EPA and other Federal agencies must recognize the effects that their actions
have on tribal traditions and must understand how heavily subsistence communities rely on natural resources.

Mr. Williams stated that the U.S. government must recognize that the species that members of tribal
communities rely on for food do not live solely on tribal land but more often somewhere else, which is another
way that cumulative risks impact tribal communities. Mr. Williams said that the Federal government must
therefore focus on restoration and recovery to restore essential species to tribal lands.

Mr. Williams addressed the issue of implementing a program that focuses on restoring species on tribal lands.
He stated that most health issues found among members of tribal communities are caused by contamination
that is unregulated. Therefore, Mr. Williams stated, EPA should develop a new statutory process that
includes a method for identifying species that need restoration and should develop programs that will reduce
the risks to those species.

Finally, Mr. Williams said that EPA should be aware that tribes have traditional knowledge that can be useful
in modeling projects; however, much of the traditional knowledge is considered sacred by the tribal people.
Tribes will share such information with the understanding that the information will not be made public without
their prior consent.

Mr. Goldtooth emphasized the importance of addressing the cultural and psychological impacts that a loss
of natural resources has on tribal people. These impacts are not easy to define in government processes
and are often considered to be insignificant. Mr. Goldtooth said that these impacts, such as depression
resulting from loss of land, should be described in the cumulative risk report. He added that there have been
several initiatives toquantify psychological and cultural impacts on tribal communities but that this has proven
to be a challenging process. Mr. Goldtooth also stated that the scientific studies described in the cumulative
risk report use western forms of science. He explained that tribal people rely on traditional forms of science,
which also should be noted in the cumulative risk report.

Mr. Goldtooth explained that there are alternatives to risk assessment when cumulative risk impacts are to
be quantified. He advocated the use of a precautionary approach and urged the members of the
subcommittee to obtain training in the precautionary approach in order to learn how such a process can be
implemented in the future.

Mr. Lee thanked the members of the subcommittee for their comments and suggestions for improving the
cumulative risk report. He explained that risk assessment is a new and evolving field and that relatively few
of individuals were experienced in risk assessment methods. Mr. Lee recommended that the cumulative risk
report include a discussion of the links between risk assessment and ecological assessment.

Mr. Lee stated that he would like one of the final 15 recommendations in the report to address cumulative
risks from a tribal perspective. He agreed to follow up with Mr. Gogal in order to discuss how the language
in the cumulative risk report could be adjusted to incorporate the comments offered during the
subcommittee's meeting.

3.3 Discussion of the Application Process for Serving on the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee

Mr. Gogal reported that OEJ currently is seeking nominations for individuals who are interested in serving
on the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee beginning in January 2005. He explained that two individuals, Mr.

6-6

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Peters and Ms. Charon Asetoyer, Native Women's Health Education Resources Center, have been
recommended by OEJ to serve on the subcommittee but could not attend the NEJAC meeting.

Mr. Gogal reviewed the process for applying to serve on the subcommittee. Exhibit 6-3 summarizes the
application requirements. Mr. Gogal stated that although there is no official deadline for receiving
applications, OEJ encourages applicants to submit their application packages as soon as possible. All
applications should be sent to Mr. Gogal or Mr. Lee at OEJ. Their contact information is provided in the
meaningful involvement document and on OEJ's web
site. After receiving applications, Mr. Gogal
explained, OEJ will contact the applicants if additional
information is needed.

Mr. Gogal explained that OEJ must submit at least
three names for each category of expertise to EPA
OECA and that OEJ provides its own recommendation
for each individual. Mr. Gogal added that an
individual who applies to serve on the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee also is considered for the
other six subcommittees. If an individual is selected
to serve on one of the subcommittees, the person will
be contacted and given the opportunity to accept or
decline the offer.

Mr. Gogal said that the issues that the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee will address in the next two
years are (1) how the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) can be used to preserve tribal lands and
sacred places and (2) the impacts of global warming on indigenous populations.

Mr. Gogal reported that EPA Region 10 has agreed to sponsor an Alaskan representative to serve on the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee. Mr. Gogal pointed out that this is a wonderful opportunity for Alaskan
tribal people to provide input during the subcommittee's deliberations. OEJ is in the process of identifying
individuals in Alaska who are interested in serving on the subcommittee, and Mr. Gogal encouraged the
Alaskan participants in the meeting to discuss this opportunity with other tribal members in Alaska.

Mr. Goldtooth asked what steps are being taken to improve the transition between members of the
subcommittee. He encouraged the subcommittee to consider increasing the time of overlap for individuals
serving on the subcommittee and to conduct an orientation process for new subcommittee members.

4.0 PRESENTATIONS

This section summarizes the presentations made to the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee.

4.1 Maniilaq Association

Ms. Hazel Apok, Maniilaq Association, began by explaining that the Maniilaq Association is a nonprofit
consortium of 12 Federally recognized tribes in northwest Alaska. As a representative of the association, Ms.
Apok offered several recommendations to members of the subcommittee. She recommended that the
subcommittee advise EPA to recognize tribes as sovereign nations and allow them to exercise
self-governance. She also stated that the most appropriate way to determine whether Alaskan tribes are
practicing public participation is to survey each tribe in Alaska and learn about the processes that it follows
to implement environmental programs. She recommended that EPA increase its collaboration with tribal
organizations, preferably in person. Ms. Apok explained that each tribe in Alaska governs its people in a
different manner and that how each governs is written into tribal policies, bylaws, and constitutions. She
added that a survey would allow EPA to determine whether the policies of each tribe are consistent with EPA
regulations.

Exhibit 6-3

DOCUMENTS TO SUBMIT WHEN APPLYING TO
SERVE ON THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
SUBCOMMITTEE

• A letter addressed to Mr. Gogal or Mr. Lee that describes
your interest in serving on the subcommittee and all of your
relevant experience. The letter also must identify one of
the following categories that describes your field of
expertise:

• Government

• Academia

• State/Local Government Representative

• Business/Industry Representative

• Tribal/Grass Roots

• One letter of recommendation

• A resume including all of your contact information and
relevant experience

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

6-7

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

Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee

Mr. Williams responded to Ms. Apok's testimony by saying that members of the subcommittee and many
individuals in EPA are unaware of the issues facing tribes in Alaska. He emphasized the importance of
having a representative from Alaska serve on the subcommittee and eventually on the Executive Council of
the NEJAC. Mr. Williams asked the Alaskan Natives present at the meeting to consider serving on the
subcommittee and to spread the word to others in their communities. He emphasized that if an Alaskan
Native was on the subcommittee, this would help other members of the subcommittee to relay the issues
facing Alaskan tribal members to the NEJAC. Ms. Apok responded that members of the subcommittee
should visit the tribal members in Alaska and determine who would be the best individual to represent the
Alaskan people on the Executive Council of the NEJAC.

4.2 Native Village of Selawik

Mr. Benten Davis, Native Village of Selawik, stated that tribal communities in Alaska need additional training
related to applying for grants. He stated that such training would enable the communities to become more
self-sufficient and effective in obtaining funding from EPA. He also requested that individuals who are trained
in a technical field also should be trained in managing grants.

Mr. Gogal responded that this issue applies directly to the issues brought up in the meaningful involvement
document. He acknowledged that there is a need to provide public participation resources such as grant
application training to tribes so that they can effectively implement environmental programs.

Mr. Roanhorse agreed with the presentation and comments and said that the members of the subcommittee,
EPA, and other government agencies must learn more about the issues facing tribal communities in Alaska.
He added that there is much to be learned to determine how the subcommittee can help to create programs
that are more appropriate for tribal communities in Alaska.

Ms. Yellow Bird asked Mr. Gogal whether EPA currently has a grant management program. Mr. Gogal
responded that such programs exist but are not consistent among EPA regions. He added that training about
writing grant applications is available on EPA Region 5's web site.

Mr. Williams asked Mr. Davis what recommendations the subcommittee can make to the NEJAC about
obtaining input from the tribes in Alaska. Mr. Davis replied that the subcommittee should approach the tribal
members in Alaska in person and should develop a survey asking these people to provide their ideas about
meaningful involvement and fairtreatment. Dr. Doo Jung Jin, Northwest College, agreed that it is a good idea
for representatives of the subcommittee to visit the tribal members in Alaska and witness how they conduct
public involvement. Ms. Apok added that public participation is taking place in Alaskan tribes but in a number
of different ways.

Mr. Gogal asked Ms. Apok to submit an example of successful public participation in an Alaskan tribal
community for inclusion in the meaningful involvement document, and Ms. Apok agreed to do so.

4.3 Ugashik Traditional Village

Mr. Roy Matsuno, Ugashik Traditional Village, expressed concern about lack of funding for enforcement of
tribal environmental policies and requested additional funding of enforcement programs for tribes. Mr.
Roanhorse asked who tribal organizations are taking enforcement actions against, and Mr. Matsuno
responded with a few examples. He explained that there have been several fuel spills by commercial
fishermen and that tribal communities have no avenue for enforcing cleanup activities. He also explained
that a barge owned by the state of Alaska on a river near a tribal community is contaminating the tribe's water
source. The tribal community currently does not have the enforcement authority to force the state to
decontaminate the barge.

Mr. Etsitty informed the group that tribal compliance is one of the national priorities of EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) for fiscal years 2005 through 2007. Mr. Etsitty encouraged
Mr. Matsuno and other participants in the meeting to contact OECA representatives and provide comments
forthem to consider, including comments regarding the tribal compliance national priority. Mr. Gogal provided
the names of OECA contacts to Mr. Matsuno.

6-8

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

4.4	National Tribal Environmental Council, Bureau of Indian Affairs

Mr. David Conrad, Executive Director, NTEC, provided several suggestions to the subcommittee for
improving the meaningful involvement document. He urged members of the subcommittee to adopt a "Bias
for Action" approach that focuses on the positive progress related to tribal environmental programs that has
been made in tribal communities. He stated that such an approach would provide incentives for tribal
organizations to take action and provide comments to the subcommittee.

Mr. Conrad stated that he is aware of several tribal members who do not agree with the charge included in
the meaningful involvement document and stated that some tribal members are not commenting on the
document because they do not believe that the subcommittee has credibility. To change the perspective of
these tribal members, Mr. Conrad recommended that the document emphasize successes rather than the
negative aspects of the issues that divide tribal communities. Mr. Conrad said that tribes must be motivated
to obtain training in public participation rather than being forced to do so by a strictly prescribed plan.

Mr. Conrad concluded by saying that tribal governments are being singled out by the Federal government
with regard to public participation requirements and due process. Several tribal communities believe that the
subcommittee's meaningful involvement document will report only the criticisms and will give the impression
that tribal people cannot run a government effectively.

Ms. Wolfley responded that the members of the subcommittee are aware of the differing opinions between
tribal members and organizations. However, she added, those opinions have not stopped the subcommittee
from preparing the document because it is important to address the issues that are dividing tribal
communities. Ms. Wolfley added that the most important point that the document addresses is whethertribes
should be forced to adopt European ideals of public participation and due process. She argued that EPA still
is learning about implementation of public participation requirements and due process in a traditional context.

Mr. Williams stated that tribes need to be aware of the flexibility that is inherent in EPA requirements. Tribes
must follow Federal requirements, but they do not have to follow them precisely, said Mr. Wlliams. He also
pointed out that there is a Federal regulation that recognizes tribal members as citizens, of both their tribes
and the United States. Underthat regulation, the Federal government has an obligation to ensure that citizen
rights to public participation and due process are protected.

Mr. Gogal addressed Mr. Conrad's point about the disagreement of tribes regarding the charge in the
meaningful involvement document. He explained that the charge has been in place for 14 years and that the
members of the subcommittee believe that this is an appropriate time to address the issues again. Mr. Gogal
challenged tribal members to take a proactive approach in obtaining information about what is working for
states and the Federal government.

Ms. Yellow Bird thanked Mr. Conrad for his comments and agreed that tribes do "feel singled out" by the
Federal government when it comes to public participation and due process. She added that the Federal
government should review all forms of government, including tribal governments, to ensure that the
appropriate processes are being followed.

4.5	Newhelen Tribe

Ms. Agnes Rychnovsky, Newhelen Tribe, described a mining project that is scheduled to take place near her
village in Alaska. She expressed her concern about the potentially devastating impacts that mining would
have on a nearby lake that currently is pure. Ms. Rychnovsky stated that the mining company has been able
to obtain air and water quality permits from the state of Alaska without the state recognizing the potential
impacts on tribal communities. She added that tribes are not provided with sufficient notice to give testimony
against the permits, and she urged the members of the subcommittee to support the inclusion of tribal
representatives at the beginning of any decision-making process that may have an impact on their
communities.

Ms. Yellow Bird asked Mr. Lee what the NEJAC can do to address the fact that these tribes are being asked
to implement meaningful public participation but that the state is not providing them with the same rights. Mr.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

6-9

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

Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee

Lee responded that Ms. Rychnovsky and other Alaskan tribal members should contact EPA Region 10 to
inquire about the public participation process. Mr. Lee and Mr. Gogal agreed to contact EPA Region 10 in
order to discuss the issues and determine the best approach for improving the public participation process
for the Alaskan tribes. Ms. Rychnovsky thanked the subcommittee members for their time and extended an
invitation for the NEJAC to have a meeting in Alaska.

4.6 Makah Tribe

Mr. Vince Cook, Makah Tribe, expressed his appreciation to the subcommittee for preparing the meaningful
involvement document. He suggested that the members of the Meaningful Involvement and Fair Treatment
Work Group move the paragraph currently appearing before the conclusions on page 33 of the document
to the background chapter. The paragraph states that "EPA needs to budget for, and offer, financial
assistance and technical support to promote and provide for meaningful involvement and fairtreatment." Mr.
Cook proceeded to provide additional suggestions for conducting effective outreach in tribal communities.
His approach involves meeting individuals in a tribal community face-to-face and engaging them in the
decision-making process.

4.7 Tulalip Tribes

Mr. Williams presented the results of a project that he and other members of the Tulalip T ribes began in 2003.
The project involves the development of three training manuals. The first manual describes ways that tribes
can interpret NHPA and the National Environmental Policy Acts (NEPA) to ensure that tribal individuality is
maintained. The second manual describes a methodology for adapting a watershed analysis of the northwest
United States to the hydrology of various other regions in the United States, thus providing a standard
methodology for tribes to use when researching the watersheds in their regions. The third manual currently
is underdevelopment. Mr. Wlliams explained that all three manuals are collaborative decision-making tools
that tribes can use to address environmental problems in their regions.

Mr. Wlliams described the treaties that exist between tribal people and other American people to ensure that
the two groups can coexist peacefully and live in parallel without causing harm to each other. However, Mr.
Wlliams explained, those treaties are not being upheld. Tribal communities are being overwhelmed by
environmental impacts resulting from the actions of nontribal people. Mr. Williams explained that tribes
historically survived and stayed in good health because 100 percent of the required resources were available
and that the tribes did not have to spend time searching for food or other essential items. He reported that
only about 20 percent of the essential resources are available to tribes today because of either species shift
or climate change. Mr. Wlliams said that it may be possible to restore tribal lands to the extent that 80
percent of the essential resources are available.

Mr. Wlliams explained that members of the Tulalip Tribes use NEPA, watershed analysis, and traditional
knowledge to establish collaboration with the U.S. government. He added that the tribes have established
a NEPA-style process that allows a tribal agency to become a co-lead for the program and to invite trustees
to participate with tribes in identifying available species in the area. Based on interviews with approximately
14 percent of the population in Tulalip, Mr. Williams explained that approximately 100 plants are critical to
the day-to-day lives of Tulalip natives. After determining the availability and status of each species, the tribes
used NEPA and watershed analyses to determine species presence or absence and used traditional
knowledge to identify how the loss of each species impacts the cultural and spiritual aspects of the tribes.

Mr. Williams explained that tribal and nontribal populations within the watershed were interviewed to
determine their commonalities and an implementation strategy. Based on the interview results, it was
determined that the Tulalip Tribes can achieve species recovery that 80 percent of the essential species will
be present in the watershed. To achieve this goal, the tribes established a watershed group to analyze the
potential for and design of restoration and recovery projects. So far, Mr. Wlliams reported, the group has
worked with the community to raise $11 million in grant money that will be used to restore the salmon
population; a matching grant in the amount of $40 million. Mr. Wlliams acknowledged that the goal of the
project will not be achieved in a short time. He concluded by encouraging tribes to continue to conduct
cumulative risk analyses and to create legal mechanisms that will allow them to achieve cooperating agency

6-10

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

status. He reported that the watershed group will meet again in June 2004 and will begin contacting other
tribes to determine whether they wish to implement similar projects.

Mr. Lee stated that a new grant program has been established forsustainability projects. He agreed to send
information about the program to Mr. Gogal for distribution. Mr. Lee added that he would like to include a
description of Mr. Williams' project in the cumulative risk report. Mr. Lee will coordinate with Mr. Gogal and
Mr. Williams to obtain the project description for the report.

5.0 ACTION ITEMS

This section summarizes the action items adopted by the subcommittee.

/ Members of the subcommittee will address comments and revise the preliminary draft of the meaningful
involvement document.

/ Ms. Yellow Bird will develop language concerning the cultural and spiritual meaning of environmental
resources for inclusion in the meaningful involvement document.

/ Mr. Roanhorse will provide the members of the subcommittee with several academic reports from
Havard reports that present unbiased analyses of the effects of economic development on tribal
communities.

/ Members of the subcommittee will continue to address all public comments on the meaningful
involvement document in follow-up conference calls.

/ Members of the subcommittee will research the possibility of EPA hosting a NEJAC meeting in Alaska.

/ Members of the subcommittee and members of tribal organizations will continue to conduct outreach
to tribal communities in order to obtain feedback on the meaningful involvement document.

/ Ms. Apokwill provide the members of the subcommittee with an example of successful implementation
of public participation in Alaskan tribal communities.

/ Mr. Gogal and Mr. Lee will contact individuals at EPA Region 10 to discuss what Region 10 is doing to
ensure that Alaskan tribes are being offered a fair public participation process.

/ Mr. Gogal and Mr. Lee will discuss how to include the comments of the subcommittee in the NEJAC
cumulative risk report.

/ Mr. Lee will provide Mr. Gogal with information about a new grant program for sustainability projects.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

6-11

-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the

INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
of the

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

April 15, 2004
New Orleans, Louisiana

Meeting Summary Accepted By:

Wendy Graham	Phillip Hillman

Designated Federal Official Acting 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 Thursday, April 15, 2004, during a four-day meeting of the NEJAC in New Orleans,
Louisiana. Mr. Philip Hillman, Poloroid Corporation, serves as the acting chair of the subcommittee. Ms.
Wendy Graham, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of International Affairs (OIA), 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 the member who was unable to attend.

This chapter, which provides a summary of the deliberations of the International Subcommittee, is organized
in five sections, including this Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks, provides a summary of the opening remarks
of the acting chair. Section 3.0, Update on Environmental Justice Activities ofEPA's OIA, provides a summary
of activities EPA's OIA currently is conducting related to environmental justice. Section 4.0, Reports on U.S.-
Mexico Border Activities, summarizes the updates provided by representatives of EPA regions 6 and 9 on
activities related to the U.S.-Mexico border area and environmental justice. Section 5.0, Significant Action
Items, summarizes the significant action items adopted by the subcommittee.

2.0 REMARKS

Mr. Hillman, acting chair of the International
Subcommittee, opened the meeting of the subcommittee
by welcoming the members the present, Ms. Graham, and
presenters. The subcommittee members and presenters
introduced themselves to the group.

Mr. Hillman described the collaborative relationship
between the members of the subcommittee and OIA. Mr.
Hillman expressed his desire for OIA to seek the advice
and counsel of members of the subcommittee on specific
issues and also have OIA provide feedback to the
subcommittee on issues that the subcommittee
addresses.

Exhibit 7-1

INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE

Members Who Attended the Meeting
April 15,2004

Mr. Philip Hillman, Chair
Ms. Wendy Graham, DFO

Ms. Carmen Gonzalez

Members
Who Were Unable To Attend

Ms. Leslie Fields

Mr. Hillman expressed concern about the slow progress of

appointing members to the subcommittee, particularly the vacancy of a community representative on the
subcommittee. He added that he believes the slow approval process results in a diminished capacity of the
subcommittee.

3.0 UPDATE ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ACTIVITIES OF EPA'S OIA

This section provides a summary of the activities ofEPA's OIA related to environmental justice.

3.1 Environmental Justice Training for OIA Staff

Acting on a previous subcommittee recommendation, Mr. Jerry Clifford, Deputy Assistant Administrator EPA
OIA, announced that OIA currently is coordinating and hosting several environmental justice training forums
for staff of OIA. OIA has invited Mr. Barry Hill, Director, EPA's Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), to
provide lectures to staff at an all-hands meeting of OIA in May 2004. The lecture, Mr. Clifford states, will focus
on the importance of integrating environmental justice principles into OlA's international work. Ms. Graham
also stated that OEJ is conducting training on environmental justice issues to other program staff throughout
the Agency, specific to the type of work each office addresses. Further, Ms. Graham announced that OIA has
developed a "Speaker Series" to lecture staff on various issues related to environmental justice within an
international context.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004 7-1

-------
International Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Mr. Clifford then discussed other proposed training programs that OIA is attempting to implement in
developing countries that include: environmental enforcement, review, impact, and assessment training. He
indicated that he was uncertain of the extent that environmental justice practices are applied within the training
programs in other countries.

Ms. Dianne Wilkins, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, encouraged Mr. Clifford to integrate
environmental justice principles into all international training programs. She mentioned that the methods she
has used to integrate environmental justice principles into her pollution prevention training, include using many
different environmental practices to best meet the needs of developing countries.

Ms. Carmen Gonzalez, Assistant Professor Seattle University School of Law and member of the International
Subcommittee, indicated the need for comprehensive and consistent environmental justice training throughout
all EPA programs. Ms. Gonzalez explained that she integrates environmental justice principles throughout
all the curriculum of her university courses rather than presenting the concept of environmental justice as an
add-on topic.

Mr. Clifford emphasized the need for the members of the subcommittee to recommend to the Executive
Council of the NEJAC the need to incorporate environmental justice principles into the development of training
courses. Members of the subcommittee agreed to contact Mr. Charles Lee, Associate Director, EPA OEJ;
Mr. Hill; and Ms. Phyllis Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA) about the need to include environmental justice principles into the training
curriculum developed by EPA.

3.2 Environmental Justice Principles and Trade Agreements

Mr. Clifford requested that the members of the subcommittee provide advice and counsel to OIA on
incorporating environmental justice principles into trade agreements with other countries. Mr. Clifford
explained that during trade agreement negotiations, environmental officials usually are not invited to
participate. He added that the United States is requiring that environmental and labor issues are addressed
in trade agreements and as a result, countries are forced to considerthe issues. He also explained that there
is a shortage of resources available across the U.S. government to adequately follow-up on commitments
made during the negotiation phase of trade agreements. The subcommittee offered to provide guidance in
the development of training related to the review of trade agreements to ensure that environmental justice
principles are considered.

3.3 Update on North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Ten-Year Anniversary Assessment

Mr. Clifford then informed the members of the subcommittee that the ten-year anniversary of the signing of
NAFTA is approaching. The Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC), composed of members from U.S.,
Mexico, and Canada who provide advice to the Commission of Environmental Cooperation (CEC) on all
matters within the scope of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), is
conducting a ten-year assessment of NAFTA. The review will include recommendations for new directions
and areas to address in the future related to the environment and trade. Members of the subcommittee
offered to provide comments on the ten-year assessment to EPA by the end of May 2004.

Mr. Hillman asked what specific comments should the members of the subcommittee provide about the
assessment. Mr. Clifford replied there was a need to ensure the ten-year assessment addresses
environmental justice principles and concerns.

Mr. Clifford added that the members of the JPAC would like to address environmental issues related to
indigenous people living near the U.S.-Mexico border area. As part of the subcommittee review of the
assessment, Mr. Clifford requested that the memberofthe International Subcommittee work with the members
of the Indigenous People Subcommittee on this issue.

3.4 Corporate Responsibility

Continuing to update the members of the subcommittee on OlA's environmental justice activities, Mr. Clifford
stated that OIA would like to work with the members of the subcommittee to address issues related to
corporate responsibility, such as hazardous waste disposal and "green" supply chains. OIA, he continued,

7-2

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

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

International Subcommittee

currently is facilitating initiatives to improve corporate responsibility; however, the office is lacking resources
to advance the progress. Mr. Clifford explained that OIA is attempting to develop initiatives related to
corporate responsibility and hazardous waste within the context of the CEC.

Former member of the subcommittee, Mr. Jose Bravo, Just Transition Alliance, suggested that principles of
corporate responsibility should be incorporated into the ten-year assessment of NAFTA with respect to
recommendations and lessons learned.

Mr. Hillman stated that investment groups are placing an emphasis on corporate social responsibility with the
use of measures and indexes to rate corporations. He recommended that EPA simply ask corporations about
their operating procedures in their U.S. facilities and whether those procedures differ from those used in
international facilities and why.

Mr. Hillman then described Polaroid Corporation's standard on green supply chains for production of products,
including verifying that suppliers use green supply chains. Mr. Clifford noted that Walmart has set a standard
with their green supplier requirements in China.

3.5 EPA OlA's Environmental Justice Action Plan

Mr. Clifford concluded the updates on OlA's activities by stating that OIA has developed an action plan for
integrating environmental justice into its practices and programs. The plan, he explained, states that within
the mission of OIA, the office will promote environmental justice principles by informing their counterparts of
EPA's commitment to be fair and inclusive in all of their work, and by suggesting environmental justice
concepts that identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health orenvironmental effects
of activities that target minority and low income populations. In response, members then discussed comments
on OlA's Environmental Justice Action Plan.

4.0 REPORTS ON U.S.-MEXICO BORDER ACTIVITIES

This section provides updates from EPA regions 6 and 9 related to activities underway in the border areas of
the United States and Mexico.

4.1 Update by EPA Region 6

Ms. Olivia Balandran, Associate Director for Environmental Justice, EPA Region 6, presented information on
the Final Report on the Border Issues Subcommittee for Environmental Justice Listening Session. The
Environmental Justice Listening Session on Border Issues was comprised of representatives from
environmental justice groups from the U.S.-Mexico border area of EPA Region 6. Ms. Balandran reported that
the listening sessions were held as a means to address regional border issues in a more timely manner. The
report identifies the primary concerns, priorities, and key recommendations for action by EPA that were
developed by participants of the border session.

Ms. Balandran then highlighted the primary concerns identified by the participants of the listening session:

Insufficient follow through on action items identified at the 1999 Environmental Justice Roundtable
held in National City, California

The lack of environmental justice principles included in Border 2012: U.S.-Mexico Environmental
Program document, which describes the plan for environmental activity along the U.S.-Mexico border
area for the next 10 years

Other key recommendations made by the participants of the listening session include:

The addition of an eleventh EPA region along the entire U.S.-Mexico border from Brownville, Texas
to Tijuana, Mexico with its own regional office

The creation of a binational environmental justice border commission specifically to address issues
of concern border residents. The commission would include members of grassroots organizations
to ensure "up front" community involvement

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

7-3

-------
International Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

The integration of environmental justice into the Border 2012 program vision and guiding principles

The cleanup of three sites El Gato Negro Landfill, Matamoros, Mexico; Candados Presto, Juarez,
Mexico; and Metales y Derivados, Tijuana, Mexico

Mr. Bravo stated that the recommendation to include environmental justice principles in the Border 2012
document had been made prior to the document's completion. He also added his support of the new EPA
regional office located along the U.S.-Mexico border, commenting that it is difficultto address issues efficiently
that are border-wide through both regions 6 and 9. He expressed his concern that the cleanup issues in the
U.S.-Mexico border have not received an appropriate response level within EPA. Such organizations as the
BECC and North American Development Bank (NADBank), he explained, focus on water-related issues and
not cleanup. He concluded by noting that EPA has made progress in addressing border related problems.

Mr. Clifford asked Mr. Bravo to gather community views and develop a concept paper on what such a
commission would entail. Mr. Bravo agreed to provide this paper to Mr. Clifford in the near future.

4.2 Update by EPA Region 9

Ms. Barbara Maco, Environmental Justice Coordinator, EPA Region 9, reported on the new bi-national clean-
up pilot project now underway at the Metales y Derivados site located in Tijuana, Mexico. She stated there
is an established community advisory group for the site. Mexico and U.S. EPA officials plan to continue to
support the community group following the site cleanup.

Other updates from Region 9 include:

EPA Region 9 is working to include environmental justice considerations as part of the air permitting
process for a proposed refinery in Yuma, Arizona

A listening session is planned in Arizona with the community group, Environmental Justice in Arizona

EPA Region 9 is planning an environmental justice roundtable prior to September 2004

5.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS

This section summarizes the action items adopted by the subcommittee. The members of the International
Subcommittee agreed to adopt the following action items:

/ Review the content of EPA's OEJ environmental justice training for all EPA offices that currently IS
underdevelopment

/ Contact Mr. Lee, Mr. Hill, and Ms. Harris about the need to integrate environmental justice principles
in all training content developed by EPA

/ Provide recommendations to the members of JPAC related to NAFTA's ten-year anniversary
assessment

7-4

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

-------
MEETING SUMMARY

of the

WASTE AND FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE

of the

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

April 15, 2004
New Orleans, Louisiana

Meeting Summary Accepted By:

Dr. Andrew Sawyers
Chair

Kent Benjamin	Michael Lythcott

Designated Federal Official Vice Chair

-------
CHAPTER EIGHT
MEETING 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 Thursday, April 15, 2004, during a four-day meeting of
the NEJAC in New Orleans, Louisiana. Dr. Andrew Sawyers, Environmental Justice Coordinator,
Maryland Department of the Environment, was elected as the new chair of the subcommittee. Mr.
Kent Benjamin, 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 lists the members who attended the meeting and identifies the member
who was unable to attend.

This chapter, which summarizes the deliberations of the Waste and Facility Siting 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, Activities of the Subcommittee, summarizes
the activities of the subcommittee, which included updates on the status of three work groups of the
subcommittee and an update on the subcommittee's Strategic Work Plan. Section 4.0,
Presentations and Reports, provides an
overview of OSWER updates delivered
on four presentations. Section 5.0, Action
Items, summarizes the action items
adopted by the subcommittee.

2.0 REMARKS

Dr. Sawyers, chair of the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee, opened the
meeting by welcoming the subcommittee
members present and Mr. Benjamin, the
DFO. Dr. Sawyers commended the work
of the subcommittee and affirmed that the
members have provided good leadership
for the NEJAC. He went on to say that
one of the goals of the meeting would be
to identify projects that fall within the
purview of the subcommittee and that
could make a substantial improvement in
people's lives over the next few years.

He emphasized the importance of
gauging progress in terms of tangible,

"on-the-ground" improvements and of
developing metrics for measuring the
success of the projects implemented.

Mr. Benjamin stated that the agenda of the meeting would include reviewing the status of the
activities of the subcommittee's three work groups that focus on the following issues:

Five Priorities
Unintended Impacts
Federal Facilities

He stated that these reviews would be followed by an update on the Strategic Work Plan of the
subcommittee and presentations from representatives of OSWER.

Exhibit 8-1

WASTE AND FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE

Members Who
Attended the Meeting
on April 15, 2004

Dr. Andrew Sawyers, Chair
Mr. Michael Lythcott, Vice Chair
Mr. Kent Benjamin, DFO

Ms. Michelle Alvarez
Mr. Robert Collin
Mr. Randall Gee
Mr. Robert Harris
Mr. Mosi Kitwana
Ms. Mary Nelson
Mr. John Ridgway
Ms. Connie Tucker
Mr. Vincent Wardlaw

Members
Who Were Unable To Attend

Ms. Judith Espinosa

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

8-1

-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

3.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE

This section discusses the activities of the
subcommittee, which included providing
progress reports of the three work groups
of the subcommittee. This section also
provides an update on the subcommittee's
Strategic Work Plan.

3.1 Five Priorities Work Group

Ms. Marjorie Buckholtz, Director, EPA
Innovation, Partnership, and
Communications Office OSWER, provided
an update on the status of the Five
Priorities Work Group of the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee. A
description of the five priorities is
presented in Exhibit 8-2.

Ms. Buckholtz stated that one of the goals
of the Work Group is to encourage open
discussion among members of the
subcommittee about how they can help
implement the five priorities and develop
relevant projects that produce net
environmental improvements and tangible
results. She emphasized that the
underlying theme for the priorities falls
under the rubric of innovation and that the
priorities provide the opportunity and
funding for testing new ideas. Ms.
Buckholtz asked the subcommittee
members to submit proposals for projects
they are interested in pursuing. Mr.
Michael J. Lythcott, the Lythcott Company
and Vice-Chair of the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC, asked
a question regarding the Emergency
Response and Homeland Security priority;
he asked if EPA was directing its efforts
toward better coordination among first
responders to emergency situations. Ms.
Buckholtz responded by saying that there is work going on in that area, although it is insufficient.
She stated that a project in this area could potentially be pursued as an innovation pilot test under
the priority, and she encouraged Mr. Lythcott to submit a proposal that particularly addresses cultural
barriers and tailoring response actions to the needs of diverse communities.

Ms. Buckholtz provided another example of an initiative that the subcommittee could undertake that
would fall under the Land Revitalization priority. The initiative would involve assessing existing
watershed pilot studies of various sites to determine ways that they could be integrated with
redevelopment activities. She mentioned that Ms. Dale Matey, EPA Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) would be the point of contact for this project.

Exhibit 8-2

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
The Five Priorities

1. Emergency Response and Homeland Security: Every year,
OSWER's Emergency Response Program conducts or oversees
hundreds of emergency responses to clean up oil spills and
hazardous substance releases. OSWER ensures that the cleanup
is appropriate, timely, and minimizes human and environmental
risks. OSWER's Emergency Response Program provides the
people and skills necessary to respond to national security
threats faced by this country. The possibility of future terrorists
attacks or other large-scale disasters necessitate a national
response that is immediate, protective, and preventive.

2. One Cleanup Program: The One Cleanup Program (OCP) is
OSWER's vision for how different cleanup programs at all
levels of government can work together to improve the
coordination, speed, and effectiveness of cleanups at the
nations' contaminated sites. OCP encourages improved
collaboration among EPA cleanup programs with state, tribal,
local, and other federal agency programs and stakeholders. For
information on the One Cleanup Program, go to
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/onecleanupprogram.

3. Land Revitalization: The Land Revitalization Agenda (LRA)
promotes the reuse of once-contaminated sites in order to
revitalize America's communities. Because cleanup and reuse
are mutually supportive goals, property, reuse should be an
integral part of the way OSWER does business. To learn more
about OSWER's Land Revitalization Initiative, go to
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/handrevitalization.

4. Energy Recovery, Recycling & Waste Minimization: The
Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) is a major cross-
Agency initiative that identifies innovation, flexible, and more
productive ways to conserve natural resources through (1)
materials pollution prevention, recycling and reuse; (2) reducing
chemicals in all their uses; and (3) conserving enegy and
materials. The RCC also includes a retail component that
educates consumers about resource conservation opportunities.
For more information about the Resource Conservation
Challenge, go to http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/.

5. Workforce Development: OSWER is committed to
developing the full potential of its workforce by encouraging
creativity and innovation, providing career development
opportunities, and assuring that a diverse pool of qualified
candidates is available for all OSWER job opportunities.

8-2

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

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

Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee

Ms. Linda Garczynski, Director EPA Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment, provided a
status update on the institutional controls tracking effort under the Land Revitalization priority. She
stated that geographic information system (GIS) software is being used as a tool to overlay data
pertaining to institutional controls with locational information in order to assist in implementing,
monitoring, and enforcing the controls. She pointed out that the data in the system currently is basic
in nature and that local governments usually are responsible for adding information to the system for
the sites in their jurisdiction.

Dr. Sawyers followed with a general question about whether there were focused efforts to clean up
smaller brownfields communities. Ms. Garczynski responded that approximately 52 percent of the
brownfields grants awarded by EPA are issued to communities with a population of less than
100,000. In addition, EPA is conducting many outreach activities to provide direct support to
communities without grants. She stated that EPA is providing some type of funding to all 50 states
and 40 tribes to assess resources in order to provide support to communities.

Mr. Lythcott noted that there is growing concern about the negative impact of brownfields developers
on low-income communities, even with what has been defined as "acceptable levels of
displacement" in brownfields policies. He also stated that under the brownfields program,
developers are provided with preassembled parcels of land to reduce their risk and ensure a definite
return on their investments. He asked whether anyone is looking into this matter and whether there
is a way that EPA can leverage its influence on investors to convince them to invest correctly. Dr.
Sawyers responded that the subcommittee should develop a more structured effort to look into this
matter. He suggested meeting with Mr. Lythcott to further discuss the issue. Mr. Mosi Kitwana,
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and member of the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee, added that the issue of displacement is largely a local one. He added,
however, that the subcommittee does have the potential to have a significant impact on the matter
and that it is worthy of debate. He went on to suggest that he could organize a meeting to further
discuss this issue and possibly include it as a separate session at the upcoming brownfields
conference.

Mr. Lythcott raised another question about cleanup standards for revitalized sites as well as "fence-
line communities" that continuously are underfunded. He asked whether there is room for such
communities to have a stronger say in establishing the level of cleanup and whether there are ways
to funnel more resources to them. Dr. Sawyers asked Mr. Lythcott to speak with Ms. Buckholtz
about how the subcommittee can address this issue. Mr. Benjamin and Ms. Buckholtz added that
including the issue in the Strategic Work Plan of the Subcommittee could help make a strong case
for discussion and possible implementation.

In the context of helping to implement OSWER's five priorities, Mr. Kitwana emphasized that there
are many plans being initiated at the local level that Federal agencies are not aware of and vice
versa. Therefore, he recommended that the members of the subcommittee investigate ways to
interact with external associations, such as those working with state and local governments, for the
purposes of enhancing subcommittee planning and product development. He stated that this
interaction would help the subcommittee to assess the work of other associations and to focus its
own efforts.

Dr. Sawyers stated that currently there is no point of contact for the Energy Recovery, Recycling,
and Waste Minimization priority. He volunteered to be the temporary point of contact until a
permanent one is assigned. Mr. Randall Gee, the Cherokee Nation and member of the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee, volunteered to be the point of contact for the Workforce Development
priority.

In response to Ms. Buckholtz's update on OSWER's five priorities, members of the subcommittee
discussed how they can align their initiatives with those of OSWER. They discussed the possibility

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

8-3

-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

of identifying pilot projects under each of the priorities. Specifically, under the Land Revitalization
priority, they agreed to develop recommendations for improving emergency response plans and the
reporting of stored hazardous chemicals for chemical plants located in environmental justice
communities. Ms. Buckholtz offered to set up a meeting between the subcommittee members and
Ms. Debbie Dietrich, Director, EPA Office of Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response,
if they were interested in developing a project in the area of homeland security. Mr. John Ridgway,
Washington State Department of Ecology and member of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee, volunteered to be the point of contact for this effort and to initiate further discussions.
He mentioned that he has 14 years of experience with the Community Right-To-Know Initiative.

Dr. Sawyers concluded the session by stating that there are good opportunities for the subcommittee
to partner with OSWER and that the recommendations discussed should be formalized during the
afternoon session of the meeting.

3.2 Unintended Impacts Work Group

Mr. Butch Wardlaw, WPI and member of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee, provided a
status update on the activities of the Unintended Impacts Work Group. Mr. Wardlaw continued by
stating that although EPA considered the redevelopment aspects of the projects to be successful,
the projects may have had negative unintended impacts such as displacement of residents or unfair
compensation for land taken from communities. The focus of the study was on lessons learned,
impacts on key stakeholders, identifiable trends, and realistic recommendations for EPA. Based on
the study, members of the Work
Group developed a draft report titled
Unintended Consequences of
Environmental Redevelopment in
Five Environmental Justice
Communities: A Critical Exploration
(the unintended impacts report).

The report contains an analysis of
five place study locations around
the United States and provides
recommendations based on an
assessment of the quantitative and
qualitative impacts of

redevelopment projects at these locations. The five place study locations and the primary
researcher for each are listed in Exhibit 8-3. Mr. Robert Collin, Department of Environmental
Studies, University of Oregon and member of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee, clarified
that place studies differ from case studies in that place studies are specific to a site and its unique
characteristics, which cannot be generalized. The five sites were analyzed in this manner to protect
their social, cultural, and economic integrity. The recommendations in the report focus on
minimizing negative unintended impacts and on capitalizing on positive unintended impacts.

Dr. Sawyers stressed the importance of articulating the success of the East Palo Alto place study
analysis to the Executive Council of the NEJAC. He added that it is important for the authors to
maintain objectivity throughout the report, even though they may have some degree of personal
knowledge about the sites analyzed. Ms. Mary Nelson, Bethel New Life, Inc. and member of the
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee, added that the recommendations in the report need to be
more specific; in addition, if overarching themes are present, they should be identified as well. Ms.
Garczynski added that if any of the authors would like to speak with her regarding brownfields issues
in the context of the report, she could make herself available.

Mr. Wardlaw asked the members of the subcommittee to review the report in order to assess its
readability and the strength of its conclusions, provide input on how the recommendations in the

Exhibit 8-3

PLACE STUDY LOCATIONS AND PRIMARY RESEARCHERS FOR
UNINTENDED IMPACTS WORK GROUP STUDY

• East Palo Alto, California, EPA Region 9 - John Ridgway

• Albina Community, Portland, Oregon, EPA Region 10 - Robert Collin

• Pensacola, Florida, EPA Region 4 - Michael Lythcott

• Washington, DC, Navy Yard, EPA Region 3 - Butch Wardlaw

• Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, EPA Region 6 - Randall Gee

8-4

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

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

Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee

report can be refined in a way that is useful for EPA, and provide recommendations on how to
distribute the final report.

The members of the subcommittee agreed to review the draft report and provide comments. Mr.
Lythcott stated that the final report can be used as a basis for making recommendations to the
Executive Council and EPA with regards to actions that can minimize negative unintended impacts
of redevelopment projects.

3.3 Federal Facilities Working Group

Dr. Mildred McClain, Harambee House, Inc., provided an update on the status of the Federal
Facilities Working Group of the subcommittee. The Working Group was established to pursue the
first goal identified in the subcommittee's Strategic Work Plan, which described in Exhibit 8-4.

Exhibit 8-4

FIRST GOAL IN THE WASTE AND FACILITY SITING
SUBCOMMITTEE STRATEGIC WORK PLAN

The Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee has identified three main goals and
their respective objectives to be pursued for fiscal years 2003 and 2004. The first
goal states:

Strengthen the role of community residents in the cleanup and disposition of
Federal properties through the work of the NEJAC Federal Facilities Working
Group (FFWG)

The objectives to achieve the goal include:

1.1. Establish collaborative and close coordination between the work of the Waste
and Facility Siting Subcommittee and that of the FFWG

1.2. Assist the FFWG in identifying case studies whose key issues of concern will
be evaluated to develop general principles based on examples from actual
sites

1.3. Compile a list of resources available to communities to assist them in
participating more effectively in the cleanup of Federal properties

1.4. Provide a forum for dialogue between Federal agencies and communities
impacted by Federal facilities

Federal Facilities and Environmental Justice Communities. The subcommittee reviewed the report
and provided comments. The Executive Council of the NEJAC then received the report and also
provided comments. Dr. McClain stated that work on the third and fourth objectives currently is in
progress.

Dr. McClain provided a brief overview of the process used to produce the draft report, which
presents best practices to encourage closer collaboration and coordination between Federal facilities
and impacted communities. The report identifies and evaluates key issues of concern to
environmental justice communities with regard to activities and operations at and around Federal
facilities and presents a set of national policy recommendations to address these issues. The
information in the report was based on Working Group visits to five Federal facilities. These visits
were conducted to identify and examine common variables associated with stakeholder participation
within environmental justice communities. The sites visited are identified in Exhibit 8-5.

Dr. McClain stated that the
Working Group was able to
accomplish the first two
objectives. For the first
objective, Dr. McClain was
assigned to act as a liaison
between the Working Group and
the subcommittee. Ms. Trina
Martynowicz, EPA OSWER
Federal Facilities Restoration
and Reuse Office (FFRRO), was
assigned as the DFO for the
Working Group. For the second
objective, the subcommittee was
in regular, direct contact with the
Working Group to provide
feedback and advice as
necessary on the selection of
case studies. Once the case
studies were selected, the
Working Group prepared a draft
report, Environmental Justice
and Federal Facilities:
Recommendations for Improving
Stakeholder Relations Between

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

8-5

-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Dr. McClain stated that the report provides five recommendations and three considerations to
strengthen the role of community residents in the cleanup and disposition of Federal properties. Mr.
Jim Woolford, Director, EPA FFRRO, added that the recommendations currently are very general in
nature and can apply both to Superfund and brownfields sites. Dr. McClain mentioned the need to
refine the language in the recommendations; make the format of the recommendations consistent;
identify an appropriate location in the report for each recommendation; and elaborate on ways that
the recommendations can be implemented, especially with regard to the issue of Alaskan

communities and Federal facilities. She
requested that the members of the
subcommittee respond to
recommendations made by the members
fo the Executive Council of the NEJAC
regarding the draft report.

Dr. McClain pointed out that there are
glaring omissions in the report involving
references and specific recommendations
to the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
She recognized the difficulty of bringing
DoD to the table and stated that dialogue is needed in this area. Ms. Nelson added that it is
necessary to meet with appropriate DoD officials in order to get their input on this subject. She
stated that DoD does not have an environmental justice coordinator at this point and that the NEJAC
should begin by convincing DoD of the importance of appointing a coordinator.

In response to Dr. McClain's presentation on the Federal Facilities Working Group's draft report,
members of the subcommittee discussed the importance of inviting Federal facility representatives to
participate in meetings with the Working Group. The members expressed concern about the number
of DoD sites that have environmental justice issues.

Dr. McClain mentioned the importance of looking into ways to continue the activities initiated by the
Working Group, as it will be disbanded in the near future. Dr. Sawyers responded that in order to
ensure that the draft report is made final in a timely manner and minimal additional resources are
used, the time period for comment solicitation will be extended by a maximum of one month, and the
guidelines for providing comments will be stringent.

3.4 Update on Strategic Work Plan of the Subcommittee

Dr. Sawyers and Mr. Lythcott jointly moderated a discussion of the subcommittee's Strategic Work
Plan. They opened the discussion by asking members of the subcommittee as well as others
present at the meeting to review the Strategic Work Plan and provide comments or
recommendations for updates. Dr. Sawyers mentioned that the document identifies three main
goals. For goal 1, which is under the purview of the Federal Facilities Working Group, he suggested
including a "best practices" section in the draft report that the Working Group prepared and
identifying ways to collaborate with Federal facilities in order to address environmental justice issues.
For goal 3, objective 3-1, "Establishing ongoing contacts with OSWER staff responsible for the five
primary priorities identified by OSWER Assistant Administrator Marianne Lamont Horinko," Dr.
Sawyers suggested adding two more objectives to include (1) working closely with OSWER to
implement its priorities and (2) using OSWER programs and concerns to guide the efforts of the
subcommittee. He also encouraged the subcommittee members to begin identifying potential new
projects for the subcommittee to consider implementing. He reiterated the example of assessing
existing watershed pilot studies of various sites under the Land Revitalization priority to determine
ways that they could be integrated with redevelopment activities.

Exhibit 8-5

SITES VISITED BY THE FEDERAL FACILITIES WORKING
GROUP TO PREPARE THE DRAFT REPORT

• Fort Wingate Army Depot Activity, Gallup, New Mexico

• Hanford 100-Area (USDOE), Hanford, Washington

• Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas

• Defense Depot Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee

• Savannah River Site (USDOE), Savanna, South Carolina

8-6

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

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

Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee

Members of the subcommittee agreed to develop recommendations under the Land Revitalization
priority for improving emergency response plans and the reporting of stored hazardous chemicals for
chemical plants located in environmental justice communities.

They also agreed to review the subcommittee's Strategic Work Plan and use the progress update
handouts to acknowledge goals that have been completed. The members also agreed to add new
tasks to existing goals in the document. Mr. Benjamin asked the subcommittee members to
consider the issues discussed at the meeting and to identify any issues that may be important
enough to "rise" to the level requiring a working group to be established. He also suggested
updating the Strategic Work Plan to cover up to the next 2% years so that new subcommittee
members will have a plan in place when they begin their terms. Mr. Kitwana suggested adding
objective 2.3 to goal 2 in order to build more effective partnerships in overall planning. He suggested
that the members of the subcommittee investigate ways to interact with external associations, such
as those working with state and local governments, for the purposes of enhancing subcommittee
planning and product development. He also brought up the issue that the work of the subcommittee
does not appear to have been distributed equally among all the members. He stated that there is a
need to reassess how work is divided. He asked the subcommittee to consider strategies for more
effectively getting the work done and for obtaining further resources.

Some members of the subcommittee questioned the importance of the subcommittee's efforts and
whether they have been helpful to communities. Other members mentioned that OSWER approves
of and supports the subcommittee's work and that many of the products generated by the
subcommittee are used by OSWER. Mr. Kitwana made the point that if the work of the
subcommittee is valuable, more resources need to be provided for the subcommittee to continue
making progress in its activities.

Mr. Lythcott brought up the point that many of the members of the subcommittee are nearing the end
of their terms and that institutional knowledge can be lost if it is not passed on. Mr. Ridgway added
that the process of appointing new subcommittee members currently is taking a long time. He stated
that if the process can be expedited, new members will have more time to interact with existing
members and gain institutional knowledge before the existing members finish their terms.

4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS

This section summarizes the presentations made and reports submitted to the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee.

The members of the subcommittee heard presentations from representatives of EPA OSWER,
including Ms. Pat Carey, Ms. Tammie Owen, Ms. Glynis Hill, Mr. Vernon Myers, and Mr. Benjamin.
The presenters provided updates on various OSWER initiatives and policies.

Ms. Carey provided an update on the Superfund Interim Policy on Permanent Relocation.
Development of the policy was initiated in 1995 based on a request made by the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee. The Escambia Superfund site in Pensacola, Florida was chosen as a pilot
project, and seven forums were held to gather stakeholder input. In 1999, the Interim Policy was
issued. Ms. Carey stated that a lot of progress has been made under this policy since it was issued.
For example, in March 2002, five facilitated focus groups convened in Pensacola, Florida, to assess
the relocation process at the Escambia site. The focus groups helped to raise many issues, such as
relocation support services, appraisal and identification of comparable housing, relocation payments,
inspections, and problem resolution processes. Ms. Carey stated that 19 relocations have occurred
under the policy and that three more are ongoing. Mr. Lythcott added that the efforts carried out by
Ms. Carey's office should be described in the unintended impacts report.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

8-7

-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Ms. Owen discussed the Hazardous Waste Targeting Project, which aims to provide incentives to
companies for reducing the use of chemicals. The project is part of the National Waste Minimization
Partnership program, a voluntary initiative with the aim of providing companies with incentives to go
beyond compliance. She stated that future goals of the project will include using GIS programs to
locate facilities with high volumes of chemical releases and providing the information to regional
coordinators who can encourage facilities to participate in the Partnership program.

Ms. Hill and Mr. Myers presented an update on the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA)
Demographics Study findings, elaborating on the progress under the Government Performance
Results Act (GPRA) at facilities permitted under RCRA. The purpose of the study was to develop a
GPRA environmental justice database and summary report to serve as screening tools. The tools
were used to compare GPRA progress made near RCRA-permitted facilities and corrective action
facilities in potential environmental justice communities to progress made near such facilities in
potential non-environmental justice communities. Each facility was then determined to be in a
potential environmental justice or non-environmental justice community.

The database developed as a result of the study can be queried, and the data can be summarized
and graphically presented to show differences in progress between facilities in potential
environmental justice and non-environmental justice communities. The database also can be used
with a GIS application to generate maps that provide a visual comparison of facilities that are not
under control to GPRA RCRA-permitted facilities. Mr. Myers added that many sites were not
included in the study because good locational data was not available for the GIS. Dr. Sawyers
stated that he would like to look into this study in more detail, and identify any trends.

Mr. Benjamin summarized some accomplishments of OSWER in 2003. He stated that OSWER sent
the Office of Environmental Justice a "success stories" report for fiscal year 1999 through 2001 that
includes progress made in the environmental justice arena. He said that the first OSWER
Environmental Justice Awards were issued in the categories of "Individual EPA Staff," "EPA Teams,"
and "Community-based Organization." Other accomplishments included the Office of Underground
Storage Tanks organizing its first roundtable discussion of environmental justice issues and OSWER
kicking off its first environmental justice training program by providing training to all its senior
managers.

5.0 ACTION ITEMS

This section summarizes the action items adopted by the subcommittee.

/ Identify potential projects that can be conducted as pilot tests under the five priorities of
OSWER and prepare proposals for the projects

/ Consider developing recommendations related to improving emergency response plans for
chemical plants located in environmental justice communities

/ Assess existing watershed pilot studies of various sites under the Land Revitalization priority to
determine ways that they can be integrated with redevelopment activities

/ Set up a meeting between Dr. Sawyers and Mr. Lythcott to develop a more structured effort
addressing the issue of negative impacts of brownfields developers on low-income
communities, even with what has been defined as "acceptable levels of displacement" in
brownfields policies

/ Set up a meeting between Mr. Lythcott and Ms. Buckholtz to discuss how the subcommittee
can address the issue of communities needing a stronger say in establishing levels of cleanup
at revitalization sites

8-8

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

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

Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee

/ Review and provide comments on the draft unintended impacts report

/ Add information on the Superfund Interim Policy on Permanent Relocation and the work done
by Ms. Carey's office to the draft unintended impacts report.

/ Respond to recommendations made by the NEJAC Executive Council regarding the draft
report prepared by the Federal Facilities Working Group

/ Look into the database produced as a result of the RCRA Demographics Study to identify any
trends

/ Look through the Strategic Work Plan, and make recommendations for plan updates to cover
up to the next 2% years

/ Consider topics discussed at the meeting and identify issues that may be important enough to
warrant the establishment of a working group

/ Investigate ways for the subcommittee to interact with external associations, such as those
working with state and local governments, for the purposes of enhancing subcommittee
planning and product development

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 15, 2004

8-9

-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS
of the

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

April 13 and 14, 2004
New Orleans, Louisiana

-------
CHAPTER TWO
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Executive Council of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
held two public comment periods during the
meeting of the NEJAC conducted from April 13
through 16,2004 in NewOrleans, Louisiana. The
first public comment session was held on
Tuesday, April 13, and focused on issues related
to cumulative risks and impacts. During the
session, two written and nine oral statements
were offered. The second public comment
session was held on Wednesday, April 14, and
provided the opportunity for submittal of general
comments related to environmental justice
concerns. During the session, one written and 21
oral statements were offered.

This chapter summarizes the testimony that the
Executive Council of the NEJAC received during
the public comment periods as well as the
comments and questions that the testimony
prompted from the members of the Executive
Council. Section 2.0, Public Comment Period
Held on April 13, 2004, summarizes the testimony
offered on that date related to cumulative risks
and impacts. Section 3.0, Public Comment
Period Held on April 14, 2004, summarizes the
testimony offered on that date related to
environmental justice concerns. These sections
also summarize the dialogues between the
presenters and the members of the Executive
Council that followed the presentations.

2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD HELD ON
APRIL 13, 2004

This section summarizes the comments
presented to the Executive Council during the
public comment period held on April 13, 2004,
along with the questions and observations that the
comments prompted from members of the
Executive Council.

Comments are summarized below in the order in
which they were offered.

2.1 Mr. Roosevelt Roberts, Rubbertown
Emergency Action, Louisville,
Kentucky

Mr. Roosevelt Roberts, Rubbertown Emergency
Action, Louisville, Kentucky, submitted a written
statement to the members of the Executive
Council. In that statement, Mr. Roberts noted that
his low-income, minority community is located
near 11 chemical plants in Rubbertown, the
industrial portion of Louisville, and that community
residents are being exposed to hazardous air
pollution at levels 100 times higher than levels
considered to be safe by state and local
environmental officials. The pollutants include
1,3-butadiene; acrylonitrile; vinyl chloride;
chlorprene; and formaldehyde, he wrote. Levels
of 1,3-butadiene have been increasing by 35
percent per year since 2000, the statement
noted.

The written statement noted a report that was
released in November 2003 stating that the
communities located near the chemical plants will
have between 76 and 690 additional cancer cases
per million residents because of exposure to toxic
air pollution. Air monitors located in the
communities are used to predict the prevalence of
other health effects in addition to cancer, Mr.
Roberts continued in his written statement, and
local health officials have been unresponsive to
the concerns of the residents. A study conducted
by the University of Louisville revealed
excessively high levels of cancer in the
communities, he noted, but the high levels of
cancer were attributed to poor diet, alcohol
consumption, and smoking. The study's findings
led an environmental specialist at one of the
chemical plants to claim that the toxic air
emissions from the plants did not adversely affect
the health of the people living in the surrounding
communities, Mr. Roberts wrote.

The study conducted by the University of
Louisville hinders any serious attempt to address
the impact of toxic air pollution on human health
in Louisville, Mr. Roberts asserted in his
statement. Mr. Roberts requested that Louisville
be one of the five communities located in U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13, and 14, 2004

2-1

-------
Public Comment Periods

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

4 that the Agency investigate related to
cumulative risks and impacts.

2.2 Mr. Bob Collin, Willamette University,
Salem, Oregon

Mr. Bob Collin, Willamette University, Salem,
Oregon, and member of the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC, submitted a
written statement to the members of the Executive
Council. In his statement, Mr. Collin pointed out
that he was among approximately 10 scientists
selected by EPA to peer review the cumulative
risk methodologies identified in the Ensuring Risk
Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors:
Environmental Justice and Cumulative
Risks/Impacts report the cumulative risk report
developed by the Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work
Group of the NEJAC. He noted that he was
selected because of the environmental justice
publications he has written in the past.

Mr. Collin congratulated the Executive Council on
the development of the cumulative risk report and
pointed out that linking the report to an action plan
was insightful on many levels. Cumulative risk is
a difficult issue, he stated, and the report fills a
meaningful void with environmental truth, which
will lead to environmental justice and
sustainability. He pointed out that the United
Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), as well as the Canadian
Province of British Columbia, has developed and
refined methodologies for assessing cumulative
risk. Canada has a Cumulative Risk Association
that was founded around the year2000, he noted.

Former EPA AdministratorCarol Browner initiated
a sector-based approach to permitting, he said.
According to Mr. Collin, industrial stakeholders
fear cumulative impacts in a sector-based
approach because a given sector may be blamed
for all sector impacts. To clarify, Mr. Collin added
that individual sectors would potentially be held
responsible for past, present, and future industrial
and municipal emissions. This is the reasoning
behind industrial stakeholder resistance to
sector-based environmental regulation, he stated.

2.3 Ms. Johanna Congleton, Physicians for
Social Responsibility, Los Angeles,
California

Stating that she would like to present a comment
and a question, Ms. Johanna Congleton,
Physicians forSocial Responsibility, Los Angeles,
California, identified several reasons why working
with health professionals in community clinics that
serve environmentally impacted communities is
important to EPA. Researchers and community
members have a better understanding of the
health outcomes that healthcare providers are
seeing that are potentially related to
environmental risk factors, she stated. Working
with health professionals on community capacity-
building research projects provides an opportunity
to inform community clinic staff about
environmental risk factors, she pointed out.

Physicians frequently see health problems
associated with environmental pollution, she said,
but there are many environmental risk factors of
which physicians are not aware. Physicians
receive very little training on environmental risk in
medical school, she pointed out, and feware even
aware that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
has health advisories forfish consumption. There
is an opportunity for health professionals to
achieve a better understanding of what is
happening in impacted communities and for
community members to take note of what health
professionals are seeing in the clinics, she added.
Ms. Congleton then pointed out that in California,
Physicians for Social Responsibility has
developed an environmental exposure history
intake examination for uninsured farm workers
who have been exposed to pesticides.

Ms. Congleton asked the members of the
Executive Council to check on EPA's progress
made in implementing the recommendations
identified in the EPA Louisiana Environmental
Program Oversight Audit Report. Mr. David
Neleigh, EPA Region 6, Water Enforcement
Branch, Compliance Assurance and Enforcement
Division, Dallas, Texas, stated that the report was
not discussed during the EPA Region 6
Stakeholder Meeting held on April 13, 2004, and
offered to answer any of Ms. Congleton's
questions after the public comment period.
However, he explained, there was an extensive
review of Louisiana's water, Resource
Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), and air
programs during the stakeholder meeting.

2-2

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 and 14, 2004

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

Public Comment Periods

2.4 Ms. Shawna Larson, Alaska
Community Action on Toxics,
Anchorage, Alaska

Stating that she had concerns about the
risk-based approach being used by EPA, Ms.
Shawna Larson, Alaska Community Action on
Toxics, Anchorage, Alaska, began her comment
by providing background information on her local
community. The population of Port Graham is
200, she said, and one can travel there only by
boat or plane. The community has one school,
one clinic, two stores, and one dump; and people
depend on salmon, seal, halibut, octopus, clams,
and mussels for food. Port Graham has survived
many challenges, she continued, including
Russian and European settlers who brought
colonialism, oppression, and alcoholism as well
as events such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Ms. Larson pointed out that 85,000 chemicals
currently are on the market and that 8,000 new
chemicals are introduced every year. Breast milk
is the most contaminated food on the planet, she
pointed out. Humans and animals are suffering a
toxic burden, she declared, and it is not
uncommon to find caribou, moose, fish, or seals
with tumors and lesions.

The current risk assessment approach does not
factor in cultural indicators such as higher
consumption rates, she stated, and native
populations eat large quantities offish, plants, and
animals. In addition, she continued, chemicals
are assessed individually as opposed to being
assessed as an aggregate.

Ms. Larson added that the word "stakeholder"
needs to be redefined. She said that there is too
much concern about including industry as a
stakeholder, which is a conflict of interest. If EPA
had regulations that eliminated toxic chemicals,
industry would create safe alternatives, she
asserted. In addition, she said, science can be
corrupted by special interests. We need to rely on
traditional knowledge that has been accumulated
and passed on through generations of
experience, she stated.

Risk assessment is a flawed concept, declared
Ms. Larson, because it forces communities to
prove that contaminants in fact cause harm. The
biggest concern voiced by tribes in Alaska is
cancer, she stated, because before 1950 it was

virtually nonexistent there. Ms. Larson requested
that the NEJAC prevent risk assessment from
becoming another issue that the tribes have to
"survive". She requested that it focus on the
precautionary principle and test chemicals before
they are allowed on the market. In addition, she
said, cumulative impacts should not be assessed
based on the average white male.

Ms. Connie Tucker, Southeast Community
Research Center, Atlanta, Georgia, and member
of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of
the NEJAC, stated that NEJAC's hope that the
cumulative risk tool will replace the current risk
assessment tools. Ms. Tucker pointed out that
most of Ms. Larson's concerns are shared by the
grassroots environmental justice community and
stated that the NEJAC needs to work hard on
implementing a new cumulative risk assessment
paradigm. Mr. Terry Williams, Tulalip Tribes,
Maryville, Washington, and chair of the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee of the NEJAC,
thanked Ms. Larson for bringing up the matter of
traditional knowledge, and he encouraged her to
continue to make people aware of it.

Mr. Juan Parras, De Madres a Madres, Inc.,
Houston, Texas, and member of the Enforcement
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, added that it is a
shame that Native American tribes are not
recognized by the state. The United States is
fighting for democracy and freedom in Iraq, and if
the United States is willing to fight for freedom for
people in other countries, he explained, it should
be willing to help indigenous Americans here as
well.

2.5 Mr. Richard Burton, Jr., St. James
Parish Citizens for Jobs and the
Environment, Convent, Louisiana

Mr. Richard Burton, Jr., St. James Parish Citizens
for Jobs and the Environment, Convent,
Louisiana, provided the Executive Council with a
hazard analysis report that was developed by the
St. James Parish Emergency Operations Center
in 1994. None of the 16 chemicals identified in
the report have been reduced, he stated, and
more manufacturing plants have been moving into
the local area. The facilities are releasing wastes
into the river, he stated, and when he inquired
about what happens when wastes from different
plants mix in the river, he was told that the
chemicals would dissipate because of the river's
size. He noted that EPA has transferred power to

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13, and 14, 2004

2-3

-------
Public Comment Periods

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

take action to the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Mr. Burton stressed that the people in his
community are very poor and lack jobs and they
have the burden of the industrial plants in their
back yards. Nobody is listening to the
community's concerns, he declared. The
mentality in the community is that whatever the
government says is what happens, he explained,
and it is hard to change that mentality. It is hard
to help people who don'twantto help themselves,
he continued, but he stated that he will continue to
work for the benefit of the people. Xavier
University performed a study that revealed that a
large number of adults in the community have
upper respiratory problems, he stated. Many
children in the neighborhood have to use
respirators and are slow in learning, he added,
and they are unable to get sufficient medical help.
In conclusion, Mr. Burton pointed out that
members of his community had been to the
NEJAC meeting several times before to express
the concerns of his community.

Ms. Tucker stated that Mr. Burton's testimony is
an example that everything the NEJAC has done
has failed. She recommended that the NEJAC
implement a special initiative to find out what the
NEJAC can do for St. James Parish. Ms. Judy
Henneke, Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, Austin, Texas, and member of the Air and
Water Subcommittee of the NEJAC, expressed
her shock at the release rates and large quantities
of petrochemical exposure in Mr. Burton's
community. She noted that the NEJAC has been
discussing environmental justice for many years,
and the fact that his community is not improving is
sad. The NEJAC needs to identify how progress
can be made so that people do not have to keep
returning to the Executive Council for help, she
stated.

2.6 Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous
Environmental Network, Bemidji,
Minnesota

Complimenting the NEJAC's Cumulative
Risk/Impacts Work Group for developing the
cumulative risk report, Mr. Tom Goldtooth,
Indigenous Environmental Network(IEN), Bemidji,
Minnesota, stated that EPA's request for the
NEJAC to provide recommendations for actions
that EPA should take regarding the issue of
cumulative risk is timely. This is an action item

that has been requested for over 10 years by the
environmental justice movement, he said.

IEN fully supports most of the draft text the
cumulative risk report, Mr. Goldtooth noted, and
the consistent mention of tribes in addition to
communities is to be commended. American
Indian and Alaskan Native tribes are not ordinary
stakeholders or communities, he asserted, but
stakeholders who possess inherent sovereign
powers.

Mr. Goldtooth pointed out that the section titled
"Special Concerns of Tribes" on page 41 of the
report requires some editing, and he stated that
he would express this concern during the meeting
of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee.

Tribal and native environmental organizations
have been engaging in a dialogue with EPA and
other Federal agencies for over 10 years
regarding the need to develop mechanisms for
assessing cumulative impacts within the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process,
standard-setting, and risk management, he
stated. One continuing problem within EPA's risk
management framework is how to quantify the
cultural and spiritual values that are important to
American Indians and Alaskan Natives, he said.
Stressors mentioned in the report recognize
socioeconomic factors, he continued, however,
Native Americans suffer from psychological
postcolonization syndrome because of the loss of
their lands and the abuse of what they consider
sacred.

IEN recognizes the need for improved
collaborative models for problem-solving
initiatives that bring all stakeholders together, he
explained, but in recent years such collaborations
have left legacies of deception and of
manipulation of laws and permitting. Fair and
equal collaboration and multi-stakeholder
processes will be challenging, Mr. Goldtooth
pointed out, but IEN will not give up the fight for
environmental and economic justice. In
conclusion, Mr. Goldtooth stated that the
cumulative risk report is the first of many steps
toward addressing a new paradigm of
environmental protection in the United States.

Mr. Wlliams asked Mr. Goldtooth to clarify what
he meant when he mentioned collaborative
problem-solving as a way to address cultural
risks. Mr. Goldtooth stated that the foundation of

2-4

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 and 14, 2004

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

Public Comment Periods

indigenous peoples is their relationship to mother
Earth, which is a sacred entity. Environmental
justice and environmental protection are spiritual
work, he said. Risk managers have a difficult time
understanding the importance of and quantifying
the issues associated with the spiritual
perspective, he explained.

Ms. Pamela Kingfisher, Shining Waters, Austin,
Texas, and vice chair of the Health and Research
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, asked Mr.
Goldtooth whether he believed that the draft
cumulative risk report addresses the guidelines
that had been developed by the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee. Mr. Goldtooth noted that
the I EN agreed with must of the report but
believed that there should be some modifications
to address specific tribal considerations.
Language should be added to clarify the political
and legal relationships that tribes have with the
Federal government and the fiduciary
responsibility that EPA has to tribes, he said.

2.7 Ms. Doris Bradshaw, Defense Depot
Concerned Citizen's Committee,
Memphis, Tennessee

Ms. Doris Bradshaw, Defense Depot Concerned
Citizen's Committee, Memphis, Tennessee,
stated that information on Federal facilities and
environmental justice is missing from the
cumulative risk report. A primary issue missing
from the report involves base closure and
cleanup, she said, as well as risks to communities
that are located near Federal facilities which
suffer from cancer and reproductive health
problems. Ms. Bradshaw pointed out that the
members on the Executive Council of the NEJAC
represent special interests but that the NEJAC is
not bringing in the voices of impacted
communities, and she believes that such
communities are being disrespected.

Environmental concerns at Federal facilities are
very complex and EPA does not like to address
issues associated with them, she noted, but there
is a need to look at the risks that such facilities
pose to communities in the long run. Ms.
Bradshaw questioned how EPA is protecting
human health, if the Agency will not address
cleanup issues at Federal facilities. The military
is not above the law, she declared, and EPA
needs to take a stand. A recent Record of
Decision issued for a Federal facility in her

community proposed institutional controls, she
explained. "Is the EPA going to be the watchdog
and provide oversight of the institutional
controls?" she questioned.

People in her community are getting cancer and
other illnesses, she explained, and the toxics are
coming from industry, not the community. In
conclusion, Ms. Bradshaw stated that until there
is honest communication with people in impacted
communities, things are not going to get better.

Ms. Tucker asked Ms. Bradshaw whether she
was still a coordinating council member in the
African-American Environmental Justice Action
Network. Ms. Bradshaw responded that she was
still involved in that organization. Ms. Tuckerthen
asked whether Ms. Bradshaw had any specific
recommendations related to the cumulative risk
report. Ms. Bradshaw stated that the report
should have an entire chapter dedicated to
Federal facilities because the environmental
problems associated with such facilities are
unique. Ms. Tucker pointed out that there was a
special report on unintended impacts of Federal
facilities and asked Ms. Bradshaw whether she
was involved in the development of that report.
Ms. Bradshaw noted that she is a member of the
Federal Facilities Working Group (FFWG) and
would address the special report during the rest of
the week. Ms. Tucker stated that EPA has
dedicated a lot of resources to Federal facilities
but that EPA will never have the authority to
effectively address facilities of the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) and U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE). Ms. Bradshaw
reiterated that EPA is supposed to protect human
health and that it has jurisdiction over DoD and
DOE. EPA needs to stand its ground, she
declared. Ms. Bradshaw stated that there should
be a subcommittee to address environmental
justice concerns at Federal facilities as part of the
NEJAC.

Mr. Andrew Sawyers, Maryland Department of the
Environment, Baltimore, Maryland, and acting
chair of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, stated that he would
like to discuss the cumulative risk report with Ms.
Bradshaw during the meeting of that
subcommittee.

Ms. Mary Nelson, Bethel New Life, Inc., Chicago,
Illinois, and vice chair of the Executive Council of

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13, and 14, 2004

2-5

-------
Public Comment Periods

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

the NEJAC, pointed out that the cumulative risk
report proposes a different paradigm for Federal
facilities. A more creative way to get DoD and
DOE to cooperate and listen to community
concerns needs to be developed, she stated. We
need to think of different ways to approach the
problem outside of EPA, she said, and to find a
way to generate Congressional interest. Ms.
Bradshaw agreed that the only way that anything
will be accomplished related to Federal facilities is
if there is Congressional support. She pointed out
that U.S. Representative Bob Filner (California)
was working on a bill to address Federal facilities,
but when the terrorist attacks occurred on
September 11, everyone lost focus. Communities
have no right to sue, she explained, and the
military claims that it cannot do its job without
certain exemptions. Ms. Bradshaw then
reiterated that it is the responsibility of EPA to
protect human health and that EPA should do so
for everyone.

2.8 Ms. Brenda Brandon, Haskell
University Environmental Research
Studies Center, Lawrence, Kansas

Pointing out that tribal communities face many
hazards, Ms. Brenda Brandon, Haskell University
Environmental Research Studies Center,
Lawrence, Kansas, stated that she has
experience working with 22 tribal communities
that are dealing with hazardous waste issues.
Elders in the community of Haskell feel as though
their spiritual values have been reduced to
"vulnerabilities", she said ratherthan respected as
the basis for our lives.

Ms. Brandon pointed out that her job at the
Haskell University Environmental Research
Studies Center focuses on integration of
traditional ecological knowledge with western
science. Traditional knowledge is rooted in
thousands of years of experience, she said.
There is a current and overwhelming increase in
the environmental impacts on tribal communities,
she stated, and cumulative and cultural risk is not
being addressed in NEPA, Superfund, or other
regulatory programs. There also is a lack of
educational resources and capacity-building
programs fortribes, she said pointing out that less
than 1 percent of minority college funding goes to
tribal colleges. Meanwhile, 80 percent of the
nation's resources located on tribal lands are
being taken from them, she added. The
government is trying to keep tribes "stupid", she

asserted, adding that tribal students cannot attend
major universities because of a lack of funding.
There needs to be honest, collaborative efforts by
government agencies to work with tribes, she
said, so that the tribes can effectively address
cumulative risk concerns themselves. With more
resources, tribal educational programs can help
develop effective leadership skills within tribal
communities while honoring and respecting tribal
values, she stated.

2.9 Ms. Rebecca Jim, Tar Creek Local
Environmental Action Demanded
Agency, Vinita, Oklahoma

Ms. Rebecca Jim, TarCreek Local Environmental
Action Demanded Agency, Vinita, Oklahoma,
stated that she hoped that the NEJAC would
continue to pursue community-based risk
assessment because it can provide a real benefit
to communities that have culturally-based risks.
Ms. Jim stated that her tribal community depends
on the land forfishing and hunting, and she hopes
that one day all of the tribal lands will be
evaluated so that the community knows which
parts are safe for practicing a subsistence
lifestyle.

Tar Creek is 7 miles long, she explained, and
there haven't been any fish in it for 24 years. Acid
mine drainage flows into the creek, she noted,
and the creek flows right through tribal lands. As
a result, people in the community do not know
what is safe to eat, she said. The creek is a
symbol of the impact of contamination, she said,
and she has taken many groups of students on
trips to study it.

When looking at multiple exposures, she
explained, it is necessary to account for
generations of exposure. Most of the tribal lands
are covered with mine waste and cannot be sold
because of an arrangement with the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), she stated. The
Quapaw lands in her community are terribly
impacted by the mine waste at the Tar Creek
Superfund site, she said. Most people do not
want to sell their land, she continued, but they
want to receive money that was promised to them
years ago. Ms. Jim noted that it would take an act
of Congress to clean up her community, and she
questioned how many acts of Congress it would
take to clean up all of America.

2-6

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 and 14, 2004

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

Public Comment Periods

2.10 Ms. Carletta Garcia, Laguna Acoma
Coalition for a Safe Environment,
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Stating that she was concerned about uranium
mining, Ms. Carletta Garcia, Laguna Acoma
Coalition for a Safe Environment, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, explained that her community was
once the site of the largest uranium mine in North
America. The top 18 inches of soil at the mine
has been reclaimed, she noted, but the health of
her community still is tainted by radiation.

The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act
(RECA) of 1990 proposes to provide payments to
individuals who have contracted cancer and other
diseases as a result of radiation exposure, she
stated. However, she continued, RECA excludes
many cancers and other diseases in all uranium
miners who worked in the mine after 1971. Most
of the Native Americans in her community rely on
the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) for their
medical needs, she explained, but PHS is
suffering from a lack of funding. The RECA trust
fund has run out of money, she said, and the
future of the program lies in the hands of the U.S.
Congress to reauthorize the act.

Ms. Garcia described howwaterin hercommunity
is contaminated because of mine tailings that
continue to seep into aquifers. In addition, many
people were exposed to radiation on clothing worn
by family members who worked in the mine, she
said. People who lived close to the mine were
exposed to radiation when winds carried
contaminated dust into their homes, she added.
Ms. Garcia stated that her house was located
1,000 feet away from the mine and that her
mother died of cancer because of radiation
contamination.

In conclusion, Ms. Garcia declared that people
have the right to live a healthy life, drink good
water, and breathe healthy air. The job of EPA is
to protect human health and to strengthen the
laws that protect human health, she stated. EPA
should focus on promoting solar, wind, and
water-generated power, she said.

Ms. Veronica Eady, Tufts University, Medford,
Massachusetts, and chair of the Executive
Council of the NEJAC, asked Ms. Garcia what
state she lived in. Ms. Garcia responded that she
was from Albuquerque, New Mexico. Ms. Tucker

asked Ms. Garcia whether she had read the
cumulative risk report. Ms. Garcia noted that she
had been trying to read it over, and she added
that it would be helpful to have information sent to
the participants before the meeting of the NEJAC.
Some people are not wealthy enough to own
computers; therefore, they cannot review the
meeting materials beforehand, she stated. Ms.
Tucker suggested that Ms. Garcia review the
report and provide recommendations within the
public comment period of 30 days.

Ms. Nelson asked Ms. Garcia whether the issue
of the RECA trust fund being out of money was
being looked at by Congress. Ms. Garcia said
that she believed it was and pointed out that any
new funds approved would not be placed in the
trust fund until 2005. Ms. Nelson then asked
whether someone on the Executive Council could
look into the impact of uranium on human health
and whether uranium contamination falls under
EPA's jurisdiction. Mr. Charles Lee, Designated
Federal Official (DFO) of the NEJAC and EPA
Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), stated that
he would look into the issue.

Mr. Williams stated that people can become numb
when they hear all the similar stories related to
indigenous peoples. Tribes need to develop a
process to gain attention in order to address their
problems, he declared, because all the problems
still exist. Even though the Tulalip Tribes have
become more economically sound, its members
still suffer from cancer, heart disease, and
diabetes, he stated. People who depend on
traditional subsistence foods face an impossible
struggle, he said.

Thanking Ms. Garcia for speaking, Ms. Kingfisher
pointed out that wheneverthe Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, DoD, or DOE is in charge, EPA
stays away. The Federal walls need to be broken
down, she asserted, and DoD and DOE need to
cooperate.

Ms. Henneke noted that listening to all the real-life
stories and experiences was very profound. She
added that it is unfortunate that economic
development and jobs are placed above the
health and welfare of people and the environment.
Mr. Henneke suggested to Mr. Lee that the
Executive Council address this issue in the
cumulative risk report. The problem is that
Federal agencies point fingers and claim that they

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13, and 14, 2004

2-7

-------
Public Comment Periods

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

do not have jurisdiction, she explained. She
pointed out that EPA is in a difficult situation
because it needs to try to get along with its sister
agencies, and she expressed hope that the
collaborative approach outlined in the cumulative
risk report would improve the situation. But there
needs to be some accountability, she said,
because defense-related entities are cloaking
themselves in homeland security. Ms. Henneke
expressed hope that the cumulative risk report
would provide EPA with the strength to confront
its sister agencies and show them that there
needs to be a paradigm shift in order to address
cumulative risk issues.

Ms. Nelson stated that it is worth the struggle to
try to get DoD and DOE to the table in order to
discuss the paradigm shift with them. Ms.
Henneke pointed out that the states offer
examples of how to implement a collaborative
approach and resolve disputes with Federal
facilities. If states can do this, it is possible at the
Federal level, she stated.

2.11 Mr. Hilton Kelley, Community
Monitoring, Port Arthur, Texas

Stating that his community is 13 miles west of the
Louisiana border, Mr. Hilton Kelley, Community
Monitoring, Port Arthur, Texas, informed the
Executive Council that the community is
surrounded by refineries and chemical
companies. The companies exist all along the
Gulf Coast, he explained, and as a result the
water is completely contaminated. Beaches in
Port Arthur are contaminated with tar pits, he said,
and people suffer from asthma, other respiratory
problems, tumors, and liver and kidney disease.
A University of Texas Medical Branch concluded
that there is a direct correlation between the
chemicals being emitted from the refineries and
chemical plants and the illnesses in the
community, he continued.

The major health problems in the community are
associated with benzene and hydrogen sulfide,
which attack the nervous system, he explained.
Children are suffering from dyslexia, and schools
have a high dropout rate, he said. He asserted
that society will pay for all of these problems. Mr.
Kelley noted that he has spoken before Congress
on this issue, and he believes that he is starting to
gain some ground with EPA. We cannot let
industry hide underthe veil of homeland security,
he declared, adding that there should be more of

a focus on the security of people who are being
contaminated by industry. Mr. Kelley also noted
that he is trying to acquire the funding to open an
environmental health education resource center in
his community. He is attempting to get industry to
invest in the center, he said, because companies
are supposed to be reinvesting in the
communities in which they operate.

Ms. Tucker stated that she believes that a
community environmental health education
resource center is an excellent idea. She
suggested that Mr. Kelley read the cumulative risk
report. Communities do not have any tools to
work with, she explained, but the cumulative risk
tools outlined in the report provide hope. Ms.
Wilma Subra, Louisiana Environmental Action
Network, New Iberia, Louisiana, and member of
the Air and Water Subcommittee of the NEJAC,
suggested that Mr. Kelley develop a "Multiple,
Aggregate, and Cumulative Risks and Impacts"
matrix for his community similar to the ones
provided in the April 2004 NEJAC conference
binder.

Mr. Wlliams suggested that the Executive Council
solicit comments from Native Hawaiians because
they face the same issues as were discussed by
other presenters during the public comment
period.

3.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD HELD
ON APRIL 14, 2004

This section summarizes the comments
presented to the Executive Council during the
public comment period held on April 14, 2004,
along with the questions and observations that the
comments prompted from members of the
Executive Council.

Comments are summarized below in the order in
which they were offered.

3.1 Anonymous, Florham Park, New
Jersey

A Florham Park, New Jersey, resident submitted
a written statement to the members of the
Executive Council. In the statement, the
commentator asked the Council whether
taxpayers paid for people to attend the NEJAC
meetings or participants used their own funds to
attend. The commentatorthen suggested that the

2-8

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 and 14, 2004

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

Public Comment Periods

NEJAC meetings be held in places where
environmental injustice has taken place such as
Newark, New Jersey. In addition, the
commentator stated that there is not enough
public notice before the NEJAC meetings and
pointed out that the Federal notice for the current
meeting was posted on March 26, 2004.

3.2 Ms. Carletta Garcia, Laguna Acoma
Coalition for a Safe Environment,
Laguna Acoma, New Mexico

Ms. Carletta Garcia, Laguna Acoma Coalition for
a Safe Environment, Laguna Acoma, New
Mexico, submitted a written statement to the
Executive Council of the NEJAC expressing
concern about uranium mining and its effects on
her community. She explained that the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) that was
passed in 1990 proposes to provide individuals
with "compassionate" payments who have
contracted certain cancers and diseases as a
result of their exposure to radiation; however,
RECA has excluded many cancers and other
diseases that have affected uranium miners who
worked in mines after 1971. She stated "Just how
compassionate is that?" because many Native
Americans in her area rely on the Public Health
Service (PHS) for their medical needs. She also
expressed concern that PHS does not keep very
accurate records; partly due to the lack of funding
and job downsizing of the PHS. In addition, Ms.
Garcia expressed concern that the RECA trust
fund has run out of money and approved
claimants have been given "lOUs" from the U.S.
Department of Justice. The continuation of this
program currently lies in the hands of the U.S.
Senate Judiciary Committee, she wrote.

In her statement, she also wrote that uranium
mining has long and reaching devastation to the
way of life for Native Americans. The water in her
community is contaminated because of mine
tailings that continue to seep into the aquifers and
which will remain hazardous for millions of years,
she wrote. She continued by stating that this
water will eventually reach the rivers that channel
water to largely populated areas and
contamination will spread. Ms. Garcia noted that
many families were exposed to radiation because
of the clothing worn by the miners. This clothing
then was washed with the family laundry. And
some members, who were unlucky enough to live

close to the mines, wer exposed when the winds
carried dust into their homes.

Ms. Garcia wrote that she is one of the
unfortunate ones who grew up living in this
radiation nightmare. Her home was located about
1,000 feet from the uranium mine and the "giant
monster" has consumed her culture, her health,
and her family. She explained that her mother,
the late Ms. Dorothy Purley, was a Uranium miner
and although she was gravely ill, she tirelessly
lobbied for compensation for uranium workers
who died of cancer because of the radiation
contamination. Ms. Garcia noted that since her
mom worked after 1971, she was not eligible for
compensation.

Ms. Garcia is committed to fight for the rights of
her people. She stated in letter that "We have the
right to live a healthy life, we have the right to
have good drinking water, and we have the right
to breathe clean, fresh air. We have the right to
ask the EPA to protect us, because that is their
job. It is their job to strengthen the laws that
protect us, to be the voice that speaks for us."
She concluded her statement by saying that her
mother always told her never to complain unless
she had some answers for her complaints. Ms.
Garcia's answers include, solar, wind and water
generated power; no nuclear power; and do onto
others as you would have them do onto you; and
most of all, peace."

3.3 Ms. Viola Waghiyi, Alaska Community
Action on Toxics, Anchorage, Alaska

Ms. Viola Waghiyi, Alaska Community Action on
Toxics (ACAT), Anchorage, Alaska, stated that
ACAT is a nonprofit organization that empowers
individuals and tribes seeking assistance with
toxic contamination issues that affect human
health and the environment. Half of the
organization's constituents are indigenous people
living in Alaska who continue to practice their
traditional subsistence lifestyle and culture. Ms.
Waghiyi noted that two of her colleagues had
testified at the December 2001 NEJAC meeting
held in Seattle, Washington, but had not received
any follow up to their concerns.

Alaska has 700 formerly used defense sites
(FUDS), she said, two of which are located on St.
Lawrence Island near Nome, Alaska. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13, and 14, 2004

2-9

-------
Public Comment Periods

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

for the cleanup of the two FUDS on St. Lawrence
Island, she asserted, and USACE has been
criticized for failing to adequately investigate the
chemical and munitions hazards at the 1,500
FUDS that exist across the country. The people
of St. Lawrence Island have expressed concern
that USACE has ignored advice from workers who
witnessed the dumping of toxic contaminants and
munitions, she stated. ACAT believes that the
science of USACE is biased, she declared.

The people of St. Lawrence Island also are
concerned about health problems associated with
military contamination, including cancer, diabetes,
reproductive problems, nervous and immune
system disorders, and learning disabilities, she
said. A study funded by the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences revealed that the
people who live on St. Lawrence Island have
elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
in their blood, she noted. Continuing, Ms.
Waghiyi asserted that the military has caused
impacts that are devastating to the land and
environment that the people in her community
depend on to support their traditional subsistence
lifestyle and culture.

USACE has stated that the water in the Suqi
River at the Northeast Cape FUDS is safe to
drink, but ACAT's analysis of the water revealed
high levels of PCBs, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH), and pesticides, she said.
She pointed out that EPA reviewed the Northeast
Cape FUDS and determined that it ranks high
enough to be included on the National Priorities
List (NPL). EPA has not fulfilled its obligation to
conduct proper oversight of activities of USACE
and has not exerted its regulatory authority to hold
the military accountable for properly cleaning up
the site, she declared.

Ms. Waghiyi requested that EPA take immediate
action to assist the people of St. Lawrence Island.
EPA should use its oversight and regulatory
authority to protect the health of the people on the
island, she stated.

Following Ms. Waghiyi's presentation, Ms. Tucker
asked the members of the Executive Council
whether they could find out why there has been
no EPA intervention at St. Lawrence Island. Mr.
Lee noted that the Executive Council would look
into the issue. Ms. Tucker informed Ms. Waghiyi
that the Executive Council understood her
situation and pointed out that it is frustrating to

have people return to the NEJAC because
nothing had been done to remedy their problems.

Mr. Williams noted that the testimony of Ms.
Waghiyi provided another example of issues
involving DoD. He then questioned whether the
NEJAC should solicit a formal presentation from
DoD to discuss its obligations and relationship
with EPA. There is a lack of response to
impacted people and DoD and EPA should be
able to find a resolution, Mr. Williams said. Ms.
Tucker said that this was an excellent idea and
reiterated that there is a high degree of frustration
in communities where Federal facilities are
located. Mr. Lee responded that the NEJAC will
look into having DoD come to the next meeting of
the NEJAC to provide explanations. He then
stated that the NEJAC meeting is not necessarily
the best or right place for communities to raise
their issues. Identifying the appropriate EPA
office and working through that office to follow up
is important, he said. Wth respect to St.
Lawrence Island, Mr. Lee stated that EPA
Headquarters will follow up with Region 10 and
will have the right person get in touch with Ms.
Waghiyi.

Noting that Alaskan Natives are the "NEJAC's
new Mossville," Ms. Kingfisher pointed out that
eight representatives from Alaskan Native
Communities were on the agenda to present
testimony. Ms. Kingfisher questioned when
something would be done to assist Alaskan
Natives. She stated that it is heartbreaking to
listen to all their testimony, and she pointed out
that the burden is always on the communities to
travel to the NEJAC meeting and to perform their
own research. She then suggested that the next
meeting of the NEJAC be held in Alaska.

Mr. Lee noted that Alaskan issues have been on
the table for a long time. The NEJAC encourages
people to come and present their testimony, he
said, but they must realize that the NEJAC is not
the only body that can address issues. As an
advisory committee, the NEJAC provides advice
to the EPA Administrator on how to address these
issues, he said. The NEJAC is not the entity that
will really be addressing a specific community's
problems, and people should not have undue
expectations of what the NEJAC can accomplish,
he stated. Mr. Wlliams responded that he
understood Mr. Lee with regard to finding the
proper forum to voice issues, noting that he has
had trouble finding the proper forum to voice

2-10

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 and 14, 2004

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

Public Comment Periods

concerns associated with the Tulalip Tribes. He
then stated that there are 228 tribes in Alaska,
and plenty of legitimate environmental justice
concerns exist the state. The NEJAC should help
find legitimate mechanisms for Alaskan Natives to
use, he stated; otherwise, they will continue to
come to the NEJAC for help. Mr. Lee responded
that the best way to approach this issue was to
discuss it with EPA Region 10 and develop a
"thought-out" set of strategies.

Ms. Tucker added that the DoD problem extends
beyond Alaska. DoD is continually able to escape
addressing the problems that it has created, and
she suggested that the NEJAC be proactive and
send a letter to DoD itself because she is not
willing to sit on the Executive Council and hear
the same testimonies every year without taking
any action. She stated that DoD should have
public hearings in Alaska and other states where
it has caused contamination. Ms. Nelson agreed
with Ms. Tucker and asked whether the Federal
Facilities Working Group of the NEJAC is
addressing DoD sites. Mr. Lee replied that the
Working Group is addressing both DoD and DOE
sites. Ms. Nelson then suggested that people
who are concerned about DoD sites meet with
members of the Federal Facilities Working Group.
Mr. Parras also agreed with Ms. Tucker and
stated that, even as an advisory committee, the
NEJAC should have the courtesy to address
public comments and referthe commenters to the
appropriate agencies instead of making people
wait several years for a response.

Ms. Eady then stated that EPA should seriously
consider placing an Alaskan representative on the
Executive Council of the NEJAC. Ms. Subra
added that holding a meeting of the NEJAC in
Alaska would be good; however, she did not want
to wait until the next meeting to begin to address
the issues identified. She suggested that Mr. Lee
and other EPA OEJ staff identify the stakeholders
who may be able to address environmental issues
that effect Alaskan Natives and ask them to begin
a dialogue with Alaskan community members.
Ms. Judith Espinosa, ATR Institute, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, and member of the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC, asked
Ms. Waghiyi whether anyone at EPA Region 10
had come to visit her community. Ms. Waghiyi
stated that a representative of EPA Region 10
had visited her community. She pointed out that
DoD had established a restoration advisory board

on St. Lawrence Island; however, DoD has not
addressed the advisory board's concerns, she
claimed. Ms. Waghiyi requested that the advisory
board be involved at the beginning of the planning
process when the 700 FUDS in Alaksa are being
addressed instead of simply being told what DoD
is going to do.

3.4 Ms. Rosalie Kalastook, Association of
Village Council Presidents, Inc.,
Bethel, Alaska

Providing background information on her
organization, Ms. Rosalie Kalastook, Association
of Village Council Presidents, Inc. (AVCP), Bethel,
Alaska, stated that AVCP is a nonprofit
organization that serves 56 tribes in Alaska. The
tribal communities are located 10 to 50 miles
apart and are low-income communities, she
explained. Fuel costs are very high, she stated,
and groceries are difficult to afford. Because of
the high costs, she continued, the subsistence
lifestyle is very important to the communities.
Traditional foods are being contaminated, she
said, and the legacy of toxics is being passed on
to future generations.

Ms. Kalastook then stated that many villages have
uncontrolled landfills, several of which are more
than 30 years old and leach contaminants into
water systems. Although contaminants are
abundant in the villages, many people are
unaware of the damage they cause, she
explained.

Along the Kuskokwim River, which provides
approximately 85 percent of their subsistence
foods, lies a mercury mine, an abandoned
platinum mine, an abandoned Air Force Base, a
methane site, and a proposed gold mine, she
said. The village residents suffer from asthma,
cancer, birth defects, and learning disabilities, she
explained. Although EPA's Tribal General
Assistance Program (GAP) has enabled tribal
communities to address some of these issues,
more help is needed, she said. Ms. Kalastook
requested that the NEJAC provide additional
assistance in Alaska. There are too many
environmental justice issues in Alaska, she
declared, and more than writing of reports is
required. She requested that the NEJAC make
the necessary recommendations to help Alaska
achieve the environmental justice that it deserves.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13, and 14, 2004

2-11

-------
Public Comment Periods

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

3.5 Mr. Roy Matsuno, Ugashik Traditional
Village, Anchorage, Alaska

Expressing his concern about funding for
brownfields sites, Mr. Roy Matsuno, Ugashik
Traditional Village, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that
funding for Alaskan tribal brownfields programs
was cut in 2003. He pointed out that money is
available for corporate and other brownfields
programs but not for tribal programs. Ugashik
was one of the few Alaskan Native villages to
receive a targeted brownfields assessment, he
said, and his village was depending on receiving
additional funds to perform cleanup actions. Mr.
Matsuno requested that the brownfields funds be
reinstated or that EPA assist in the cleanup of his
village.

According to Mr. Matsuno, asbestos is blowing
across his village from closed cannery factories.
In addition, he continued, the village is concerned
about contamination in a lake where the Army
used to dump materials. Mr. Matsuno pointed
out that there are high cancer rates near other
FUDS that lie close to the village.

Mr. Parras asked Mr. Matsuno whether his tribe is
recognized by the state of Alaska. Mr. Matsuno
responded that the tribe is recognized by the
state, but he pointed out that the state is not very
eager to work with tribes. Mr. Parras then asked
whether there is still funding for brownfields sites
in Alaska but just not for tribes. Mr. Matsuno
stated that the brownfields funding for Alaskan
tribes was cut from $2 million to $200,000.
Corporations are different than tribes because
corporations make profits, he stated. Mr. Parras
asked whether the lack of funding is causing his
tribe to live on contaminated property because it
has no resources to clean up the land. Mr.
Matsuno replied that the funding was taken away
after the targeted brownfields assessment was
performed.

Mr. Williams stated that the Governor of Alaska
has been arguing with EPA about funding issues
for the last few years. Mr. Williams asked Mr.
Matsuno whether the state of Alaska has made
any commitments to clean up any of the sites that
it has asked EPA not to get involved with. Mr.
Matsuno replied that the state had not committed
any money for the sites, and he noted that the
governor had backed off from trying to transfer
EPA funds into state hands.

Ms. Espinosa asked Mr. Matsuno to clarify
whether the state of Alaska had refused to take
brownfields funding from EPA. Mr. Matsuno
explained that the state had tried to take over the
brownfields program from EPA but that it stopped
pursuing the takeover because of a backlash from
the tribes and EPA. Alaskan Senator Stevens
wrote a rider to a bill that took away cleanup
funding for tribes, Mr. Matsuno said.

Ms. Nelson then asked whether anyone attending
the NEJAC meeting worked for the brownfields
program and whether something could be done to
make the tribes eligible for future brownfields
funding. Mr. Lee responded that Ms. Linda
Garczynski, Director, EPA Office of Brownfields
Cleanup and Redevelopment, was in attendance
and would be at the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee meeting.

3.6 Mr. Randall Mitchell, Treme for
Environmental Justice, New Orleans,
Louisiana

Stating that he must place "God first because man
continues to fail his community," Mr. Randall
Mitchell, Treme for Environmental Justice, New
Orleans, Louisiana, stated that cancer is epidemic
in the Treme community. The community is being
contaminated by the former All States Sales and
United Chemical Company facilities, he explained.
While operating, these companies mixed and sold
chemicals such as creosote, rat poison, and roach
poison, he said. When the companies closed
their facilities, they left numerous tanks of
solvents to rot away, he stated.

According to the state of Louisiana's Office of
Toxicology and Epidemiology, Treme has the
worst cancer problem in Louisiana, Mr. Mitchell
said. He described how the community has
suffered from cases of throat, liver, lung, and
brain cancer. Potential contaminants that could
be causing these illnesses include lead,
perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and vinyl
chloride, he stated.

Mr. Mitchell requested help in identifying the
contamination in the community and having the
source removed. He also requested assistance in
solving the community's health problems in
collaboration with public health agencies. Treme
should be declared a Superfund site, he stated.
He noted that more industrial facilities currently

2-12

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 and 14, 2004

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

Public Comment Periods

are being planned for construction within the
community.

Mr. Mitchell asserted that racism is involved in the
problem and is a major impediment to
establishing trust in the community. New Orleans
is one of the most racist and segregated citites in
the United States, he declared.

Ms. Tucker asked Mr. Mitchell whether any
regulatory agencies has investigated any of the
contaminated sites in Treme. Mr. Mitchell
explained that Louisiana DEQ sent a
representative to perform soil sampling, however,
the person left DEQ two weeks after collecting the
samples. "We can't trust the DEQ," he said. Ms.
Tucker informed Mr. Mitchell that the Removal
Program under Superfund at EPA could perform
assessments for communities that suspect that
they are immediately at risk from waste
contamination. Mr. Mitchell noted that there are
multiple contaminated sites in the community, and
he explained that a 27-block area has soil
contaminated by chemical releases from former
dry cleaners. Ms. Tucker suggested that Mr.
Mitchell contact the EPA Region 6 Removal
Program and request that EPA perform a site
assessment of the community. Ms. Subra added
that she had introduced Mr. Mitchell to staff from
Region 6 and that she had requested that Region
6 perform an evaluation of the contamination in
his community.

3.7 Ms. Yvonne Powell, People Effected
Against Chemical Eugenics, Richton,
Mississippi

Stating that "she is sick and tired of being sick,"
Ms. Yvonne Powell, People Effected Against
Chemical Eugenics, Richton, Mississippi, pointed
out that in the past she had presented testimony
before the NEJAC. Everyone has a different
agenda that does not always include addressing
the concerns in her community, she said, and she
noted that EPA had visited her community but did
not do anything to help the residents. EPA
informed them that the creosote blocks used by
members of the community for heating and
cooking purposes could be causing some of the
illnesses in the community, but no one has
addressed this possibility during EPA's
assessment, she said.

Ms. Powell explained that the community
originally thought that contamination was coming
from a drinking water well. EPA conducted an
assessment, she said, and determined that the
well water was safe to drink; however, EPA failed
to come to the conclusion that the creosote blocks
were causing problems. Ms. Powell charged that
the assessment was biased, and she requested
that someone oversee and review the work
performed by EPA Region 4.

Expressing her frustration with having to return to
the NEJAC, Ms. Powell questioned why EPA's
regional administrators were not in attendance.
The people who need to hear the public testimony
are not here, she stated. She then reiterated her
desire for another EPA region to provide oversight
of Region 4.

Ms. Tucker apologized for EPA Region 4's work
and pointed out that she had been to the
community and had seen the creosote plant. The
plant is very close to locations where people live,
she said, and she noted that had seen the
illnesses in the community. Region 4 has failed in
its intervention there, Ms. Tucker stated, and
something is very wrong in this area. EPA
responds to political pressure, she said, and she
stated that she would work with Ms. Powell to
resolve the problem.

Ms. Nelson asked Ms. Powell to describe the
results of the assessment conducted by EPA.
Ms. Powell stated that EPA did not find anything.
There are many children with cancer in the
community, she stated, and she described how
the plant sold creosote blocks to the community
for use for heating and cooking. Ms. Tucker
stated that she could not understand how EPA
could not find contamination in Richton. It's
impossible to live that close to a creosote plant
without being exposed, she emphasized. Ms.
Powell pointed out that the creosote blocks sold
by the plant contained high levels of dioxins.

3.8 Ms. Shawna Larson, Alaska
Community Action on Toxics,
Anchorage, Alaska

Stating that she is used to government rhetoric,
Ms. Shawna Larson, Alaska Community Action on
Toxics, Anchorage, Alaska, said that she had
heard the claimes from Federal agencies about
their lack of money and had heard them claim that

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13, and 14, 2004

2-13

-------
Public Comment Periods

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

everything is somebody else's job. She stated
that the NEJAC should have an Alaskan Native
representative on its Executive Council. The
representative should be a traditional, tribal
individual, not someone from Anchorage, she
said.

Ms. Larson stated that she serves on the Federal
Facilities Working Group of the NEJAC, and she
expressed her concern that the Working Group
had not considered Alaska when analyzing FUDS
in the United States. Ms. Larson noted that she
was told that there were not enough funds to
conduct site visits to Alaska. Alaska has over 600
FUDS and nearly half of the nation's tribes, she
explained, and it does not make sense that there
were not enough funds to send two people to
Alaska.

Ms. Larson stated that as a native person who is
directly affected by military sites, she must
formally protest the Working Group's final report.
The NEJAC asked her to serve on the Working
Group, she said, and then told her that there was
not enough money to visit Alaska. This is a prime
example of environmental injustice, she declared.
She requested that EPA recognize that Alaska
should be included in all aspects of environmental
justice efforts in the future.

Mr. Sawyers said that the conclusions and
recommendations outlined in the cumulative risk
report apply to Alaskan communities, and he
invited Ms. Larson to attend the Federal Facilities
Working Group meeting to discuss her concerns.

3.9 Ms. Patricia Rife, Grants Plus, Atlanta,
Georgia

Stating that she was impressed with the
cumulative risk report, Ms. Patricia Rife, Grants
Plus, Atlanta, Georgia, explained that she was
worried about the areas of concern regarding
disproportionate risks. Indigenous people request
that their voice be heard and that they be
provided with funding for training and
environmental protection planning, she said.
There are plenty of government and EPA funds
available, she asserted, and the grant process
should be made more fair and transparent to
prevent environmental injustice.

Citing the more than 600 FUDS in Alaska, Ms.
Rife suggested that the NEJAC send a letter to
DoD in order to encourage that agency to take

action. Alaskan Native women have the highest
rates of cancer in the United States, she stated.
The enforcement branch of EPA needs to
leverage its regulatory clout and implement
enforcement actions, she declared. People will
pay attention to the cumulative risk report, she
explained, and it can be used as a platform for
action. EPA should not back down, she stated.
In conclusion, Ms. Rife requested training for
indigenous people so that they can prepare plans
and learn assessment tools that will hemp them
develop creative strategies themselves. The
$200,000 that currently is available for Alaskan
tribes will not go far and it is not enough to initiate
cleanup actions, she said.

3.10 Ms. Doris Bradshaw, Defense Depot
Concerned Citizens Committee,
Memphis, Tennessee

Emphasizing how critical it is to address issues
associated with Federal facilities, Ms. Doris
Bradshaw, Defense Depot Concerned Citizens
Committee, Memphis, Tennessee, pointed out
that DoD needs to send representative to the
meeting of the NEJAC. DoD representatives
attended the NEJAC meeting in December 1999,
and a memorandum of agreement outlining what
DoD could do to help communities was signed,
she said. More than four years have passed
since that meeting, and EPA has failed to address
any of the Federal facility issues that were
discussed. Ms. Bradshaw stated that she was
tired of returning to the NEJAC meeting year after
year, but her community continues to be
contaminated.

Ms. Bradshaw stated that she was upset that a
case study of the Defense Depot Memphis was
included in the cumulative risk report without any
discussion with the Federal Facilities Working
Group. The process is flawed if EPA adds
sections to the report without discussing them
with the Federal Facilities Working Group, she
said. The report contains segments in which EPA
tries to give itself credit, she said, but EPA has not
done a good job of handling Federal facilities.
EPA keeps telling communities it does not the
authority to act and that impacted communities
should approach a different organization, she
explained. EPA has input regarding how Federal
facilities are going to be cleaned up, she said, but
EPA is not making itself heard "unless the
benefitting community is white."

2-14

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 and 14, 2004

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

Public Comment Periods

DoD currently is cleaning up a site in Spring
Valley in Washington, D.C., she pointed out. The
site is located in a rich, predominantly white
community where houses were built on top of
World War l-era military munitions, she explained.
Minority communities are treated differently than
white communities during cleanup actions, she
said. Ms. Bradshaw reiterated that EPA is
supposed to protect human health, and she
indicated that she will continue to attend NEJAC
meetings until EPA does its job.

Following Ms. Bradshaw's testimony, Ms. Tucker
confirmed that Ms. Bradshaw would be attending
the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
meeting. Mr. Sawyers pointed out that the
cumulative risk report was still in draft form, and
he requested that Ms. Bradshaw submit
recommendations.

3.11 Mr. Dan Jones, Ponca Tribe of Indians,
Ponca City, Oklahoma

Mr. Dan Jones, Ponca Tribe of Indians, Ponca
City, Oklahoma, explained to the Executive
Council that the Ponca Tribe had filed three
lawsuits against Continental Carbon Company
(Continental Carbon) to force it to clean up its
operation and adhere to Federal standards. The
Continental Carbon plant in Ponca City is filthy, he
declared. However, Oklahoma DEQ filed an
Amicus Brief in favor of Continental Carbon that
stated that there is no problem with the operation,
he said.

Mr. Jones explained that Ponca Tribe members
who live close to the plant are filing lawsuits for
damages related to health issues, and the tribe is
attempting to achieve environmental justice. The
tribe filed a petition to the EPA Administrator to
re-open Continental Carbon's Title V air permit
because it contains mistakes and needs to be
strengthened, he said. However, EPA has not
responded to the petition, he said. In addition, he
continued, Oklahoma DEQ needs to withdraw the
Amicus Brief. There are several industry
representatives on DEQ's board, he explained,
but there are no American Indian tribal
representatives. Mr. Jones claimed that in
Oklahoma, the regulated industry is running the
regulators. In conclusion, Mr. Jones requested
that EPA conduct a separate assessment of
Continental Carbon.

Ms. Subra asked Mr. Jones whether the air
program in Oklahoma is delegated to the state.
Mr. Jones responded that the air program is
delegated to the state. Ms. Subra then asked
whether he has considered filing a complaint with
the state agency that has jurisdiction over air
issues because it is not enforcing the
requirements. Mr. Jones indicated that the Ponca
Tribe had filed such a complaint. He then invited
the NEJAC to conduct a site visit.

Ms. Espinosa asked Mr. Jones whether
Oklahoma DEQ had sent a notice of violation
(NOV) to Continental Carbon. Mr. Jones replied
that Continental Carbon was issued a NOV and
fined $4,800. Ms. Subra asked whether Mr.
Jones had tried to contact the EPA Region 6
Administrator about the issue. Mr. Jones said that
the tribe had contacted the Region 6
Administrator, and Mr. Jones believed that Region
6 would be performing an assessment of
Continental Carbon.

Ms. Subra asked Mr. Jones whether the lawsuit
that the tribe had filed is based on documents
submitted by Continental Carbon showing thatthe
company was out of compliance. Mr. Jones
responded that the lawsuit is based on such
documents. Mr. Wlliams asked Mr. Jones
whether he had been working with EPA's
American Indian Environmental Office or its
counterpart in EPA Region 6 to develop a strategy
and whether either office is providing any support.
Mr. Jones replied that the EPA Region 6 has been
very supportive. Mr. Wlliams suggested that Mr.
Jones continue the dialogue with Region 6 to
obtain assistance and to identify steps for
achieving a solution. Ms. Henneke then asked
whether Continental Carbon is the only carbon
plant in Oklahoma and whether it is the only
source of black carbon in the state. Mr. Jones
confirmed that Continental Carbon is the only
source of black carbon in Oklahoma.

3.12 Mr. Benton Davis, Native Village of
Selawik, Selawik, Alaska

Expressing concern about the impact of pollution
on human health and migratory animals, fish, and
birds, Mr. Benton Davis, Native Village of Selawik,
Selawik, Alaska, stated that fish and animals must
be tested for contaminants after the traditional
native processes of storage and cooking. Mr.
Davis wondered whether the impact of

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13, and 14, 2004

2-15

-------
Public Comment Periods

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

contamination on fish and animals worsened
when they are stored or cooked traditionally. We
must determine how pollutants impact human
health, he said, because pollution has a
disproportionate effect on the traditional
subsistence lifestyle of Alaskan Native
populations.

Mr. Davis requested that EPA provide feedback
about the results of its testing of contaminants. In
addition, native tribes need more information and
assistance to address health problems such as
asthma and cancer, he said. These ailments
have increased exponentially in Selawik because
of a 14-year-old lead and zinc mine owned by
Tech-Cominco, he stated. Mr. Davis pointed out
that there were very few occurrences of cancer in
the tribe's history before the mine was opened.
EPA should enforce all regulations when dealing
with this corporate polluter, he declared.

Ms. Eady asked Mr. Davis whether he had a
specific request forthe NEJAC or EPA. Mr. Davis
asked the NEJAC to request that EPA investigate
the issues he had discussed. EPA tests for
pollutants in fish and animals, he said, but it does
not test meat and fish after they are processed in
traditional ways. Ms. Eady informed Mr. Davis
that the NEJAC would request that EPA look into
the issues and would forward any related
correspondence to him.

3.13 Mr. Pat Bryant, Urban Strategies, New
Orleans, Louisiana

Pointing out that he served on the first NEJAC
Executive Council, Mr. Pat Bryant, Urban
Strategies, NewOrleans, Louisiana, noted that his
comments were to be considered for the
cumulative risk report. There continue to be
communities outside the ring of environmental
protection, he said, and the current permitting
process takes little account of the cumulative
environmental stress to air, land, and water.
Zones of "environmental sacrifice" continue to
exist, he explained, and these happen
predominantly in communities where people of
color and low-income people live.

One environmental problem that the state of
Louisiana ignores concerns solid waste collection,
said Mr. Bryant. Privatization in the 1960s and
1970s of solid waste collection and disposal
created racial and economic zones of distinction
in New Orleans, he stated. Local garbage

collection is dominated by Waste Management,
Inc., he explained, and a loophole in its contract
allows company to not pick up all the trash that is
put out for collection. The trash that is not
collected finds its way to vacant lots and houses
in minority and low-income neighborhoods, he
said. Mr. Bryant asserted that the city does not fix
the problem because the waste management
companies provide politicians with large campaign
contributions. The mayor of New Orleans
currently is reviewing a proposal to extend Waste
Management, Inc's, contract, Mr. Bryant said, and
the mayor recently fired the city sanitation director
because the director refused to approve the
contract.

Mr. Bryant also noted that Waste Management,
Inc., has been submitting invoices to the city for
work that was not done. Urban Strategies has
filed complaints with the U.S. Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and Waste Management, Inc.,
he said, but nothing is happening. Many
residents do not even know which day of the
week the company will pick up garbage, and the
company routinely leaves behind 10 percent of
trash each month, he added.

Mr. Bryant requested that the NEJAC ask the
appropriate House and Senate committees to
schedule hearings to address the issue and to
invite leaders of affected communities to testify.
EPA should exercise its oversight authority in this
aspect of environmental protection and should
direct Louisiana DEQ to improve garbage
collection in NewOrleans, he said.

Pointing out that Mr. Bryant is a veteran member
of the environmental justice movement, Ms.
Tucker stated that she had never viewed trash
collection as an environmental justice issue. She
pointed out that there appears to be significant
corruption of political officials by waste
management organizations, and the issue
deserves a major investigation. Ms. Nelson
asked Mr. Bryant whether the city's contracts with
Waste Management, Inc., really allow the
company not to pick up all trash put out for
collection. Mr. Bryant clarified that if trash is left
at a vacant lot or house, the company does not
have to pick it up. In addition, the company does
not have to collect anything weighing more than
75 pounds, he said, so all heavy waste materials
end up in vacant lots. Ms. Nelson then asked
whether larger residential units have to arrange
for private garbage collection. Mr. Bryant

2-16

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 and 14, 2004

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

Public Comment Periods

confirmed that residential buildings larger than a
four-plex have to arrange for private collection.
Ms. Nelson asked whether the new contract had
been signed yet. Mr. Bryant explained that it is on
the mayor's desk and that he will probably sign it
even though state law requires that the work be
rebid. Ms. Nelson suggested that he try to find a
way to bring this issue into the public light. She
also suggested that he try to find a public interest
law firm to pursue the contracting issue.

Ms. Tucker then stated that it is often not good
enough to fight against something, and she
suggested that Mr. Bryant fight for something
such as sustainable waste practices. In addition
to pursuing accountability, Mr. Bryant should
pursue a parallel struggle for increased recycling,
she said. Ms. Nelson pointed out that there is
economic value associated with recycling. Mr.
Bryant noted that recycling was saved in New
Orleans a few years ago, and recycling efforts
have recently doubled in the community with the
help of public outreach activities.

3.14 Ms. Hazel Apok, Maniilaq Association,
Kotzebue, Alaska

Ms. Hazel Apok, Maniilaq Association, Kotzebue,
Alaska, stated that she is an Inupiat Eskimo and
that her community is located 40 miles above the
Arctic Circle. Ms. Apok stated that, while
reviewing some of the recent documents
developed by the NEJAC, she was concerned
about the references to Alaskan Natives as
"people of color and low income." The multiple
contaminants affect not only me, she said, but
people of no color and medium to high income as
well. She pointed out that the multiple stressors
identified by the Executive Council do not know
whether she is a person of color or low income.
They affect all living things, she stated, as well as
the air, water, and land. Although people with
medium to high incomes have the opportunity to
move away from contaminated sites, those who
are unable or unwilling to leave their homelands
are left to deal with cumulative risks and impacts,
she said.

As an Alaskan Native who depends on a
subsistence lifestyle, Ms. Apok stated that she is
alarmed at the rate of pollution and how it affects
the harvesting of food. We need to remove
imaginary boundaries and lines between
countries, she explained, and focus attention on

worldwide pollution. Environmental laws exist by
which everyone should live, she said, and the
answer lies in regulation. Ms. Apok pointed out
that waivers and exemptions for those who
generate pollution are killing the planet Earth.

3.15 Mr. Jose Bravo, Just Tradition
Alliance, San Diego, California

Pointing out that he used to serve on a
subcommittee of the NEJAC, Mr. Jose Bravo, Just
Tradition Alliance, San Diego, California, stated
that his organization currently is working on five
environmental justice sites in the United States.
These sites include Kelly Air Force Base in San
Antonio, Texas; Ponca City, Oklahoma; Arizona
Portland Cement; Rillito, Arizona; and sites in Los
Angeles, California; and Rubbertown, Kentucky.
Mr. Bravo focused his presentation on the
Rubbertown, Kentucky, site and read a statement
prepared by Rubbertown Emergency Action.

There are 11 chemical plants in Rubbertown, he
said, including American Synthetic Rubber,
Dupont, Dow, and Borden Chemicals facilities.
Rubbertown is home to thousands of African-
American and low-income white residents, he
explained, and despite the companies' efforts to
portray themselves as good neighbors, the plants
have a troubling history. In 1965, an explosion
and subsequent fire at the Dupont plant caused
112 deaths, he stated. In the 1970s, workers at
the BF Goodrich plant were diagnosed with a rare
liver cancer that is attributed to vinyl chloride
exposure, he said. In 1985, an explosion at the
Borden Chemicals plant caused three deaths, he
stated. Continuing, Mr. Bravo explained that in
1996, Rubbertown homes were evacuated after a
train containing toxic and explosive chemicals
derailed.

A study conducted in 2003 revealed that air
pollution from the chemical plants was deadly, he
stated. He added that air monitors have detected
hazardous air pollutants from the chemical plants
at levels that are hundreds of times higher than
those considered to be safe by state and local
environmental officials. Mr. Bravo asserted that
workers and community members should be
brought together to tackle each issue because
they are natural allies. He then requested that the
NEJAC ask EPA Region 4 to conduct a site visit
in Rubbertown in order to learn about the
community's concerns.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13, and 14, 2004

2-17

-------
Public Comment Periods

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Ms. Subra pointed out that EPA's new Community
Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) grant
Program is selecting one community to be studied
in each EPA region. Rubbertown was selected in
Region 4, so that community should be receiving
additional attention in the future, she stated.

3.16 Mr. J. Kyle Bryant, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry,
Fayetteville, Georgia

Stating that the current approach to addressing
environmental injustice focuses on brokering
levels of acceptable risks to the "have nots," Mr.
J. Kyle Bryant, U.S. Agency forToxicSubstances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Fayetteville,
Georgia, pointed out that as long as private
industry is driven by profits, there never will be
true collaboration between industry and impacted
communities. As America becomes more
ethnically diverse, the dynamics of power and
privilege also will change, he said. This being the
case, he continued, America's values, priorities,
and national interests will change as well. He
pointed out that one approach to addressing this
reality is for EPA to lead the education of the
entire U.S. population about the connection of
humans to the environment. As Americans
become more informed, their consumer choices
will force industries to augment their processes,
he asserted.

Mr. Bryant then pointed out that when cumulative
risk is discussed, personal economic loss is not
factored into the equation. An example of
personal economic loss involves homeowners
who reside in Superfund or brownfields
communities, he said. Residents of these
communities have to deal with health issues as
well as property devaluation, he pointed out. Mr.
Bryant coined the term "brownhouses" to imply
that residences within Superfund and brownfields
communities are economically stigmatized. There
is an obvious disconnect between EPA and the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), he said. When a lending
institution is involved in the sale of a commercial
or residential property, the institution conducts a
due diligence environmental site assessment, he
explained. If the institution discovers
environmental contamination, the financing
opportunity is destroyed, he said.

Mr. Bryant stated that there needs to be intensive
education of the housing industry, including

banks, lenders, and brokers, about environmental
impacts and public health. Ms. Nelson pointed
out that this is an issue that the Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG)
should investigate. Ms. Nelson then asked Mr.
Lee whether HUD is represented on the IWG. Mr.
Lee confirmed that HUD is a member of the
working group. Ms. Nelson suggested that the
issue of house valuation would be good for HUD
to examine. Ms. Nelson suggested that Mr.
Bryant provide specific examples of bank
comments on financing issues. Mr. Bryant stated
that he would do that, and he pointed out that the
housing industry requires environmental
clearances on property. He noted that EPA can
issue letters to homeowners in Superfund
communities that prohibit people from using
portions of their houses because of
contamination. He pointed out that it is difficult to
sell a house when one has to explain the
associated environmental liabilities to potential
buyers.

3.17 Ms. Anne Rolfes, Louisiana Bucket
Brigade, New Orleans, Louisiana

Stating that she has worked along Cancer Alley in
Louisiana, Ms. Anne Rolfes, Louisiana Bucket
Brigade, New Orleans, Louisiana, expressed her
concern about outstanding NOVs. Enforcing
NOVs seems like a practical way to provide
solutions to many environmental justice problems,
she said. Many communities have several
existing NOVs that only need to be enforced, she
declared.

An Exxon-Mobil facility in Chalmette, Louisiana,
has been averaging one flaring incident every six
days, Ms. Rolfes explained. A neighborhood
block consisting of 17 homes exists near the
facility, she stated, and residents of 16 of the
homes have cancer issues. The facility has
burned noncompliant gas fuel, she explained,
which has resulted in significant sulfur emissions.
There is an existing NOV for the facility, and EPA
assured the community that resolution of the NOV
is forthcoming, she said. Ms. Rolfes requested
that EPA provide the community with a formal,
written update on the status of that particular
NOV.

The lack of NOV enforcement has been an issue
outside EPA Region 6 as well, Ms. Rolfes pointed
out, and she stated that all NOVs should be
enforced. Advising EPA to take such action is a

2-18

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 and 14, 2004

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

Public Comment Periods

practical step that the NEJAC can take to alleviate
many environmental justice issues, she stated.
She also requested that refineries be held
responsible for pollution that results from repeated
accidents.

Refineries and EPA should tell the truth about air
pollution, she said, because residents have the
right to know what kind of air pollution they are
breathing and how it affects their health. In
addition, EPA should stop rubber-stamping
permits, she said. Refineries should not receive
new permits if they are violating environmental
laws, she asserted. In conclusion, Ms. Rolfes
stated that refineries should be good neighbors
and help pay the cost of monitoring for air
contamination.

Mr. Kenneth Warren, Wolf, Block, Schorr and
Solis-Cohen and acting chair of the Enforcement
Subcommittee, suggested that Ms. Rolfes speak
with Ms. Phyllis Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, EPA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA), during the
meeting of the Enforcement Subcommittee.

3.18 Ms. Willye Jean Turner, Educational
Asthma Support Team, New Orleans,
Louisiana

Pointing out that living in New Orleans is a
challenge for people with breathing problems, Ms.
Wllye Jean Turner, Educational Asthma Support
Team, New Orleans, Louisiana, stated that many
chemical plants are located in New Orleans'
neighborhoods. These plants release harmful
pollutants, she declared, and explosions often
release gases into the air. When an explosion
occurs, community residents are told that they are
not in danger if they are not within a certain radius
of the explosion or if the wind is not blowing in
their direction, she explained. But we know that
the chemicals released are harming and polluting
the air we breathe, she stated.

Ms. Turner questioned how EPA can tell people in
the community that they are not being affected by
the releases. When chemicals are released into
the air, they do not remain stationary but instead
are dispersed by wind, she pointed out. Ms.
Turner noted that there has been a rise in asthma
cases, and breathing is becoming more difficult.
She requested that EPA do a better job of
ensuring healthy air and that it provide oversight

to make sure that factories are not breaking
environmental laws.

Ms. Subra asked Ms. Turner whether she knew
the source of the air pollution. Ms. Turner stated
that most of the pollution was coming from Shell
and Mobil plants across the river. EPA has
performed testing in the yard of her home, but the
Agency told her that there is nothing to be
concerned about, she said.

3.19 Ms. Debra Ramirez, Citizens Against
Contamination, Lake Charles,
Louisiana

Pointing out that she had appeared before the
NEJAC several times in the past, Ms. Debra
Ramirez, Citizens Against Contamination, Lake
Charles, Louisiana, stated that she is tired of the
bad health and suffering in her community. Three
different surveys have exposed the health
problems in her community and EPA's inactivity,
she said. People are suffering from
endometriosis, asthma, emphysema, other
respiratory problems, skin rashes, ovarian tumors,
and cancer, she stated. Various industries
operating in the area, including Vista and PPG
Industries, are polluting the community, she
explained. It is time for EPA to address cancer
clusters and stop running from the truth, she
declared. EPA and Louisiana DEQ already know
about the problems in the community, she stated,
but they are ignoring the contamination because
it would be expensive to remediate. Once people
realize what is happening to them, the
government is going to be inundated with
lawsuits, she asserted.

Pointing out that Ms. Ramirez was an original
community leader in Mossville, Louisiana, Ms.
Subra noted that environmental injustice is a big
problem in Mossville and much evaluation is
needed to address the problems that its residents
face. She suggested that Ms. Ramirez attend the
meeting of the Health and Research
Subcommittee scheduled for the next day.

Ms. Eady then asked Mr. Lee what had transpired
since a joint meeting regarding Mossville that was
held by the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee several years earlier. Mr. Lee
noted that ATSDR performed a study of Mossville
in 2000 and that there has been some
subsequent attention to the issues EPA Region 6.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13, and 14, 2004

2-19

-------
Public Comment Periods

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Ms. Ramirez then pointed out that many people
are unaware of the dangers they are exposed to
while living among huge industries. She
reiterated that people in Mossville are exposed to
dioxin levels that are far above EPA's standards.

3.20 Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous
Environmental Network, Bemidji,
Minnesota

After complimenting the dedication of the
members of the Executive Council, Mr. Tom
Goldtooth, IEN, Bemidji, Minnesota, stated that he
wished to address some issues that had been
brought before the NEJAC in past years, but have
not been adequately addressed. One of these
issues, explained Mr. Goldtooth, was a request
made by Alaskan Native tribes to have a meeting
of the NEJAC in Alaska. The number of NEJAC
meeting participants from Alaska has increased,
he said, and the public comments from Alaskan
Natives have demonstrated the serious
environmental protection and health issues that
they face. In 2001, EPA's OEJ had hosted an
environmental justice workshop with other Federal
agencies at the Alaska Forum on the
Environment, he stated. At the forum, EPA made
commitments to develop strategies for addressing
environmental issues that affect Alaskan Natives
and to develop some steps for action, he noted.
These commitments have not been kept, he
pointed out, and IEN is requesting that the NEJAC
address this matter.

Mr. Goldtooth also noted that various
presentations have emphasized the importance of
the NEJAC advising the EPA Administrator about
issues associated with the Executive order on
environmental justice regarding activities that EPA
is pursuing in the international community. EPA
and other Federal agencies are active in global
initiatives such as the United Nations (UN)
Framework Convention on Climate Change, he
said. In addition, the UN Environmental
Programme undertook a process to develop a
global assessment of mercury, he stated. To
complete the global mercury assessment, a
working group consisting of representatives of
government, nongovernment, and private sector
organizations was established, he explained. The
working group concluded that there was sufficient
evidence of mercury's adverse effects on human
health and the environment to warrant
international action, he stated. Mr. Goldtooth
asserted that the NEJAC, through its International

Subcommittee, must be active in such
international forums to advise EPA on policy
matters that effect minority communities and
indigenous peoples.

In conclusion, Mr. Goldtooth presented the
members of the Executive Council with an IEN
fact sheet that discusses the issues of climate
change and global warming. Since the early
1990s, the ecosystems of Mother Earth have
been compounding in change, he stated. When
this phenomenon is combined with the continued
production and release of toxic chemicals, a crisis
is created that disproportionately impacts minority
communities and indigenous people, he
explained. Mr. Goldtooth asserted that the
NEJAC needs to schedule a session to discuss
this issue.

Ms. Eady requested that Mr. Goldtooth provide a
copy of his testimony to Mr. Philip Hillman,
Polaroid Corporation, and chair of the
International Subcommittee of the NEJAC. Mr.
Williams noted that the Tulalip Tribes had recently
finished a climate change model of the
Snohomish River, which runs next to its
reservation. The model revealed that land use
impacts exacerbate the effects of climate change,
he said, and one way to minimize climate change
is to address some of the initial land use impacts.

3.21 Ms. Susana Almanza, People
Organized in the Defense of Earth and
Her Resources (PODER), Austin, Texas

Ms. Susana Almanza, People Organized in the
Defense of Earth and Her Resources (PODER),
Austin, Texas, and a member of the Enforcement
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, stated that people
of color and indigenous communities often are
disproportionately impacted by environmental
hazards. These situations have come about
through the targeting of poor communities by
polluters, unjust land and economic policies, and
unjust application and enforcement of
environmental laws, she said.

Since 1993, community leaders and organizations
have filed 143 complaints with EPA under Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to address
environmental racism, she stated. Of the 143
complaints, not one has been resolved in favor of
the complainant, she explained. Ms. Almanza
emphasized that most of the complaints were
dismissed or rejected for technical reasons and

2-20

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 and 14, 2004

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

Public Comment Periods

not because of a failure to show discriminatory
effects. The lack of involvement of the
complainants in the review, investigation, and
decision-making process is troubling, she stated.

Ms. Almanza then asked the members of the
Executive Council about the current status of the
Draft Revised Guidance for Investigating Title VI
Complaints. The Southwest Network for
Environmental and Economic Justice had
concerns about the initial guidance and submitted
comments in the hope of strengthening the
document, she explained. The Network was very
displeased with the revised guidance and now
believes that it should be abandoned altogether,
she stated. The guidance failed to incorporate
any substantive recommendations made by the
Network, she said, and it is unresponsive to
concerns raised by the environmental justice
community. In addition, she continued, many
provisions that place Title VI complainants at a
greater disadvantage were introduced into the
guidance. For example, she stated, no rights of
appeal for complainants are built into the
guidance. A complainant can challenge EPA's
finding in court, but many community residents
lack the resources to hire a lawyer or pay for
studies that are required to prove a claim, she
said. Ms. Almanza pointed out that in most
cases, the complainant or community is totally
dependent on EPA to ensure civil rights.

Ms. Almanza declared that the NEJAC, along with
other environmental organizations must pursue
justice in communities. The health and lives of
the people in our communities are not for sale,
she stated. In conclusion, she requested that the
NEJAC, EPA, and OEJ address her concerns in
a face-to-face meeting and discuss what steps
should be taken. Ms. Almanza requested a
response from the members of the Executive
Council by May 31, 2004.

Mr. Lee told Ms. Almanza that the Executive
Council would make sure that EPA's Office of
Civil Rights received her handouts and would
follow up on her request. Ms. Espinosa pointed
out that civil rights are being eroded in
communities because of inaccurate
interpretations of laws, and she encouraged the
NEJAC to press this issue. She stated that the
NEJAC should try to formulate a response close
to the deadline requested by Ms. Almanza. Ms.
Almanza pointed out that EPA is required to

respond to complaints within a certain number of
days, but a complaint that she filed in 1995 is still
pending. At least the NEJAC would be
responding to her request, she said, noting that
EPA does not even follow its own laws. In
addition, she continued, EPA should notify
complainants when it makes arrangements and
deals with states. Ms. Espinosa pointed out that
the burden is on the communities to check on the
status of Title VI complaints and that it would be
beneficial to post complaint status information on
a web site. That kind of communication would do
a lot to alleviate the burden on communities, she
said.

3.22 Mr. Genaro Lopez, Southwest Workers
Union, San Antonio, Texas

Denouncing what he termed EPA's inactive
attitude toward protecting people of color and
poor communities from environmental pollution,
Mr. Genaro Lopez, Southwest Workers Union
(SWU), San Antonio, Texas, stated that EPA
consistently is pulling grassroots representatives
into an ineffective, bureaucratic process that
excludes community voices. Environmental
racism remains alive in minority communities
despite efforts to work with EPA, he said. Minority
communities and workers have their air, health,
and lives compromised by the impacts of polluting
industries, he stated. EPA has turned a blind eye
to the exploitation and poisoning of minority
communities and has failed to provide equal
protection under the law, he declared.

Kelly Air Force Base closed in July 2001, and the
surrounding community has not received any
answers about the contamination of over 30,000
families and 10,000 workers, Mr. Lopez said.
There is no cleanup plan in place, he claimed,
and the Air Force has not accepted any
responsibility for the high level of health problems
found in the surrounding community, which
include cancer, leukemia, asthma, and other
ailments.

SWU was one of the groups in San Antonio
visited by the FFWG of the NEJAC, Mr. Lopez
said. When the FFWG met with community
members after meeting first with the Air Force and
the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District, he
explained, the members of the community were
offended. In addition, the cumulative risk report
falsely states that the Air Force has a great public

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13, and 14, 2004

2-21

-------
Public Comment Periods

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

participation model, he asserted. Community
members do not want to sit on advisory boards,
he declared, explaining that they prefer
participating on boards where decisions are being
made.

EPA needs to take a firm stance against the Bush
Administration and its rollback of air, water, and
soil protection, Mr. Lopez stated. In addition, EPA
has failed to recognize a single case of
environmental racism in the state where the most
Title VI cases have been filed for discriminatory
activity by federally funded entities, he said. Mr.
Lopez pointed out that EPA and the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
had developed a process for resolving Title VI
complaints in Texas, but the communities were
never informed about this process.

The NEJAC has recommended guidelines for
effective public participation, but they are not
being followed by the Air Force, TCEQ, or
ATSDR, he noted. The NEJAC's power to
implement and enforce policies within EPA and
other regulatory agencies needs to be assessed,
he stated. In addition, he continued, EPA and the
NEJAC should implement a tracking system so
that they can track requests and responses and
show accountability to communities. Lack of
accountability is what frustrates people and
causes them to repeatedly come back to the
NEJAC meetings, he explained.

Mr. Lopez requested that EPA act in a
"transparent manner" by becoming more
accessible, accountable, and responsive to
community organizations. EPA should follow the
NEJAC guidelines for public participation, he said.
In addition, he continued, EPA should compel
other government agencies to take action about
the lack of public participation and the prevalence
environmental racism. In conclusion, Mr. Lopez
emphasized that EPA should take a stance on the
cleanup standards that must be achieved in the
community surrounding Kelly Air Force Base and
ensure that those standards are enforced.

Pointing out the persistence of issues related to
Federal facilities and the fact that it had been
approximately ten years since the IWG was
formed, Ms. Espinosa stated that the NEJAC
should invite the Federal defense agencies to
provide a briefing to the Executive Council on
their activities to address environmental justice.

Ms. Tucker suggested that Mr. Lopez attend the
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee meeting
to discuss his interest in Federal facilities. She
also suggested that the Executive Council
consider restructuring the public comment period
because it is hard to devote enough attention to
the comments when it is late at night.

Mr. Lee suggested that Mr. Lopez attend the
discussion of the Office of Inspector General
Report scheduled for April 16,2005. Mr. Lee then
pointed out that, in the past, every concern that
was voiced at the meeting of the NEJAC was
tracked, and letters were sent to all the
commenters. He noted that a lot of paperwork
was required but not a lot of issues were resolved.
The decision-makers need to be the ones who
hear the concerns of the people, he stated. Ms.
Eady emphasized that any commenter who
requested a response from the NEJAC would
receive one.

Mr. Sawyers invited Mr. Lopez to submit
comments to the cumulative risk report. Ms.
Nelson added that Federal facilities require a
political solution. The Congressional delegations
of the impacted communities need to be
identified, she said, and a synergism developed
between the communities that are impacted by
Federal facilities and their Congressional
delegations. Accountability needs to be raised in
the communities where Federal facilities are
located, she stated. Congressional
representatives always strive to get Federal
facilities in their communities, but the
representatives need to start thinking about the
impact that those facilities have on the
communities, she explained.

Mr. Goldtooth pointed out that in Alaska, there
had recently been collaboration among Alaskan
Natives, the state, and DoD to address Federal
facility issues. Commitments were made by the
Federal agencies to collaborate and address the
issues in a systematic, realistic way, he noted.
However, he continued, the Federal agencies
dropped the ball, and there has been no follow up.
Only selected communities are being assessed,
he stated, and the other communities are upset
because they are not receiving any attention. But
the collaborative model is a tool that can be used,
he said.

Mr. Warren stated that the environmental justice
strategies that need to be used in today's political

2-22

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 and 14, 2004

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

Public Comment Periods

environment are complex. The Executive Council
needs to look at what OEJ has been doing to help
environmental justice communities. OEJ has
been doing an excellent job, he said, and the
strategies that it has implemented have been
intelligent.

Mr. Lopez added that the strategy must be
developed from the bottom up to include
communities in the decision-making process. Mr.
Lee then pointed out that many challenges are
associated with bringing different agencies
together to discuss environmental justice issues.

3.23 Mr. Richard Burton, Jr., St. James
Parish Citizens for Jobs and the
Environment, Convent, Louisiana

Noting that he had provided comment during the
public comment period held on April 13, Mr.
Richard Burton, Jr., St. James Parish Citizens for
Jobs and the Environment, Convent, Louisiana,
stated that there is a problem with a local farm
organization being paid to dispose of human
waste by spreading it on sugar cane crops as
fertilizer, he reported. In addition, he continued,
Rubber Marine is taking burnt grain from New
Orleans and disposing of it as compost on fields
in Convent. Smoke originating from the burnt
grain is causing people to get sick, he stated.
Louisiana DEQ sent a representative to examine
the problem, he noted, but the representative
reportedly came at 5:00 a.m. when it was cool
and there was lots of dew on the ground. Mr.
Burton expressed his doubt that the
representative even came to Convent to examine
the problem, and he added that the representative
never bothered to contact any of the affected
residents.

Mr. Burton requested that the NEJAC help
prevent the burnt grain from being disposed of in
his community and the human waste from being
spread on fields. We have been fighting all kinds
of pollution in the community, he said, and people
are suffering.

Ms. Subra noted that there are very few
regulations applicable to the spreading of sewage
sludge on agricultural fields and indicated that this
is a big issue across the country. Ms. Subra then
asked Mr. Burton whether any areas other than
Jefferson Parish had sent waste to Convent and
whether the burnt grain problem is ongoing. Mr.

Burton replied that the burnt grain problem had
been ongoing for several years. Mr. Burton
explained that Louisiana DEQ told the community
that nothing can be done about the burnt grain
because it is being burned on the river, and
maritime law prevents DEQ from taking action.
When the grain is moved to land, Mr. Burton
stated, DEQ says that it cannot govern
agriculture. Ms. Subra said that she would look
into the issues and get in touch with Mr. Burton.
Ms. Nelson then pointed out that the issue of
sludge disposal extends beyond EPA Region 6,
and she suggested that the Executive Council
discuss it in depth at a later date.

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13, and 14, 2004

2-23

-------
Public Comment Periods

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

CHAPTER TWO PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS	2-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 	2-1

2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD HELD ON APRIL 13, 2004 	 2-1

2.1	Mr. Roosevelt Roberts, Rubbertown Emergency Action, Louisville, Kentucky .... 2-1

2.2	Mr. Bob Collin, Willamette University, Salem, Oregon	2-2

2.3	Ms. Johanna Congleton, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles,

California 	2-2

2.4	Ms. Shawna Larson, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Anchorage, Alaska . . 2-3

2.5	Mr. Richard Burton, Jr., St. James Parish Citizens for Jobs and the Environment,
Convent, Louisiana 	2-3

2.6	Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network, Bemidji, Minnesota .... 2-4

2.7	Ms. Doris Bradshaw, Defense Depot Concerned Citizen's Committee, Memphis,
Tennessee 	 2-5

2.8	Ms. Brenda Brandon, Haskell University Environmental Research Studies Center,
Lawrence, Kansas 	2-6

2.9	Ms. Rebecca Jim, Tar Creek Local Environmental Action Demanded Agency, Vinita,
Oklahoma	2-6

2.10	Ms. Carletta Garcia, Laguna Acoma Coalition for a Safe Environment, Albuquerque,
New Mexico	2-7

2.11	Mr. Hilton Kelley, Community Monitoring, Port Arthur, Texas 	2-8

3.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD HELD ON APRIL 14, 2004 	 2-8

3.1	Anonymous, Florham Park, New Jersey 	2-8

3.2	Ms. Carletta Garcia, Laguna Acoma Coalition for a Safe Environment, Laguna Acoma,
New Mexico	2-9

3.3	Ms. Viola Waghiyi, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Anchorage, Alaska .... 2-9

3.4	Ms. Rosalie Kalastook, Association of Village Council Presidents, Inc., Bethel,

Alaska 	2-11

3.5	Mr. Roy Matsuno, Ugashik Traditional Village, Anchorage, Alaska 	2-12

3.6	Mr. Randall Mitchell, Treme for Environmental Justice, New Orleans, Louisiana 2-12

3.7	Ms. Yvonne Powell, People Effected Against Chemical Eugenics, Richton,

Mississippi 	2-13

3.8	Ms. Shawna Larson, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Anchorage, Alaska . 2-13

3.9	Ms. Patricia Rife, Grants Plus, Atlanta, Georgia	2-14

3.10	Ms. Doris Bradshaw, Defense Depot Concerned Citizens Committee, Memphis,
Tennessee 	 2-14

3.11	Mr. Dan Jones, Ponca Tribe of Indians, Ponca City, Oklahoma	2-15

3.12	Mr. Benton Davis, Native Village of Selawik, Selawik, Alaska	2-15

3.13	Mr. Pat Bryant, Urban Strategies, New Orleans, Louisiana	2-16

3.14	Ms. Hazel Apok, Maniilaq Association, Kotzebue, Alaska 	2-17

3.15	Mr. Jose Bravo, Just Tradition Alliance, San Diego, California 	2-17

3.16	Mr. J. Kyle Bryant, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Fayetteville,
Georgia 	2-18

3.17	Ms. Anne Rolfes, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, New Orleans, Louisiana 	2-18

3.18	Ms. Wllye Jean Turner, Educational Asthma Support Team, New Orleans,

Louisiana 	2-19

3.19	Ms. Debra Ramirez, Citizens Against Contamination, Lake Charles, Louisiana . 2-19

3.20	Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network, Bemidji, Minnesota . . . 2-20

3.21	Ms. Susana Almanza, People Organized in the Defense of Earth and Her Resources
(PODER), Austin, Texas 	2-20

3.22	Mr. Genaro Lopez, Southwest Workers Union, San Antonio, Texas 	2-21

3.23	Mr. Richard Burton, Jr., St. James Parish Citizens for Jobs and the Environment,

2-24

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13 and 14, 2004

-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council	Public Comment Periods

Convent, Louisiana 	2-23

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13, and 14, 2004

2-25

-------