NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
Baltimore, Maryland
December 9 through 12, 2002
Meeting Synopsis
This summary presents highlights of the 16th meeting of the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC), held December 9 through 12, 2002 at the Baltimore Marriott Inner Harbor Hotel in
Baltimore, Maryland. On December 10, the NEJAC hosted a public comment period during which
representatives of community organizations presented their concerns about pollution prevention, waste
minimization, and environmental justice. Six of the seven subcommittees of the NEJAC met for a full day
on December 11, 2002. Approximately 300 persons attended the meetings and the public comment
period.
The NEJAC is a federal advisory committee that was established by charter on September 30, 1993 to
provide independent advice and recommendations to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on matters related to environmental justice. Ms. Peggy Shepard, West Harlem
Environmental Action, serves as the chair of the Executive Council of the NEJAC. Mr. Charles Lee,
Associate Director for Policy and Interagency Liaison, 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 World
Wde Web at (click on the publications icon). The
summaries are available in both English and Spanish.
REMARKS
Members of the NEJAC heard remarks from:
Mr. J.P. Suarez, Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) commended the efforts of the members of the NEJAC and expressed appreciation for the
role that they play in assisting EPA in addressing issues related to environmental justice. Noting
the 10-year anniversary of the establishment of EPA's OEJ, Mr. Suarez stated that the "protection
and promise" reflected by the establishment of OEJ only will be complete when environmental
justice is incorporated into all EPA programs and offices. He said that OECA is incorporating
environmental justice into its programs by (1) factoring environmental justice into all aspects of
planning and budgets, (2) emphasizing environmental justice issues as a criterion for case
selection, and (3) using data, experience, and research to drive strategic efforts forgetting
companies into compliance.
Mr. Thomas Voltaggio, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3, welcomed the members of
the NEJAC to Baltimore, Maryland. He stated that EPA Region 3 is committed to continuing
efforts to ensure environmental justice for all communities in the Mid-Atlantic region. He added
that EPA Region 3 is working with all the state governments in that region to develop a more
cooperative, proactive environmental justice program.
Ms. Denise Ferguson-Southard, Deputy Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE), also welcomed the members of the NEJAC, commenting that the topic of pollution
prevention and environmental justice was appropriate for the State of Maryland. She stated that
state governments, as well as EPA, need the input of NEJAC to ensure environmental justice for
communities within their states.
Mr. Cleo Holmes, Concerned Citizens of Eastern Avenue, Washington, D.C., welcomed the
members of the NEJAC on behalf of local grass-roots organizations. He shared his observation
that as the number of local communities have continued to grow, they have become more
supportive to each others' needs. This has led to producing results.
Dr. Wlliam Sanders, Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Meeting Synopsis
December 9,10, and 12, 2002
Page 2
Toxic Substances (OPPTS), stressed that, in his opinion, pollution prevention and environmental
justice are at the heart of issues being addressed by EPA programs and offices.
CASE STUDIES AND RELATED DIALOGUE
On Monday, December 9, 2002, members of the NEJAC participated in a dialogue about selected
communities that are affected by issues related to environmental justice, pollution prevention, and waste
minimization. Presenting cases studies, representatives of community organizations and federal and state
agencies described efforts to address pollution prevention and waste minimization in two communities
affected by environmental justice issues. The topics discussed are described briefly below.
Mr. Neil Carman, Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club, presented a case study centered in the
Channelview area of Houston, Texas. It is entitled, "Source Reduction Project: A Step by Step
Method of Reducing Pollution in Our Communities." The goal of the community-based effort, he
reported, was to (1) reduce emissions to promote a cleaner and healthier environment by making
the elimination of emissions at the source a priority over minimizing emissions once they have
been created; and (2) establish a dialogue between chemical companies and the surrounding
community. He reported that the project has yielded significant benefits for the companies as well
as the community. Specifically, the community has benefitted from reduced emissions, reduction
in flaring, and improvement in plant maintenance and reliability, he said. He also noted that the
companies have benefitted due to reduced emissions, which has led to less waste and an
increase in profits, as well as an improved image in the community. Mr. Carman explained that
plant personnel have become more aware of community concerns and has developed an
understanding of why citizens target certain chemicals.
Mr. Bernard Penner, MDE; Mr. Voltaggio, EPA; and Mr. Henri Thompson, Park Heights Corridor
Coalition, Inc., presented a case study from the Park Heights neighborhood of Baltimore,
Maryland. It is entitled "Park Heights Auto Body/Auto Repair Shops." They described the goal of
the program as one of measuring the results of compliance assistance efforts and inspections to
provide information, education, and assistance that will promote a change in behavior of operators
of auto body shops. To date, one indicator of success is improved communication and
cooperation among EPA Region 3, MDE, and the Park Heights community. The project also
focuses on environmental indicators of success such as a decrease in the amount of oil and
grease found in the municipal waste water treatment plant. In addition, many effective methods
for promoting environmental compliance have been identified, resulting in pollution reduction and
prevention, and in waste minimization.
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
During the 3 1/2 day meeting of the NEJAC, the members of the Executive Council also received
presentations from the following individuals:
Members of the NEJAC Pollution Prevention Work Group provided a presentation on the NEJAC's
draft report, Advancing Environmental Justice through Pollution Prevention. During their
presentation, the members of the work group reviewed the findings of the Work Group. The draft
report was compiled in preparation for the December 2002 meeting of the NEJAC. The members
of the NEJAC then discussed the report and proposed recommendations at length, suggesting
revisions in the draft report and identifying additional proposals. The OEJ requested that
comments from the public on the draft report be submitted to OEJ by January 31, 2003. The
anticipated date for the completion of the report is Summer 2003.
Mr. Hal Zenick, EPA Office of Research and Development, submitted a written presentation about
EPA's response to the Environmental Justice and Community-Based Model Discussion and
Recommendations Report, completed in February 2001 by the NEJAC. The written presentation
outlined how EPA has begun to respond to the recommendations presented in that report.
Mr. Richard Moore, Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, and Mr.
Lawrence Starfield, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6, shared lessons learned from
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Meeting Synopsis
December 9,10, and 12, 2002
Page 3
the experience of planning and conducting the Regional Environmental Justice Listening Session
held in EPA Region 6 on November 14 through 16, 2002, in Houston, Texas. .
Mr. Timothy Fields, Tetra Tech EM Inc., and Mr. Michael Steinberg, Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius,
shared preliminary findings from a study of environmental justice practices in business and
industry. They reported that the OEJ is supporting the study to learn more about industry
perspectives about environmental justice, and to highlight some of the best practices to address
environmental justice in environmental permitting.
In preparation for the April 2004 meeting of the NEJAC, Mr. Lee presented an overview about cumulative
risks and cumulative impacts, highlighting the Cumulative Risk Assessment Framework being developed
by EPA. He provided an overview of the key definitions and features from the Framework, and outlined
the role that NEJAC's process for providing advice and recommendations on the issue, including the
establishment in Spring 2003 of a NEJAC Work Group on Cumulative Risks/Cumulative Impacts, and
followed by a meeting April 13-16, 2004, in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Significant Concerns Expressed During the Public Comment Period
The Executive Council of the NEJAC hosted a public comment period on December 10, 2002, at which 20
individuals provided testimony and 2 individuals provided written statements. The commenters
represented a broad spectrum of stakeholders from around the country, including American Indian and
Native Alaskan communities, communities near defense facilities, state agencies, and private industry.
Described below are a summary of key concerns citizens expressed during the evening session.
Many individuals offered suggestions for improving the draft report, Advancing Environmental
Justice Through Pollution Prevention. Specific recommendations included adding a discussion
about pollution prevention at federal facilities, providing more detail about integrated pest
management, and developing an insert for Native Alaskan lands.
Several individuals commented about environmental justice issues related to federal facilities.
Military installations should be held to that same standards as private organizations, they said,
adding that the fact that EPA has limited jurisdiction over those facilities is a problem.
Numerous concerns were discussed concerning environmental justice issues in Alaska. The
commenters explained that many Alaskan Natives practice a subsistence lifestyle that is very
sensitive to exposure from contaminants. In addition, they said, the unique nature of the Alaskan
climate is such that traditional risk analysis, contaminant modeling, and typical disposal of
contamination that is applied to the rest of the United States is not relevant to or possible in
Alaska. Native Alaskan and Alaskan communities are complex and pose unique challenges, they
stated.
Many individuals stressed that it is imperative that communities be involved in decision-making
processes. Community members need to be recognized as stakeholders and included in
negotiations, they urged. Too often, they explained, environmental permits are granted without
public knowledge.
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 9,10, AND 12, 2002
Baltimore, Maryland
Charles Lee Peggy Shepard
Designated Federal Official Chair
-------
CHAPTER ONE
MEETING OF THE
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The seventeenth meeting of the Executive Council of
the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) took place from December 9 through 12,
2002, at the Baltimore Marriott Inner Harbor Hotel in
Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Peggy Shepard, Executive
Director, West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc.,
continues to serve as chair of the NEJAC. Mr.
Charles Lee, Associate Director for Policy and
Interagency Liaison, Office of Environmental Justice
(OEJ), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
continues to serve as the Designated Federal Official
(DFO) for the Executive Council. Exhibit 1-1
identifies the members of the Executive Council who
attended the meeting and members who were
unable to attend. Approximately 300 people
attended the meeting.
This chapter, which summarizes the deliberations of
the Executive Council, is organized in five sections,
including this Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks,
summarizes the remarks offered by various
speakers. Section 3.0, Policy Dialogue on Pollution
Prevention and Environmental Justice, summarizes
the information provided by the Pollution Prevention
Workgroup of the NEJAC and describes
recommendations discussed by the members of the
workgroup and the Executive Council. Section 4.0,
Presentations and Reports, summarizes
presentations and reports made to the Executive
Council on various other topics. Section 5.0,
Miscellaneous Business, summarizes discussions
of other items before the Executive Council.
In addition to this chapter, this report includes seven
additional chapters that document the NEJAC
meeting from December 9 through 12, 2002. On
December 9, 2002, the members of the Executive
Council were presented two Case Studies on
Pollution Prevention and Environmental Justice, that
describe the efforts of community organizations and
federal and state agencies to pursue pollution
prevention and waste minimization in two
communities affected by environmental justice
issues. During the evening of December 10, 2002,
the NEJAC hosted a public comment period during
which representatives of community organizations
presented their concerns about pollution prevention,
waste minimization, and environmental justice.
Chapter Two summarizes the case studies and the
comments offered during the public comment period.
On December 11, 2002, the members of the
Executive Council who were present on that day
participated in the deliberations of six of the seven
subcommittees of the NEJAC. Chapters Three
through Eight of this meeting summary describe
those deliberations.
2.0 REMARKS
This section summarizes the remarks of the
Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of
Exhibit 1-1
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 9 through 12, 2002
Ms. Peggy Shepard, Chair
Mr. Charles Lee, DFO
Mr. Larry Charles
Ms. Veronica Eady
Ms. Judith Espinosa
Mr. Tom Goldtooth
Dr. Richard Gragg, III
Ms. Eileen Guana*
Mr. Walter Handy, Jr.
Mr. Robert Harris
Ms. Lori Kaplan
Ms. Pamela Kingfisher
Reverend Adora Iris Lee
Mr. Harold Mitchell
Ms. Mary Nelson
Dr. Graciela Ramirez-Toro
Ms. Wilma Subra
Ms. Jana Walker
Mr. Kenneth Warren
Mr. Terry Williams
Mr. Tseming Yang
Members Who Were Unable to Attend
Ms. Anna Frazier
Mr. Jason Grumet
Ms. Jane Stahl
*Attended on December 9 and 10, 2002, only
1-1
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA);
the Deputy Assistant Administratorof EPA's Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
(OPPTS); the Deputy Regional Administratorof EPA
Region 3; the Assistant Secretary of Maryland's
Department of the Environment (MDE); and a
representative from Concerned Citizens of Eastern
Avenue, Washington, D.C.
2.1 Remarks of the Assistant Administrator, EPA
OECA
Mr. J.P. Suarez, Assistant Administrator, EPA
OECA, commended the efforts of the members of
the NEJAC and expressed appreciation for the
important role that they play in assisting EPA. He
added that EPA is indebted to the NEJAC for the
voice that it brings to environmental justice. Noting
the 10-year anniversary of the establishment of EPA
OEJ, Mr. Suarez stated that the "protection and
promise" represented by the establishment of OEJ
only will be complete when environmental justice is
incorporated into all EPA programs and offices.
Mr. Suarez stated that OECA is integrating
environmental justice into its programs by:
Factoring environmental justice into all aspects
of planning and budgets, including agreements
entered into by OECA with the EPA regional
offices that dictate future regional initiatives;
Emphasizing environmental justice issues as a
criteria for case selection so that OECA can
provide direct and immediate environmental
justice benefits to environmental justice
communities
Using OECA databases and research tools,
such as the Permit Compliance System (PCS)
and EnviroMapper, to drive strategic efforts for
bringing facilities into compliance and eliminating
the environmental impacts that noncompliant
facilities are having in communities.
Stressing the importance of continued outreach and
communication to educate the regulated community
about the role of OECA and the areas in which it
offers assistance, Mr. Suarez asked the members of
the NEJAC to assist OECA in developing
compliance assistance tools and delivering them to
the regulated community.
2.2 Remarks of the Deputy Assistant
Administrator, EPA OPPTS
Dr. William Sanders, Deputy Assistant Administrator,
EPA OPPTS, stressed that in his opinion, pollution
prevention and environmental justice are the most
important issues to be addressed by EPA programs
and offices.
Sharing a brief history of his first awareness of, and
the introduction of EPA and state agencies to,
environmental justice issues, Dr. Sanders
commented that two key developments had been
critical to the incorporation of environmental justice
issues within EPA and state agencies. First, he said,
the EPA journal, Environmental Protection: Has it
Been Fair?, which had focused completely on
environmental justice was released in March/April
1992. He noted that several topics that had
headlined the first EPA journal about environmental
justice (such as "farm workers among the least
protected; they suffer the most from pesticides" and
"Health concerns for fish-eating tribes; government
assumptions are much too low,") remain urgent
environmental issues today. Second, an EPA
workgroup released a report in June 1992 titled
Environmental Equity: Reducing Risks for All
Communities. Although the response from the
environmental justice community to that report had
been underwhelming, he said, the report served to
move EPA forward in laying the foundation for the
creation of EPA's Office of Environmental Equity,
now OEJ. In 1995, he continued, OPPTS had been
presented with the opportunity to co-sponsor the
Health and Research Subcommittee of the NEJAC.
Providing assistance and support to the Health and
Research Subcommittee is a privilege that OPPTS
still holds, he noted.
Continuing, Dr. Sanders commented that OPPTS
had linked environmental justice and pollution
prevention through its environmental justice and
pollution prevention grant program, which operated
from 1995 to 2001. He stated that promoting
pollution prevention is an important means of
achieving environmental justice objectives.
Enormous opportunities exist, he continued, to build
upon natural synergies between environmental
justice and pollution prevention, particularly in areas
such as community revitalization and sustainable
development.
2.3 Remarks of the Deputy Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 3
Mr. Thomas Voltaggio, Deputy Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 3, welcomed the
members of the NEJAC to Baltimore, Maryland. He
stated that EPA Region 3 supports the principles of
environmental justice and is committed to continuing
its efforts to improve regional environmental justice
programs in order to ensure protection of human
health and the environment for all communities in the
1-2
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
mid-Atlantic region. He noted that Region 3's active
involvement in environmental justice issues began in
1993 as a result of environmental concerns raised in
Chester, Pennsylvania. At that time, he explained,
EPA Region 3 had collaborated on what he believed
to be the nation's first cumulative risk assessment of
an environmental justice community. Since that
time, he continued, EPA Region 3 has been involved
in other important environmental justice efforts,
including the following:
The Baltimore Urban Risk Initiative conducted in
Baltimore, Maryland, in 1995 and 1996. The
initiative represented a joint effort by the City of
Baltimore, the MDE, and EPA Region 3 to
identify and address environmental issues of
concern.
The MDE Fish Consumption Survey, a
comprehensive study of subsistence fishing in
Baltimore Harbor
Indoor air pilot programs in Baltimore public
schools that involved the training of school
system heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) workers in how to maintain school air
handling equipment in a mannerthat has helped
them to operate more efficiently, thus lowering
emissions
An ongoing auto body and auto repair shop
initiative in the Park Heights community of
Baltimore City, Maryland (see Chapter Two,
Section 2.1 of this report for a summary of that
effort)
In closing, Mr. Voltaggio stressed that EPA Region
3 is committed to working with the state and local
governments in its region to develop a more
cooperative, proactive environmental justice
program.
2.4 Remarks of the Assistant Secretary, MDE
Ms. Denise Ferguson-Southard, Assistant Secretary,
MDE, also welcomed the members of the NEJAC on
behalf of Maryland Governor Paris Glendening and
Maryland Secretary Ray Pecore. Ms. Ferguson-
Southard commented that the topic of pollution
prevention and environmental justice was
appropriate for the State of Maryland. The state
strongly supports integrating environmental justice
into its many programs, she said, and pollution
prevention is one of the many programs targeted in
this effort. She asserted that advancing
environmental justice through pollution prevention is
part of a transition to a new vision of environmental
responsibilities shared among business,
government, and impacted communities. As a result
of new relationships among business, government,
and impacted community members, she explained,
pollution prevention strategies and approaches could
shift limited resources into more productive,
revitalizing work that is assisted and enabled by
empowered and engaged community members.
Continuing, Ms. Ferguson-Southard echoed Mr.
Voltaggio's statement about the enormous
opportunities available to build upon the natural
synergies between environmental justice and
pollution prevention. She then listed several areas
of such opportunities, including (1) the restoration
and redevelopment of brownfields sites; (2) "smart
growth" initiatives and more integrated transportation
and land use planning; (3) alternative fuels; and (4)
environmental management systems, which are
increasingly being adopted by businesses.
In closing, Ms. Ferguson-Southard commented that
the State of Maryland had established the Maryland
Environmental Justice and Sustainable Community
Commission to serve a role similar to that of the
NEJAC. She explained that the commission works
with environmental justice communities in Maryland
to identify how the state government can best
address environmental justice concerns.
2.5 Remarks of a Representative of Concerned
Citizens of Eastern Avenue
Mr. Cleo Holmes, Concerned Citizens of Eastern
Avenue, Washington, D.C., welcomed the members
of the NEJAC on behalf of local grassroots
organizations. He shared his observation that as
local communities have continued to grow, they have
become more sympathetic to each other's causes
and concerns. Stating that "communities are in need
of [the NEJAC's] chartered mission," Mr. Holmes
urged the NEJAC to continue its dedication to
environment justice issues.
2.6 Remarks of the Chair of the Executive
Council of the NEJAC
Ms. Shepard stressed the significance of pollution
prevention for environmental justice communities,
stating that pollution prevention can decrease the
exploitation of natural resources and improve the
public health of susceptible and vulnerable
populations.
In addition, Ms. Shepard commended the members
of the Pollution Prevention Workgroup for producing
a readable and accessible report, Advancing
1-3
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Environmental Justice through Pollution Prevention
Report: Pre-Meeting Discussion Draft (draft pollution
prevention report), that documents the
recommendations of the workgroup and concerns
expressed by stakeholder groups.
Finally, Ms. Shepard shared her opinion that the lack
of political will and leadership in the country and in
the EPA administration with regard to pollution
prevention is the critical obstacle to reducing
pollution in environmental justice communities. An
external campaign is necessary if the
recommendations included in the draft pollution
prevention report are to be implemented, she
stressed.
3.0 POLICY DIALOGUE ON
POLLUTION PREVENTION
AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The NEJAC, in its continuing efforts to provide
independent advice to the EPA Administrator in
areas related to environmental justice, focused its
seventeenth meeting on the relationship between
pollution prevention and environmental justice. On
December 10, 2002, the members of the NEJAC
heard a panel presentation by the members of the
Pollution Prevention Workgroup of the NEJAC. The
NEJAC had established the workgroup to assist in
developing a report and recommendations on the
issue of pollution prevention and environmental
justice.
Ms. Veronica Eady, Tufts University and chair of the
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee, served as
facilitator during the policy dialogue. She began the
discussion by reminding the members of the NEJAC
of the purpose of the current NEJAC meeting. She
noted that the issue on which the NEJAC had been
asked to consider and provide recommendations to
was as follows:
How can EPA promote innovation in the
field of pollution prevention, waste
minimization, and related areas to more
effectively ensure a clean environment and
quality of life for all peoples, including low-
income, minority, and tribal communities?
During preparations for the NEJAC meeting, the
Pollution Prevention Workgroup had prepared a draft
pollution prevention report to provide a context for
the discussions. The following subsections outline
the discussion about the draft pollution prevention
report.
3.1 Overview of the Draft Pollution Prevention
Report
Ms. Wlma Subra, Louisiana Environmental Action
Network and a member of the Air and Water
Subcommittee, and Mr. Ken Geiser, Massachusetts
Toxics Use Reduction Institute, provided an overview
of the draft pollution prevention report. Ms. Subra
first explained that the report is a discussion draft
reflecting the diverse views, interests, concerns, and
perspectives of identified stakeholders, including
impacted communities, all levels of government, and
business and industry. For the purposes of the
report, she stated, pollution prevention is defined by
the stakeholders as "a mechanism focused on
reduction, elimination, or prevention that helps to
protect the environment and improve the quality of
life in environmental justice and tribal communities."
Ms. Subra stated that the framework used by the
Pollution Prevention Workgroup to examine the
relationship between pollution prevention and
environmental justice included the following
premises:
Pollution prevention activities should have a
strong nexus with the health, environmental, and
quality of life concerns of impacted communities.
Pollution prevention activities should recognize
and respect the importance and value of
community knowledge and experience and
should have the full participation of impacted
communities.
Pollution prevention activities should focus on all
sources, including large and small facilities,
public and private facilities, new and old
facilities, and area and mobile sources.
Pollution prevention activities should involve
collaborations between all stakeholder groups
and build their capacity and should include
adequate resources at the state and federal
levels.
Pollution prevention should strive to be
proactive, positive, solution-oriented, and holistic
in approach and should involve restoration,
redevelopment, and construction of development
of sustainable economies.
Pollution prevention should involve culture
change in institutions such as governments,
businesses, and schools and should include
accountability for measuring, monitoring,
reviewing, evaluating, and rewarding improved
1-4
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
performance.
Pollution prevention should apply relevant
lessons from global experience.
Pollution prevention should promote the use of
new and emerging technologies such as
alternative fuels and renewable energy.
Pollution prevention should build on what
already exists.
Pollution prevention should address special
economic, political, social, public health, and
environmental attributes of at risk and
underserved subpopulations (such as tribes and
children).
Ms. Subra pointed out that the Pollution Prevention
Workgroup is composed of representatives of
diverse stakeholder groups, including six members
from community and nongovernmental
organizations, five members from academia, six
members from business and industry, three
members from state and local governments, and
three members representing Indian tribes and
indigenous peoples. Recounting the process used
by the workgroup to develop advice and
recommendations, Ms. Subra explained that before
meeting forthe first time, members of the workgroup
were interviewed about their concerns, expectations,
and ideas forthe workgroup. These interviews were
used to structure the face-to-face meeting of the
workgroup members held from July 22 through 25,
2002. A key outcome of the face-to-face meeting
was the formation of small subgroups to identify
specific topics of interest, including community
perspectives, tribal perspectives, business and
industry perspectives, government perspectives,
critical areas and emerging directions, and multi-
stakeholder efforts. Ms. Subra said that the small
workgroups interacted via e-mail and conference
calls to develop report outlines and then text for each
of the areas of interest.
As the small workgroups began to prepare individual
portions of the report, she explained, two tracks
began to emerge: (1) a stakeholder track and (2) a
consensus track. Each group in the stakeholder
track (community perspectives, tribal perspectives,
business and industry perspectives, and government
perspectives) developed its own chapter
independent of the thoughts and perspectives of the
other stakeholder workgroups. A consensus
workgroup was formed with representatives of each
stakeholder workgroup to incorporate the
perspectives of all the stakeholder groups into
another chapter, the consensus chapter. Ms. Subra
stressed that all members of the Pollution Prevention
Workgroup were engaged in the process and were
given numerous opportunities to comment on the
consensus chapter as it was being developed.
During the development of the consensus chapterfor
the report, she continued, proposals began to
emerge from:
Ideas that surfaced at the face-to-face meeting
of the Pollution Prevention Workgroup
Recommendations presented in the individual
stakeholder group chapters
Interviews with the members of the Pollution
Prevention Workgroup
Outreach to a broad base of community
members
Additional documents prepared by workgroup
members
Discussions about the Consensus chapter
The proposals were then presented to the Pollution
Prevention Workgroup during a series of conference
calls. After much discussion, she said, the
workgroup reached agreement on the consensus
proposals presented in the report.
Mr. Geiser then provided an introduction to the
different stakeholder perspectives included in the
report. Mr. Geiser first noted that the history of
pollution prevention parallels the history of the
environment justice movement. In 1982, he said, 3M
Corporation had released a report titled Pollution
Prevention Pays that demonstrated how one
company was advancing not only its economic
condition but also its environmental condition by
preventing pollution at the source. In 1983, he
continued, Mr. Michael Royalston, a French
academician, had produced a small book called
Pollution Prevention. In 1986, EPA had presented
its report on waste minimization to Congress, he
said, and then the Congressional Office of
Technological Assessment, had issued its report on
waste reduction. Mr. Geiser commented that these
first reports had been crucial for the pollution
prevention movement because they had defined
source reduction and had clarified the virtues of
pollution prevention over a reliance on end-of-pipe
technologies.
Continuing, Mr. Geiser pointed out that the
environmental justice movement had demonstrated
that the use of industrial and agricultural chemicals
and their mismanagement over the years had
exposed communities to a barrage of toxic and
hazardous materials and that the burden of these
1-5
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
problems had fallen most directly on low-income
minorities and tribal communities. In addition, he
said, the pollution prevention movement had
emphasized technical and management solutions for
reducing the use of toxic chemicals so that they do
not enter the environment and had promoted the
economic incentives for practicing pollution
prevention.
Although successful partnerships and new ideas for
pollution prevention have emerged in recent years,
Mr. Geiser noted, the pollution prevention movement
began to lose its grassroots base when the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990 was instituted and many
states adopted pollution prevention laws overthe last
ten years. Those involved in the pollution prevention
movement had produced some outstanding
examples of pollution prevention technologies and of
production process to reduce public and
environmental exposures, he said, but the fervent
drive to develop and promote new pollution
prevention concepts and technologies has waned.
Mr. Geiser stated that he is pleased that the NEJAC
is taking on the pollution prevention initiative.
The road ahead is not easy, he stressed, as the
United States faces tough economic conditions. But
the convergence between pollution prevention and
environmental justice is even more important during
these tough times, he said. The time has come for
government to recognize that pollution prevention is
the most efficient and effective means of addressing
and minimizing current and future exposures to toxic
and hazardous pollutants in low-income, minority,
and tribal communities, he stressed. With all the
wealth and ingenuity of the country, the Pollution
Prevention Workgroup believes that it is possible to
dramatically reduce, if not eliminate, many forms of
pollution and waste, he said. We need not continue
to tolerate high levels of exposure in our poorest
communities, our tribal communities, and our
communities of color, he stressed.
In response to the overview of the draft pollution
prevention report, Mr. Tseming Yang, Vermont Law
School and a chair of the International
Subcommittee, asked why a stakeholder perspective
from academia had not been included in the report.
Ms. Subra responded that, in addition to the
participation of Mr. Dean Suagee, Vermont Law
School, who had contributed to the tribal perspective
chapter of the report, members of academia had
participated in the small workgroup that had focused
on critical areas and emerging directions in pollution
prevention. Mr. Yang stated for the record that
omitting an academic perspective from the process
represented the loss of an important perspective on
pollution prevention and environmental justice. He
also inquired whether representatives of OECA had
participated in preparing the report. Ms. Subra
responded that OECA representatives had provided
input during the initial meeting held in July 2002 but
had not formally participated as members of the
workgroup.
Mr. Yang then asked whether the draft report
represents a "least common denominator" report or
a true consensus. Ms. Subra stressed that much
time had been spent "hashing out" different
perspectives and ideas. Mr. Kenneth Warren, Wolf
Block Schorr and Solis-Cohen LLP, added that each
member of the Executive Council is being tasked
with evaluating the usefulness of the report. If the
members of the Executive Council find the report
useful and substantive, he noted, the workgroup will
feel assured that the report represents a true
consensus.
Ms. Jana Walker, Law Office of Jana L. Walker and
acting chair of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee, noted that the two stakeholder
groups most often affected by environmental justice
issues, tribes and communities, had less
representation on the workgroup than government
and other groups. She stated that she would like to
see more balance in the workgroup. Ms. Subra
responded that this issue would be discussed during
the presentations about the tribal and community
perspectives.
Mr. Terry Williams, Commissioner, Fisheries and
Natural Resources, the Tulalip Tribes and a member
ofthe Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee, noted that
the draft pollution prevention report does not include
a technical discussion about pollution prevention.
Ms. Subra stated that a technical discussion would
be part of the multi-stakeholder model to be
discussed by the Executive Council later in the
meeting. The multi-stakeholder model, she added,
would determine how the Pollution Prevention
Workgroup moves forward with its initiative.
3.2 Community Perspectives on Pollution
Prevention
Ms. Connie Tucker, Southern Organizing Committee
for Economic and Social Justice, summarized the
information presented in Chapter 3 of the draft
pollution prevention report. Ms. Tucker stated that
the community perspectives subgroup viewed the
task of developing the community perspectives
chapter as an opportunity to redefine pollution
prevention from an environmental justice
perspective. She pointed out that the community
1-6
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
perspectives chapter does not begin by addressing
pollution prevention directly but rather by identifying
the impacts of not implementing pollution prevention.
The community perspectives subgroup, she said,
believes that the chapter represents an opportunity
to educate community members as well as business
and industry representatives about the adverse
impacts of pollution on public health and the
environment.
Continuing, Ms. Tucker said that the latter portion of
the community perspectives chapter presents a
discussion about solutions and recommendations for
pollution prevention. Before closing, Ms. Tucker
noted forthe record that the community perspectives
chapter includes a discussion about the need for
enforcement in pollution prevention and addresses
the precautionary principle, which mandates that
practices should be prevented and eliminated if the
possibility of harm exists, and is intended to prevent
harm before it occurs. The community perspectives
subgroup is discouraged, she noted, that
considerations about enforcement and the
precautionary principle are not included in the
consensus chapter of the report.
3.3 Tribal Perspectives on Pollution Prevention
Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental
Network, discussed information presented in Chapter
4 of the draft pollution prevention report. He noted
that the trib perspectives subgroup had focused on
developing tribal perspectives about pollution
prevention and environmental justice and had
stressed the many different challenges that tribes
face in applying environmental justice in Indian
country. He explained that tribes face not only
government systems requiring assimilation of
environmental justice but also traditional systems
involving traditional knowledge, tribal elders, and
spiritual teachings. Also, he continued, a complex
relationship exists between the tribal governments
and tribal government-run and operated facilities in
Indian country. In some cases, he explained,
business operators are also tribal community
members.
Overthe past few decades, Mr. Goldtooth continued,
the federal government had encouraged
development of the rich natural resources that exist
on Indian lands. An ongoing challenge for tribal
governments is the management of environmental
and cultural impacts that result from developing
natural resources in Indian country, he said. For
example, he explained, mining and other mineral
extraction processes require water diversion which
can result in flooding of Indian lands. Also, tribal
1-7
governments continue to face the internal challenge
of developing environmental infrastructure and
programs that are comparable to similar state
programs, he said.
Mr. Goldtooth noted that transboundary issues,
those issues extending across the U.S. borders with
Mexico and Canada, also are addressed in the tribal
perspectives chapter.
Mr. Goldtooth stressed that the tribal perspectives
subgroup had tried to be respectful of the diversity
among tribal communities when developing its
chapter. The subgroup had tried to be "mindful" of
tribal grassroots organizations, tribal elders and
traditional people, and modern tribal government
systems and their need to develop their own
environmental programs, he said. Although the
participants in the subgroup do not represent the
more than 2 million American Indian and Latin Native
Indian populations present in the United States, he
stressed, the Pollution Prevention Workgroup
believes that it has the experience and knowledge to
develop language that the members of the NEJAC
can "chew on" and use to develop useful
recommendations for pollution prevention and
environmental justice in Indian country. In closing,
Mr. Goldtooth commented that the members of the
tribal perspectives subgroup requested that Chapter
4 undergo an additional review by another tier of
representatives of tribal governments, intertribal
organizations, and community and grassroots
organizations.
3.4 Business and Industry Perspectives on
Pollution Prevention
Ms. Sue Briggum, Waste Management Inc.,
summarized information presented in Chapter 5 of
the draft pollution prevention report. She stated that
the business and industry perspectives subgroup
had representation from large, medium, and small
manufacturing businesses and a number of different
business and industry sectors in the United States.
The subgroup also solicited recommendations from
the American Business Roundtable and the
American Chemistry Council.
Ms. Briggum said that the chapter on business and
industry perspectives provides a thorough discussion
of opportunities that could be leveraged in
environmental justice communities to reduce the
impacts of pollution and address community
concerns.
The business and industry subgroup had not
included a discussion about compliance in its
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
chapter, she pointed out, because the subgroup
believes that pollution prevention means going
beyond compliance and doing more than what is
required by regulations. She stressed that this
subgroup had begun with the premise that business
and industry should and would comply with every
single regulation. The chapter outlines the
incentives that the workgroup had identified for
businesses to move beyond compliance voluntarily,
she said. The business and industry subgroup had
viewed the implementation of a collaborative model
to advance environmental justice through pollution
prevention as an enormous opportunity for
businesses and industries to be "good neighbors,"
engage with local communities on constructive
projects, and identify more opportunities for problem-
solving. Acknowledging that financial incentives
always interest the business community, she noted
that the chapter identifies numerous government
subsidies that should provide incentives to
implement pollution prevention in markets that have
historically resisted the initiative because of financial
considerations. Ms. Briggum also acknowledged
that public recognition is an incentive for the
business community to pursue pollution prevention
efforts.
3.5 Government Perspectives on Pollution
Prevention
Mr. Andrew Sawyers, MDE, discussed information
presented in Chapter 6 of the draft pollution
prevention report. Providing historical context for
government perspectives on pollution prevention, Mr.
Sawyers said that the 1960s had been characterized
by widespread demonstrations and concerns about
environmental pollution, the publication of Rachel
Carson's book Silent Spring, and demonstrations by
African-American. In 1970, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into
law to establish the basic national charter and
declaration of a national policy for protection of the
environment, he continued, adding that later that
year, EPA had been established and tasked to
manage the environment, and the Clean Air Act
(CAA) had been adopted into law. Adoption of the
CAA had instituted the control activities of the newly
formed EPA and had begun a history of regulatory
standards and permits designed to control pollution,
he said. Mr. Sawyers continued summarizing the
time line of government action on the environment,
noting that the 1970s also had brought the adoption
of the Federal Environment Pesticide Control Act of
1972, the Water Pollution Control Act amendments
of 1972, the Ocean Dumping Act of 1972, the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974, the Toxic Substances
Control Act of 1976, the Resource Recovery and
Conservation Act (RCRA) of 1976, and the Clean
Water Act (CWA) of 1977.
Many of the control programs initially adopted have
been successful, Mr. Sawyers continued. However,
as time passed, it became obvious that the
regulatory framework should be expanded to
address pollution before it is released into the
environment. This realization led to the adoption of
the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) in 1990, he said,
and government agencies at all levels has been
encouraged to implement this act. Implementation
of the PPA, coupled with decades of environmental
justice concerns, led to the issuance of Executive
Order 12898 by President Clinton in 1994.
Mr. Sawyers stated that it is obvious that pollution
prevention and environmental justice have similar
goals. These goals are best achieved through a
multi-stakeholder process, he said. As an example,
Mr. Sawyers mentioned that MDE had moved to
support business pollution prevention activities
through an innovative project called the
Environmental Results Program (ERP), which
promotes the use of pollution prevention as a tool to
achieve compliance and offers technical assistance
to business working to implement pollution
prevention. Use of pollution prevention as a tool to
achieve compliance and promote the environmental
justice is an example of how local, state, and federal
governments, industry, and community organizations
can collaborate to attain desirable outcomes for a
range of stakeholders, he said.
Any multi-stakeholder process, Mr. Sawyers
stressed, must include mechanisms for identifying
and promoting success and for using other agencies
and organizations to promote the process. In
addition, government agencies must listen to the
community in order to gain its perspective, identify
potential problems with the process, and pinpoint
areas for compromise, he said.
Mr. Sawyers said that multi-stakeholder partnerships
may be used to advance the complementary goals of
pollution prevention and environmental justice. He
stressed that there are many opportunities within the
existing framework to integrate pollution prevention
and environmental justice. Additionally, he said, this
integration may be applied to other partnership
efforts, such as EPA's National Environmental
Partnership Performance Systems (NEPPS), EPA's
Pollution Prevention Incentives for States (PPIS),
and other voluntary programs.
In closing, Mr. Sawyers reiterated that from a
government perspective, pollution prevention and
1-8
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
environmental justice are mutually beneficial for the
revitalization of local communities. Through pollution
prevention and environmental justice programs, he
stressed, governments can continue to build and
strengthen infrastructure on all levels and in all
sectors, including business, industry, and local
communities.
3.6 Presentation of Consensus Proposals
Ms. Subra and Mr. Geiser presented the draft
consensus proposals for advancing environmental
justice through pollution prevention for consideration
by the members of the Executive Council. The draft
consensus proposals are presented in Chapter 2 of
the draft pollution prevention report.
Mr. Geiser stressed that the proposals represent the
consensus of the multiple stakeholders represented
in the Pollution Prevention Workgroup, stakeholders
include communities, tribes, government agencies,
and business and industry representatives. He
echoed Ms. Shepard's previous statement that the
implementation of the ideas encompassed in the
consensus proposals is as important as their
creation, and he stated that it is the collective
judgment of the workgroup that the consensus
proposals are substantive enough or sufficiently
substantive to foster their implementation.
Continuing, Mr. Geiserstated that the NEJAC should
urge EPA to implement the consensus proposals
with the full participation of appropriate stakeholder
groups. Implementation of the proposals, he said,
would improve the quality of the environment for all
people, particularly low-income, minority, and tribal
communities. However, without the active
engagement of these communities, sustaining the
benefits of the proposals that would be difficult, he
said. He noted that an involved community would
have a vested interest in the process that would
enhance the chances for both immediate and long-
term success. Business and industry would also
benefit from proposal implementation in the form of
more efficient processes, cost savings, and creation
of jobs, he continued.
Before presenting each of the consensus proposals,
Mr. Geiser explained that the 11 proposals in the
draft pollution prevention report generally fall within
3 categories: community leadership and capacity-
building, using and expanding existing tools to
improve conditions in communities, and providing
incentives to private markets. Exhibit 1 -2 lists the 11
consensus proposals developed by the Pollution
Prevention Workgroup.
1-9
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
In response to the overview of the consensus
proposals, Mr. Larry Charles, ONE/CHANE, Inc.
and a member of the International Subcommittee,
noted that there appear to be opportunities for
integrating the work of the Pollution Prevention
Workgroup with other ongoing initiatives of the
NEJAC. For example, he said, the International
Subcommittee of the NEJAC has formed an
initiative to provide recommendations and advice
about strategies to influence multinational
corporations to operate their international facilities in
the same way they operate their U.S.-based
facilities.
Mr. Charles then offered several comments about
the consensus proposals. He first recommended
that the draft pollution prevention report clearly
promote the use of zero emission technologies in
existing facilities, stating that the implementation of
such technologies could have the most immediate
and substantial impact in improving the environment
both domestically and internationally. He also
recommended that the report include specific
recommendations for policy change at all levels of
government to provide incentives for emission
reduction at existing facilities. Regarding new
facilities, He also advocated promoting a national
moratorium on facility siting in impacted
communities. Finally, Mr. Charles recommended
that the report include a recommendation that the
government provide resources for community
capacity-building through the application of a
specific fee to support such activities as part of the
permitting process.
Mr. Yang voiced concern that enforcement is not
included as a key component of the draft pollution
prevention report. He stated that although he
agreed that pollution prevention should "go beyond
compliance," omission of enforcement as an
important tool in pollution prevention is not realistic.
As an example, Mr. Yang pointed to case studies
presented to the NEJAC on December 9, 2002 (see
Chapter Two, Section 2.0 of this report for a
summary of those case studies), in which facilities
had not been in compliance when pollution
prevention activities were implemented.
Enforcement is an important form of deterrence, he
stressed, describing such deterrence as a
"negative" incentive for industry to reduce or prevent
pollution.
Then, referring to the ongoing debate among EPA,
the states, environmental justice communities, and
industry about whether cooperative programs
should replace ortake priority over enforcement and
environmental auditing, Mr. Yang raised the concern
Exhibit 1-2
LIST OF CONSENSUS PROPOSALS
Community Leadership and Capacity-Building
1 Develop and promote implementation of a multi-
stakeholder collaborative model to advance
environmental justice through pollution
prevention that ensures meaningful design and
implementation for impacted communities
2 Increase community and tribal participation in
pollution prevention partnerships by promoting
capacity-building in low-income, minority, and
tribal communities
Using and Expanding Existing Tools to Improve
Conditions in Communities
3 Identify and implement opportunities to advance
environmental justice through pollution
prevention in federal environmental statutes
4 Promote local multimedia, multihazard reduction
planning and implementation
5 Promote efforts to incorporate pollution
prevention and environmental justice into
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP)
6 Strengthen implementation of pollution
prevention programs on tribal lands and in
Alaskan Native villages
7 Promote efforts to institutionalize pollution
prevention internationally, particularly in
developing countries
Providing Incentives to Private Markets
8 Encourage "green buildings, "green businesses,"
and "green industries" through programs such as,
EPA's Brownfields and Smart Growth programs
9 Promote product substitution and process
substitution in areas that impact low-income,
minority, and tribal communities
10 Promote just and sustainable transportation
projects and initiatives
11 Provide incentives to promote collaboration
among communities, tribes, businesses, and
government agencies on pollution prevention
projects in environmental justice communities
1-10
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
that the NEJAC will send a message that it promotes
cooperative, voluntary approaches over enforcement
approaches and that enforcement is not an important
part of pollution prevention, unless the draft report is
modified.
Ms. Shepard echoed Mr. Yang's concerns, stating
that she considered the omission of enforcement
issues from the draft pollution prevention report to be
"a fatal flaw."
Responding to Mr. Yang's comments, Ms. Briggum
explained that enforcement had been discussed at
length by the Pollution Prevention Workgroup;
however, no consensus regarding enforcement as a
pollution prevention tool could be reached, she said.
Ms. Tucker responded that the omission of
enforcement from the consensus chapter is a major
concern for the community perspectives workgroup.
She reminded the members of the NEJAC that the
draft report is open for comment and that
stakeholder comments could help "nudge along"
those stakeholder groups that are not supportive of
addressing enforcement in the consensus proposals.
Mr. Sawyers also offered several comments in
response to Mr. Yang's concerns about the omission
of enforcement considerations from the report. Mr.
Sawyers first stated that although enforcement
always would remain an option, past experience had
shown that the government needs to take a different
approach when dealing with environmental justice
communities. Referring to the Park Heights case
study, Mr. Sawyers pointed out that the community
wanted enforcement actions if needed, but that it
also wanted the companies to remain viable within
their community. Also, Mr. Sawyers explained that
a common concern raised by communities is that
once enforcement actions are taken, the government
no longer maintains a presence in the community.
Communities prefer a sustained government
presence, he said. Mr. Sawyers continued that from
the government's perspective, stressing
collaboration and compliance assistance as
approaches to pollution prevention allows the
government to maintain a presence in communities
that historically have not had any regulatory
oversight.
Ms. Walker noted that the issue of enforcement is
particularly important in Indian country. There are
approximately 53 million acres of Indian lands in the
United States, she explained, but state
environmental laws almost never apply, and it is up
to the tribes or EPA to administer federal
environmental laws and enforce them on
reservations. Although tribes can assume
responsibility under CWA and CAA, she continued,
few tribes have developed the necessary programs
to achieve this effectively. Thus, EPA is generally
responsible for implementing and enforcing
environmental laws in Indian country.
Ms. Walker then asked the Pollution Prevention
Workgroup to clarify the references to tribes
throughout the draft pollution prevention report, as
the references are inconsistent. She further
requested that the detailed text presented on page
107 of the draft report which discusses the
challenges faced by tribal governments also be
included in the consensus chapter.
Mr. Wlliams suggested that the draft pollution
prevention report include an action item for
development of a science-based approach for
measuring the progress and changes made through
implementing the proposals and associated actions
presented in the consensus chapter. He noted that
this approach should draw upon traditional tribal
knowledge. He also requested that the report be
clarified regarding the distinctions between trust
lands and off-reservation resources or reserves.
Ms. Shepard remarked that community-driven
pollution prevention projects can arm communities
with the kind of information they need to press the
case for further enforcement with the government.
However, she added, pollution prevention capacity-
building and adequate and sustained funding from
public and private sources are necessary to facilitate
community and tribal participation in pollution
prevention projects.
Ms. Eileen Gauna, Southwestern University School
of Law, warned against urging the government to
provide incentives to businesses by including flexible
conditions or pollution prevention compliance options
in permits, as mentioned in the consensus chapter.
She stated that flexible protocols are more difficult to
monitor, inspect, and enforce. She also warned
against government agencies providing incentives
such as emission reduction credits and higher
trading ratios, stating that such items can become
viewed as substitutes for compliance.
Mr. Robert Harris, Pacific Gas and Electric Company
and member of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee, formally moved to request that the
Pollution Prevention Workgroup revise the report to
include language clarifying that enforcement is
indeed a key component of pollution prevention.
3.7 Community Leadership and Capacity-
Building - Consensus Proposals 1 and 2
1-11
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Consensus Proposal 1. Ms. Subra provided a
more detailed description of Consensus Proposal 1,
which calls for development of a multi-stakeholder
collaborative model to advance environmental justice
through pollution prevention. Ms. Subra remarked
that development of a multi-stakeholder collaborative
model had received the strongest endorsement from
all stakeholder groups participating in the Pollution
Prevention Workgroup. She explained that this
proposal reflects the desire of impacted
communities, tribes, business and industry
representatives, and government agencies to
support community-driven and community-based
pollution prevention processes. Ms. Subra added
that these processes should clearly identify issues of
concern, set measurable objectives, yield real
environmental benefits, and offer meaningful
opportunities for constructive engagement among
various stakeholders. A multi-stakeholder model is
envisioned as a tool for communities, industry, and
government, she continued, and it should build the
capacity of communities, effectively gauge
environmental impacts, implement new pollution
prevention technologies and initiatives, and assess
the results from both the monetary and
environmental standpoints. She added that a multi-
stakeholder collaborative model should incorporate
pollution prevention methods and initiatives already
developed by EPA or other stakeholder groups.
In putting forth Consensus Proposal 1, Ms. Subra
stated, the NEJAC would be providing EPA with a
set of guidelines for implementing collaborative
efforts to advance environmental justice through
pollution prevention. The guidelines suggest that
EPA:
Secure adequate institutional, technical, and
financial resources
Provide assistance and facilitation to build a
community's capacity to meaningfully direct
collaborative efforts
Facilitate development of multi-stakeholder
partnerships
Identify clear pollution prevention opportunities
and methods
Link pollution prevention efforts with community-
based health concerns, lead testing and
abatement, brownfields redevelopment and
revitalization, transportation and air issues, local
multimedia hazard reduction, use of SEPs,
promotion of clean energy, and other
environmental justice initiatives
Assist in developing measurable goals and clear
environmental outcomes
Provide support for consensus building and
dispute resolution, where appropriate
Ms. Subra then described action items developed by
the Pollution Prevention Workgroup to facilitate
EPA's implementation of Consensus Proposal 1.
These action items include:
Develop a multi-stakeholder collaborative model
that incorporates (1) principles outlined in
Chapter 1 of the draft pollution prevention report,
(2) successful pollution prevention methods and
approaches already developed by EPA and
other stakeholders, and (3) a process for
monitoring and incorporating new sustainable
development and pollution prevention initiatives
Identify opportunities for using the multi-
stakeholder collaborative model to advance
environmental justice through pollution
prevention
Provide opportunities forcommunity involvement
in promoting pollution prevention initiatives that
include incentives not only for production
facilities and small businesses but also for
communities and tribes in the surrounding areas
Initiate a grant program for advancing
environmental justice through pollution
prevention that uses the multi-stakeholder
collaborative model
Incorporate successful programs, especially
regional programs, into the multi-stakeholder
collaborative model and transfer the successes
through implementation of similar programs in
other parts of the country
Ms. Walker suggested that Consensus Proposal 1
be revised to include an action item for building on
lessons learned from earlier, related programs and
approaches as well as global experiences. She
added that the action item should reflect the
precautionary principle as it relates to environmental
justice and pollution prevention.
Mr. Lee recommended that Consensus Proposal 1
specifically state that community representation in
the development and implementation of the multi-
stakeholder collaborative model must be reflective of
the communities that are impacted, rather than
reflective of persons working on behalf of the
1-12
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
impacted communities, such as consultant groups.
Reverend Adora Iris Lee, United Church of Christ
and a member of the Health and Research
Subcommittee, commented that Consensus
Proposal 1 should be modified to state more clearly
that EPA's role in developing a multi-stakeholder
collaborative model is to provide financial resources
and that the model's creation and implementation
should be community-driven and community-based.
Consensus Proposal 2. Ms. Tucker then provided
a more detailed review of Consensus Proposal 2,
which calls for increasing community and tribal
participation in pollution prevention partnerships by
promoting capacity-building in low-income, minority,
and tribal communities. Ms. Tucker explained that
the proposal is designed to address the "resource
divide" between community involvement and
pollution prevention initiatives. Ms. Tucker then
described action items developed by the Pollution
Prevention Workgroup to facilitate EPA
implementation of Consensus Proposal 2. These
action items are:
Provide resources to facilitate community and
tribal participation in pollution prevention projects
Use and widely disseminate pertinent
educational materials that have already been
developed and translated
Develop a citizen primer on pollution prevention
technologies and strategies that is accessible for
the layperson, drawing upon pertinent materials
that have already been developed
Create a pollution prevention training academy
for communities. This should be a mobile
academy that involves cooperation between
academic institutions and public and private
training institutions and resources, especially
those designed for environmental justice
communities.
Create a pollution prevention training academy
for tribes, tribal colleges, and Native American
organizations
Compile a collection of case studies featuring
community and tribal representation in pollution
prevention. Successful collaborations would be
useful as examples of pollution prevention
partnerships. A clearinghouse containing the
case studies should be placed on a web site.
The multi-stakeholder collaborative model
should be provided to local governments and
community organizations. The model should
detail the steps of an effective community
involvement process for pollution prevention
projects.
Where appropriate, apply fines collected from
noncompliant facilities in environmental justice
communities to pollution prevention projects that
benefit the health, environment, and quality of
life of community members rather than directing
these monies to state and local general funds or
to the United States Treasury. Community
members and facility employees should oversee
these projects jointly to ensure that community
needs are met and to encourage improved
collaboration between the penalized facilities
and their neighbors.
In closing, Ms. Tucker requested that the members
of the NEJAC also review the additional
recommendations for capacity-building presented in
Chapter 3 of the draft pollution prevention report.
Specifically, she asked the NEJAC to consider
including the following three recommendations
presented in Chapter 3 in the consensus chapter of
the report:
Environmental justice and pollution prevention
grants should be reinstituted. Successful
projects developed through the grant program
should receive sustained funding and should be
expanded to other environmental justice
communities, thereby building on past success.
Ms. T ucker asked the members of the NEJAC to
provide comments on this recommendation.
Pollution prevention resources and funds should
be directed primarily at impacted communities
(and their selected representatives) that are
addressing environmental justice and pollution
prevention issues rather than at other external
bodies, such as organizations set up by
polluters.
Fines imposed on facilities for noncompliance
should be set aside to fund environmental
initiatives forthe community. There is precedent
for such use of fines, and it serves as a way to
ensure that local benefits result from imposition
of fines.
In response to Ms. Tucker's summary of Consensus
Proposal 2, Dr. Graciela Ramirez-Toro, Inter
American University of Puerto Rico and chair of the
Puerto Rico Subcommittee, suggested that the
specific role of the government in capacity-building
be incorporated into the proposal.
1-13
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Ms. Pamela Kingfisher, Indigenous Women's
Network and member of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee, suggested that the Pollution
Prevention Workgroup clarify the role of the training
academies included in Consensus Proposal 2. She
pointed out that the current proposal refers to
creating such academies but does not include
specifics on how they would be funded or on their
purpose and role in advancing environmental justice.
Mr. Wlliams suggested adding text to state that
pollution prevention training academies would
provide training on national and international laws
that provide guidance regarding the protection of
resources, rights and resources (such as the United
Nations Convention on Biological Diversity). Mr.
Goldtooth added that the training academies should
also provide training on international property rights.
3.8 Using and Expanding Existing Tools to
Improve Conditions in Communities -
Consensus Proposals 3, 4, 5, and 6
Consensus Proposal 3. Mr. Geiser briefly
introduced the recommendations of the Pollution
Prevention Workgroup presented in Consensus
Proposal 3, which calls for identifying and
implementing opportunities to advance
environmental justice through pollution prevention in
federal environmental statutes. The
recommendations are:
EPA should review existing federal statutes to
identify avenues for increasing pollution
prevention as well as impediments to integrating
pollution prevention under existing regulatory
directives. EPA should document the avenues
or mechanisms identified, the impediments
discovered, and approaches to overcome the
impediments.
EPA should encourage the states to review
existing source reduction opportunities in the
context of state permitting, enforcement, and
inspection programs and should identify
impediments to incorporating source reduction at
the state level. The states should document the
opportunities identified and pursued to
implement source reduction measures as well as
the actions undertaken to overcome
impediments to source reduction at the state
level. EPA should provide some regulatory
framework for accomplishing this task.
In consultation with tribes, EPA should review
the implementation of federal environmental
statutes in Indian country to identify ways to
integrate pollution prevention into the aspects of
the statutes that EPA implements directly and to
encourage tribes to integrate pollution
prevention into programs forwhich it has primary
authority. EPA should also provide assistance
to tribes that choose to promote pollution
prevention through tribal laws such as Tribal
Environmental Policy Acts (TEPA).
EPA should implement a review of federal and
state pollution prevention measures for
duplication of effort and should eliminate such
duplication where possible.
In response to Mr. Geiser's summary of the
recommendations presented in Consensus Proposal
3, Ms. Judith Espinosa, University of New Mexico
and member of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee, warned that the final
recommendation might be misunderstood as
encouraging EPA to eliminate state laws that
duplicate federal laws. Rather, she continued, the
recommendation should be aimed at encouraging
EPA to institute a formal and effective
communication program so that duplicate efforts are
eliminated. Ms. Lori Kaplan, Indiana Department of
Environmental Management and member of the
Health and Research Subcommittee, agreed with
Ms. Espinosa's statement and added that the
recommendation might also include a discussion of
resource allocation to avoid duplicate efforts. Mr.
Wlliams requested that tribal pollution prevention
measures also be included in the recommendation.
Ms. Espinosa and Ms. Tucker agreed to work
together to revise the recommendation in response
to these comments.
Consensus Proposal 4. Ms. Diane Wlkins,
Bullock Memorial Association and member of the
International Subcommittee, then introduced
Consensus Proposal 4, which calls for promoting
local multimedia, multihazard reduction planning and
implementation. Ms. Wlkins stated that although
exposures to some pollutants might be fairly similar
across the country, studies in a number of areas
indicate that exposures to some pollutants and the
associated risks can vary significantly from one area
to another. Thus, pollution prevention should target
local sources. Ms. Wilkins then read the following
action items developed for EPA implementation of
Consensus Proposal 4:
Identify a mechanism for locating areas with
multiple sources of pollution.
Distinguish between permitted and nonpermitted
sources and activities.
Identify opportunities to implement pollution
1-14
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
prevention at permitted facilities.
Document and develop regulations, incentives,
and other initiatives to reduce pollution from
permitted and nonpermitted sources.
Compile and apply existing EPA and other
methods and approaches for multihazard
reduction planning.
Apply the multi-stakeholder collaborative model
to accomplish multihazard reduction.
Regarding Consensus Proposal 4, Ms. Espinosa
recommended that the definition of "nonpermitted
sources" be included in the proposal. For
clarification, Ms. Briggum advised the members of
the NEJAC that the definition of nonpermitted
sources intended by the Pollution Prevention
Workgroup includes sources not requiring a permit
because the facilities are either "grandfathered" from
current regulations or not large enough to meet the
source pollutant criteria that require a permit.
Ms. Gauna suggested that the first action item
included in Consensus Proposal 4 be revised to
recommend that EPA identify mechanisms for
locating areas with multiple sources of pollution,
inventory the sources, and develop a baseline for
measuring progress at these sources overtime. At
the urging of Ms. Eady, Ms. Gauna agreed to draft
the revised action item and submit it to the Pollution
Prevention Workgroup. Ms. Walker asked that the
phrase "in consultation with communities and tribes"
be added to the beginning of the action item.
Stating that the multi-stakeholder collaborative model
described in Consensus Proposal 1 should be
implemented on a local or regional level, Dr. Richard
Gragg, Florida A&M University, commented that text
might be included in Consensus Proposal 4 that
relates its action items to those proposed in
Consensus Proposal 1.
Consensus Proposal 5. Ms. Briggum then
provided a more detailed overview of Consensus
Proposal 5, which calls for promoting efforts to
incorporate pollution prevention and environmental
justice into SEPs. Ms. Briggum explained that a
SEP is an environmentally beneficial project not
required by law that an individual, corporation, or
government entity agrees to perform in settlement of
an enforcement action. In exchange for the party
making a legal commitment to undertake a SEP, she
said, a percentage of the cost of the SEP may be
considered part of the penalty payment. She
explained that the Pollution Prevention Workgroup is
interested in building on the concepts already
incorporated into EPA's SEP policy to enrich their
application in environmental justice communities.
She then shared the following action items
developed by the workgroup to facilitate EPA
implementation of Consensus Proposal 5:
Improve the coordination and efficiency of SEP
activities through increased programmatic
integration of the audit policy, compliance
assistance, pollution prevention SEPs, and
environmental justice activities.
Improve the quality of SEPs, increase
community participation in SEPs, and reduce the
transaction costs of SEP agreements through
implementation of pollution prevention SEP
training designed for different stakeholder
groups, implementation of a Pollution Prevention
SEP Library, and finalization of the draft "EPA
Guidance for Community Involvement in
Supplemental Environmental Projects" (65
Federal Register, 40639-40644; June 30,2002).
Increase the number of pollution prevention
SEPs by (1) encouraging states, tribes, and
municipalities to establish SEP policies; (2)
establishing a system of incentives both within
and outside EPA; and (3) increasing
communication between EPA regional SEP
coordinators and EPA regional environmental
justice coordinators.
Create market-based pollution prevention SEPs
through which an entity could purchase or fund
pollution prevention initiatives at non-entity
facilities that benefit the impacted low-income or
minority community to have a greater impact on
impacted communities in general.
Quantify the results of pollution prevention SEPs
through tracking and monitoring; this will help
identify uses and appropriate focus areas for the
SEPs.
Ms. Eady commented that EPA Region 1 had
identified a specific banking institution for SEPs and
that persons with internet access could view
information on specific SEPs on line. She suggested
that the EPA Region 1 SEP paradigm could be used
by other regions that do not have similar models.
Consensus Proposal 6. Mr. Goldtooth then
introduced Consensus Proposal 6, which calls for
strengthening the implementation of pollution
prevention programs on tribal lands and in Alaskan
Native villages. Mr. Goldtooth stated that tribal
1-15
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
governments and organizations are prepared to play
a significant role in strengthening pollution
prevention programs. For example, he said, the
National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC), an
intertribal organization with representatives from
about 170 tribes, provides an important mechanism
for sharing information. He added that many other
organizations can serve as resources for educational
programs and as clearinghouses for information,
including the Institute for Tribal Environmental
Professionals (ITEP) at Northern Arizona University
and the National Tribal Environmental Research
Institute (NTERI) operated by the Inter-Tribal Council
of Arizona.
Mr. Goldtooth also pointed out that tribes generally
support the concept of pollution prevention because
it is consistent with tribal values that encourage
planning for future generations. He added that
pollution prevention is the key to preserving tribal
resources on and off the reservations. Finally, Mr.
Goldtooth stated that tribal governments and
Alaskan Native villages are increasing economic
opportunities on tribal lands through partnerships
with business and industry. Successful partnerships
involve developing research projects, providing
technical direction and administrative support for
selected pollution prevention projects, and
developing new methods and technologies that
conserve energy and reduce waste and emissions.
Mr. Goldtooth then read the following action items
included in Consensus Proposal 6:
EPA should provide or offer assistance to tribal
governments that need to fill the enforcement
gap by Direct Implementation of Tribal
Cooperative Agreements (DITCA).
EPA should provide or offer assistance to tribal
governments for drafting and implementing
TEPAs that include pollution prevention
requirements.
EPA should provide or offer assistance to tribal
governments to encourage them to engage in
land use planning and economic development
activities that promote pollution prevention.
EPA should provide or offer assistance to tribal
governments to encourage them to develop
walkable neighborhoods, incorporate smart
growth principles, and use geographic
information system (GIS) technologies to
support land use analysis and planning.
EPA should provide or offer assistance to tribes,
tribal education institutions, and Native American
organizations to help them institute educational
programs promoting pollution prevention on and
near tribal lands.
EPA should work with other federal agencies to
provide or offer assistance to tribes to help them
promote pollution prevention initiatives as part of
industrial development.
EPA should provide or offer assistance to tribal
governments to encourage them to develop
memoranda of understanding (MOU) with
adjacent government entities, such as states or
municipalities, in order to address pollution
prevention issues and implement pollution
prevention programs.
In response to Mr. Goldtooth's introduction to
Consensus Proposal 6, Ms. Walker suggested that
the term "assistance" in the recommendations be
clarified as "technical and financial" assistance.
Ms. Kingfisher suggested that the proposal also
discuss protection of sacred sites as an important
part of any pollution prevention program on or near
tribal lands.
Mr. Williams commented that EPA could also assist
tribes in educating state and local governments
about the impacts of pollution on tribes.
3.9 Providing Incentives to Private Markets -
Consensus Proposal 11
Mr. Warren introduced Consensus Proposal 11,
which calls for providing incentives to promote
collaboration among communities, tribes,
businesses, and government agencies on pollution
prevention projects in environmental justice
communities. He stated that this proposal is based
on the idea that even full compliance with
environmental laws by businesses often does not
fully address community concerns. Mr. Warren
explained that Consensus Proposal 11 is targeted at
creating a system of incentives that can be
incorporated into the multi-stakeholder collaborative
model. The role of government is to serve as a
facilitator, he added, providing resources and
incentives that will encourage businesses and
communities to collaborate. He then summarized
the following recommendations included in
Consensus Proposal 11:
EPA and states should implement pollution
prevention programs and outreach efforts that
target environmental justice communities. EPA
1-16
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
should provide incentives for communities to
participate in collaborative pollution prevention
activities by offering resources for capacity-
building and by disseminating written information
concerning pollution prevention. EPA should
consider both input from communities and the
environmental risk to communities when issuing
permits and setting standards. EPA should
designate a knowledgeable technical assistance
staff within OECA to (1) coordinate EPA
outreach efforts and facilitate dialogue among
community, business, and government; (2) help
identify specific pollution prevention projects that
are suitable for a community; and (3) educate
companies and communities about the existence
of proven, cost-effective technologies and
innovative opportunities for pollution prevention.
EPA should identify "priority pollution prevention
communities" based on the risk posed to
communities from the aggregate of polluting
sources. This initiative should focus on
communities of color and low-income
communities, thereby reflecting EPA's stated
commitment to environmental justice. EPA
should provide both compliance assistance and
incentives for pollution reduction and elimination
for efforts developed within these communities.
EPA should develop and implement programs,
initiatives, and incentives to encourage
businesses to engage in collaborative
partnerships to implement pollution prevention,
use "green" technologies and nontoxic materials,
and design innovative processes in minority and
low-income communities. The incentives could
include: (1) special recognition of a business for
its pollution prevention activities; (2) low-interest
loans or grants for research into pollution
prevention; (3) expedited permitting; (4)
consolidated multimedia reporting; (5) flexible,
multimedia, facility-wide permits with a single
government point of contact; (6) "smart permits"
that allow a range of operating scenarios to be
considered by the companies seeking the
permits; (7) compliance options in permits based
on pollution prevention technologies or
innovation; and (8) increased emission reduction
credits or higher trading ratios where pollution
prevention activities are practiced (in the context
of an emission trading program designed to
reduce the overall pollution in an environmental
justice community).
EPA should initiate and should encourage states
to initiate programs to assist small businesses in
developing and implementing pollution
prevention activities, including source reduction,
waste minimization, and recycling.
EPA should facilitate the formation of
government-private sector partnerships to
encourage businesses that cannot eliminate
their wastes to recycle them. EPA should
develop programs to increase the volume of
recyclable and reusable materials collected from
public and private sources (for example,
electronics and paper products from businesses
and consumers). EPAshould provide incentives
to increase the use of products made from
recycled materials because without recycled
product use, the collection of recyclables is
unsustainable.
In response to Mr. Warren's presentation of
Consensus Proposal 11, Ms. Gauna warned against
labeling environmental justice communities as
something other than environmental justice
communities, stating that such communities had
worked for many years to develop their own
terminology and find their own voice. She also said
that she believed that there are inherent problems
with the concepts of flexible permitting, expedited
permitting, and interfacility emissions trading.
Flexible permits are highly technical and are difficult
for communities to analyze, she said. Also,
implementation of favorable trading ratios or offsets
for pollution reduction or prevention is problematic,
she stated, because it can result in pollution
prevention becoming a substitute for compliance.
Ms. Gauna then remarked that the pollution
prevention report should clearly state that incentives
should be offered to companies headquartered
outside environmental justice communities that
implement pollution prevention strategies at their
facilities within such communities. Mr. Warren
responded that the Pollution Prevention Workgroup
views the proposed trading programs as incentives
to trade pollution out of environmental justice
communities. He added that flexible permitting is
intended to encourage a facility to do more than is
required by a standard permit. See Chapter Three,
Section 3.1.2 of this report for a discussion about
flexible permitting.
Mr. Harris suggested that the Pollution Prevention
Workgroup include a recommendation in Consensus
Proposal 11 that EPA provide incentives to
companies that prioritize the cleanup of Brownfields
sites in environmental justice communities.
Mr. Lee stated that promoting pollution prevention
requires moving beyond the one-dimensional
strategy of enforcement; thus, incentives can be a
1-17
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
necessary and important tool in promoting pollution
prevention. However, he stressed, there must be
conditions for considering and providing such
incentives. He then offered the following conditions
for consideration by the Pollution Prevention
Workgroup and the members of the NEJAC:
Health concerns in an environmental justice
community must be addressed fully before
incentives are offered.
If a strategy to address the health concerns is in
place and is satisfactory to the community,
independent environmental testing by an entity
selected and managed by the community (but
paid for by the facility seeking the incentives)
should be performed to confirm that
environmental issues have been mitigated.
The facility must be committed to ongoing
compliance and must agree to provide regular
proof of ongoing compliance. The community
should have exclusive control of the timing and
extent of ongoing testing and monitoring.
A model for resolving environmental conflicts
should be developed and incorporated into the
incentive programs.
Mr. Lee then stated that the issue of providing
incentives to facilities is complicated and raises
concerns on many levels. He encouraged the
members of the NEJAC and members of the
audience to review Consensus Proposal 11 and to
provide detailed input to the Pollution Prevention
Workgroup for its consideration when revising this
proposal.
Stating that the workgroup had not achieve a true
consensus regarding the language used in the third
recommendation, which proposes incentives for
facilities that implement pollution prevention
strategies above and beyond compliance assurance,
Ms. Tucker asked that the recommendation be
withdrawn from Consensus Proposal 11 and revised
by the workgroup before it is included in the final
pollution prevention report. Members of the
workgroup agreed to her request.
3.10 A Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Model
for Advancing Environmental Justice
through Pollution Prevention
Ms. Subra gave a presentation that outlined what the
Pollution Prevention Workgroup identified as the
"necessary elements" of a multi-stakeholder
collaborative model for advancing environmental
justice through pollution prevention. These elements
are presented below:
All stakeholders must be engaged in the process
and willing to actively participate.
Every step of the process must involve all
stakeholders.
Opportunities for public education and public
input must be provided throughout the process.
The process must be community-based and
designed to consider environmental issues
impacting communities.
The involvement of communities and tribes is
critical to the process and is just as important as
the involvement of government, businesses, and
industries.
Community and tribal commitment to long-term
monitoring of the success of the process is
important.
Ms. Subra stressed that the process should be
initiated by the affected community or tribe. She
added that all affected stakeholders should be
identified and engaged at the beginning of the
process. She then pointed out that affected
stakeholders could include community groups, tribal
organizations, nongovernment organizations, civic
organizations, state and federal agencies and
authorities (including agencies responsible for the
environment, natural resources, agriculture, health,
economic development, and emergency response),
businesses and industries operating facilities in the
affected community, and associated industry
organizations.
Continuing, Ms. Subra stated that after the process
is initiated, representatives of all the stakeholder
groups should research, identify, and prioritize the
environmental issues within the affected area or
community and develop a multi-stakeholder
approach to address the issues. Then pollution
prevention initiatives should be implemented to
address the prioritized issues through a collaborative
effort by all stakeholders, she said. Pollution
prevention initiatives should be periodically reviewed
and successes and failures should be tracked to
evaluate the need for additional pollution prevention
measures.
3.11 Enforcement and the Precautionary
Principle
1-18
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Mr. Warren offered several comments to frame the
discussion about enforcement and pollution
prevention. First, he stressed that it was not the
intention of the Pollution Prevention Workgroup to
imply that pollution prevention should be promoted
as a substitute for, or a way of precluding,
enforcement. In his opinion, he said, conventional
enforcement authority under the existing
environmental statutes is independent, and actually
supportive, of pollution prevention. He said that the
draft pollution prevention report would be revised to
reflect these concepts. However, Mr. Warren stated
that he is reluctant to include language in the report
that implies a vigorous enforcement program needs
to be implemented by EPA as part of a pollution
prevention strategy. He explained that the
workgroup had drafted the report with the intention
that pollution prevention should be implemented by
facilities that are already in compliance.
Mr. Yang agreed with Mr. Warren's statements but
pointed out that enforcement should be addressed in
the pollution prevention report because many
facilities are not in compliance. Otherwise, he
warned, the NEJAC would be sending the message
that incentive-based and cooperative approaches
should be implemented rather traditional
enforcement procedures even when a facility is not
in compliance.
Ms. Briggum thanked Mr. Yang for his comments,
stating that she understood his point that some
pollution prevention activities may appear to reduce
pollution overall but may involve substituting
practices that are more difficult to monitor and
quantify. She said that the pollution prevention
report should communicate that pollution prevention
programs must be easy to monitor and must include
understandable and enforceable provisions to
ensure that the pollution reduction is real.
Mr. Geiser stressed that he believed that the draft
pollution prevention report could present
enforcement measures as pollution prevention tools
without detracting from the innovation, creativity, and
flexibility that are also needed for pollution
prevention. He commented that enforcement should
be included as a pollution prevention measure
because enforcement measures create costs for
facilities that can be reduced by better management
of materials and energy; therefore, enforcement can
encourage facilities to prevent pollution. Also, he
continued, enforcement serves to "level the playing
field" for facilities, providing a competitive advantage
for facilities that maintain compliance.
Mr. Lee pointed out that there may be situations in
which enforcement should not be the first step taken
and that this decision should be made with the input
of the community, which may want to pursue
alternative approaches. He also encouraged the
Pollution Prevention Workgroup to include a
discussion in its report regarding why pollution
prevention is important, especially for environmental
justice, disproportionately impacted, minority, low-
income, and tribal communities.
Turning the discussion to issues related to the
precautionary principle and pollution prevention, Mr.
Geiser pointed out that during the last 25 years,
many federal statutes had been established that
promote precaution; thus, the precautionary principle
is not a new an idea, he said. Regardless, there are
common criticisms of the precautionary approach.
First, he said, business and industry fear that their
inability to quantify the effectiveness of their pollution
prevention efforts in protecting human health makes
them vulnerable to legal challenges. Second, there
is uncertainty regarding the science that control
measures are based on, he continued. Finally, he
said, people concerned about economic
development fearthat precaution cripples innovation
and lessens the capacity to develop new
technologies and materials.
Mr. Geiser then commented that the draft pollution
prevention report should be revised to encourage
government and industry to "act in the face of
uncertainty" and prove the effectiveness of their
environmental protocols in protecting human health
and the environment. At the same time, he
continued, the report should contain language
challenging proponents of the technology to carry the
burden of proof. By including these two ideas
without struggling with the term "precautionary
principle" itself, he said, the members of the Pollution
Prevention Workgroup and the NEJAC should be
able to reach a consensus on the topic.
Mr. Goldtooth stated that pollution prevention must
dictate the need for precautionary action even in the
absence of full scientific certainty, with the
understanding that, where uncertainties exist about
some of the cause-and-effect relationships, those
uncertainties shall not be a rationale for postponing
protective action. See Exhibit 1-3 for the full text of
the information presented about the precautionary
principle.
Concluding the policy dialogue, Mr. Lee reiterated to
the members of the Executive Council and audience
that the Pollution Prevention Workgroup requests
that they review the draft consensus proposals in
depth and provide written comments and
1-19
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
recommendations to Ms. Marva King, OEJ, by
January 31, 2003. Regarding the next steps in the
development of the pollution prevention report, Mr.
Lee explained that the workgroup would rework the
draft report in the coming months and submit a
revised version to the members of the NEJAC for
their review in late April 2003. The process should
come to a close in Summer 2003 with the transmittal
of the report and its recommendations to the
Administrator at EPA, he said.
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
ensure that all participants "had equal space at the
table."
This section summarizes the presentations and
reports made to the Executive Council of the NEJAC.
Specific topics include a report about the
Environmental Justice Listening Session sponsored
by EPA Region 6, an update on OEJ's Business
Practices Study, and an update on the Cumulative
Risk Assessment Framework.
4.1 Region 6 Environmental Justice Listening
Session
Mr. Richard Moore, Southwest Network for
Environmental and Economic Justice, and Mr.
Lawrence Starfield, Deputy Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 6, shared lessons learned from the EPA
Region 6 environmental justice listening session held
in Houston, Texas, from November 14 through 16,
2002. Mr. Moore began the presentation by
commenting that, in his opinion, EPA Region 6 "has
come a long way" in moving from "playing a role in
environmental racism" to actively collaborating with
grassroots organizations and environmental justice
communities to find solutions to environmental
injustice. He then conveyed his respects to Mr.
Starfield and Mr. Gregg Cooke, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 6, stating that the
leadership at EPA Region 6 had given the regional
staff the "political and moral authority" to address the
environmental justice issues that had been brought
before them for many years.
Continuing, Mr. Moore said that a trusting
relationship had been formed throughout the many
months of planning for the environmental justice
listening session and that this relationship had been
further solidified during the listening session. This
trust, he stressed, had laid the framework for a
successful process in the recent listening session
and for future listening sessions.
Mr. Moore stated that the planning process also had
been crucial to the success of the listening session.
The involvement of representatives of all stakeholder
groups in the extensive planning process, helped
1-20
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Mr. Moore then shared his opinion that the phrase
"listening session" might not be an appropriate term
for the meeting because the discussions had not
been limited to sharing information; rather they had
focused on developing solutions as well, he
explained. Although it is unrealistic to think that all
the major environmental justice problems in EPA
Region 6 would be solved quickly, he said, the
listening session had been a successful, first step
towards long-term results.
Acknowledging Mr. Moore's comments, Mr. Starfield
stated that the listening session had marked the
beginning of an ongoing dialogue among
stakeholders in EPA Region 6. He agreed that the
planning process had been critical to the success of
the listening session. He explained that the planning
committee had included representatives of
community-based organizations, academia, industry,
and government. The planning committee
participants had been instrumental in identifying the
key topics fordiscussion during the listening session,
he said. The planning committee had developed the
listening session agenda and had created
workgroups to develop issue papers for each issue
identified, he continued. The committee also had
played an important role in the success of the
meeting by establishing official ground rules and
objectives before the meeting, he said.
Mr. Starfield continued that the listening session also
Exhibit 1-3
PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH
"In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to
their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack offull scientific certainty shall
not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."
- Principle 15 — Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
"One of the definitions of precautionary approach that is out in the world is: The precautionary approach
challenges us to prevent harm before it occurs. It holds that where there is scientific evidence that an activity
threatens wildlife, the environment, or human health, protective measures should be taken even in the absence of
full scientific certainty. Within the U.S. there are federal statutes that embrace aspects of the precautionary
approach, i.e., the Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA), drug laws, Occupational Safety and Health Act
(OSHA) within the General Duty Clause and others.
"Internationally (the U.S. Department of State takes part in these international activities), examples where the
precautionary principle is recognized, for example, are: The Rio Declaration at the Earth Summit in June 1992
firmly placed precaution on the global stage. The principle has been embraced in other international agreements
dealing with high-stakes environmental concerns of limited scientific certainty, such as, the UN Agreement on
High Seas Fishing, the Convention on Climate Change, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer, and many other agreements. The approach has gained widespread acceptance as a guiding
principle for environmental decision making. The January 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety reaffirmed
several times the precautionary approach and the appropriateness of taking protective action where there is a
"lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent
of the potential adverse effects...."
"Too often in history we have waited for damage to occur before taking action. We have a hole in the ozone
layer; marine fish stocks are depleted; rivers in the U.S. are contaminated with mercury and dioxin contamination
and have fish advisory notices; and climate change threatens future generations. Damaging effects of
bioaccumulative toxic chemicals have already been witnessed throughout the country and the world, but future
problems can be averted if the U.S. and other countries incorporate precautionary measures.
"The precautionary approach can best be understood as an overarching principle informing each step of the
decision-making process. In keeping with the ideals of foresight and careful planning, the principle places great
weight on data collection and analysis. The information-gathering process involves multiple sources, including
the public, to ensure that all relevant data are considered. The analysis must go well beyond risk assessment.
Though a useful tool in certain contexts, risk assessment has the potential to narrow rather than broaden the
analysis in at least two respects: (1) by inserting estimates where uncertainty exists and (2) through its focus on
quantifying "acceptable" levels of health or environmental damage. The precautionary principle, by contrast,
calls for review of the proposed action in light of all the possible options and alternatives."
1-21
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
had been a success because of the strong
participation by state and federal agencies (for
example, the U.S. Department of Labor) that had
addressed issues for which EPA does not have
authority.
In closing, Mr. Starfield said that EPA Region 6 plans
to host additional listening sessions in 2003
beginning in Texas and Louisiana. He stated that
this approach will allow the discussions to focus on
more local issues. He stated that EPA will
encourage additional state agencies to participate.
Noting that tribes and tribal organizations had not
been included in the listening session planning
process, Mr. Goldtooth encouraged their future
participation in listening sessions held in Region 6
and other EPA regions.
Ms. Subra, who said she had participated in the
listening session, commended EPA Region 6 for
encouraging its program managers to attend the
meeting. The EPA program managers who had
attended the listening session had participated in the
panels and engaged in discussions with the
community representatives, she explained. She said
that their participation had been important because
solutions to environmental justice problems are
ultimately developed in the EPA program offices.
Ms. Subra requested that EPA Region 6 encourage
the participation of program managers from state
agencies in future meetings.
Ms. Mary Nelson, Bethel New Life Inc. and member
of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee,
asked about the process for implementing
recommendations proposed at the listening session.
Mr. Starfield responded that the planning committee
had established a workgroup for each topic that
would work with participating federal and state
agencies to see the action items through to
implementation.
Reverend Lee recommended that the planning
committee establish a system for monitoring action
items.
Ms. Eady asked why government and tribal
representatives of Oklahoma had not participated in
the listening session. She recommended that Mr.
Randall Gee, Cherokee Nation and member of the
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the
NEJAC, be asked to participate in future listening
sessions. Mr. Starfield responded that state
agencies in Oklahoma had been asked to
participate. He said that Oklahoma does not have
an organized environmental justice movement. He
also added that some states have misgivings about
participating in environmental justice listening
sessions. He hoped that the positive, constructive
work at the first listening session would encourage
such states to participate in the future.
Pointing out that like some states, some EPA
regional offices are more engaged in environmental
justice issues than other regional offices, Ms. Kaplan
asked whether there is an initiative to repeat Mr.
Moore's and Mr. Starfield's presentation for
management at other EPA regional offices. Mr.
Barry Hill, Director, EPA OEJ, responded that the
Executive Steering Committee for EPA's Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice, which
includes as members the EPA Deputy Regional
Administrators and Deputy Assistant Administrators,
had agreed to have each EPA program office and
EPA region develop an environmental justice action
plan. He added that many of the action plans would
incorporate an environmental justice listening
session.
4.2 Update on OEJ Business Practices Study
Mr. Michael Steinberg, Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius,
and Mr. Timothy Fields, Tetra Tech EM Inc.,
presented preliminary observations made in an EPA
OEJ study being conducted to learn more about
industry perspectives about environmental justice
and to highlight best practices regarding
environmental justice as it relates to environmental
permitting and facility siting. The study is being
conducted for OEJ by a contractor team in
collaboration with the National Association of
Manufacturers and the Business Network on
Environmental Justice. Mr. Steinberg first explained
that the objectives of the business practices study
include the following:
Gain a better understanding of how business
and industry view and approach issues of
environmental justice in the context of their
facility siting and permitting practices.
Identify and document successful approaches
used by business and industry to address
environmental justice as part of their facility
siting and permitting practices.
Share experiences, successful approaches, and
lessons learned through working with other
stakeholders (such as community groups).
When possible, identify and highlight the
benefits to business and industry resulting from
incorporating environmental justice into facility
siting decisions and permitting practices.
1-22
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Mr. Steinberg explained the methods used to
perform the business practices study, which include
the following:
Identify industry sectors and candidate
companies to participate in the study.
Identify other stakeholders such as community
organizations to provide outside perspectives on
business and industry practices.
Conduct interviews with industry representatives
and other stakeholders.
Review technical documents (such as company
policies and permits) from participating industry
sectors and companies.
Prepare case studies to highlight some industry
best practices and innovative approaches to
environmental justice.
Mr. Steinberg explained that representatives from
EPA Headquarters and the EPA regions and about
a dozen environmental justice activists had been
interviewed to help identify companies recognized for
addressing environmental justice in theirfacility siting
decisions and permitting practices. As a result, in-
depth interviews had been conducted with ten
companies from five different industry sectors,
including light industrial and manufacturing
businesses, chemical manufacturers, petroleum
businesses, energy and utility companies, and waste
management and disposal facilities. The interviews
had been performed using a standard questionnaire
that reflected the study objectives.
Mr. Steinberg then shared some of the industry
perspectives about and challenges for environmental
justice that had been identified during the study.
Most companies interviewed recognize the
distinction between environmental justice and
community involvement, he said, but associate a
more negative connotation with the term
"environmental justice." That term provokes anxiety
on the part of some industry representatives, he
explained, and many industries believe that using the
"language of discrimination" results in increased
stakeholder polarization and an increase in
confrontation. He also noted that several companies
had declined to participate in the study, including
some of the companies identified by environmental
justice activists as setting positive industry examples
for addressing environmental justice issues. Mr.
Steinberg commented that this circumstance is
powerful evidence of the uneasiness felt by many
industry representatives with regard to environmental
justice.
Continuing, Mr. Steinberg stated that industry
representatives identify conflicting and unclear
definitions of environmental justice as an obstacle to
addressing environmental justice issues related to
facility siting decisions and permitting practices. For
example, definitions of environmental justice offered
by industry representatives varied and ranged from:
"no intentional discrimination," "equal standards and
equal enforcement," "meaningful public
participation," and "equal distribution of
environmental burdens," he said.
Another obstacle marked by industry representatives
is a perceived lack of clear legal and regulatory
requirements forenvironmental justice, Mr. Steinberg
continued. He stated that some industry
representatives had remarked that legal and
regulatory requirements for environmental justice
had not been adequately defined or communicated
to industry. He explained that these individuals
stated that industry requires certainty and
predictability to make decisions about facility siting
and modernization; they need to know the specific
requirements for addressing environmental justice
issues in order to make good decisions, he said. In
short, industry is frustrated that there is no
prescribed approach for addressing an
environmental justice situation, he said. Mr.
Steinberg reported that one industry official had
called environmental justice an "unsubstantiated
obstruction" to the process of facility siting.
Specific challenges for addressing environmental
justice in facility siting and permitting decisions that
Mr. Steinberg reported cited by industry officials
include the following:
Lack of "real models" for approaching
environmental justice issues
Difficulty in "trying to translate the [environmental
justice] principles into action"
Limited understanding of the meaning and
application of the environmental justice terms,
such as "meaningful involvement" and
"significant impact"
Difficulty in applying a single standard to
different environmental justice situations
Challenges in determining the appropriate
individual or group to "speak" for the community
1-23
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Concern about potential legal challenges
involving environmental justice issues even if
facilities consider such issues in their facility
siting decisions or permitting practices
Mr. Steinberg then turned over the presentation to
Mr. Fields, who shared observations regarding "what
works" in terms of industry addressing environmental
justice issues. Several industry representatives
interviewed had stated that they have formal
environmental justice policies, while others had
reported having "social responsibility," "sustainable
development," or "good neighbor" policies that
generally encompass environmental justice
principles, Mr. Fields reported. Also, a
representative of one company had reported that the
company follows an "environmental justice
approach" as part of its analysis before making siting
decisions or permitting implementing practices, he
added. He continued that several industry
representatives had cited use of a neutral or third-
party facilitator as a key factor in successful
community involvement.
Continuing, Mr. Fields said that some companies
had reported success in using national-level
environmental justice criteria to guide their efforts
with local level solutions to address community-
specific environmental justice issues. He added that
one company had reported successfully employing
the public participation guidelines developed by the
NEJAC. Most companies reported that state and
local government assistance had been important in
identifying key stakeholders and available resources,
he said. And some companies had reported success
stemming from establishing and funding community
advisory panels to identify the needs and concerns
of local communities.
Mr. Fields then highlighted two successful and
innovative approaches for addressing environmental
justice issues that had been reported in the study:
Hosting public participation meetings facilitated
by a neutral party before seeking facility permits.
Companies using this approach reported
significant resource savings when they had
addressed community concerns in the planning
stages rather than after facility construction.
Ensuring that senior facility managers live in the
community where the facility is placed and hiring
from the local workforce to assure community
members of the company's commitment to the
community.
In closing, Mr. Fields said that one of the next steps
in the business practices study is to conduct more
interviews with key industry and other stakeholders
such as automotive factories, steel manufacturers,
and retail establishments. He asked the members of
the NEJAC for recommendations of other industry
sectors that should be included in the study. Mr.
Fields also stated that case studies would be
prepared to highlight best practices identified and
lessons learned. A report summarizing the study's
findings would also be prepared, he added.
Mr. Goldtooth suggested that representatives of
mining companies be interviewed in the study. Mr.
Fields responded that two mining companies had
been contacted to schedule interviews. Stating that
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is involved in
environmental justice issues, Ms. Eady suggested
that representatives of this organization be
interviewed in the study.
Mr. Warren commented that the report associated
with the business practices study should send a
clear message to the business community about
what environmental justice means from EPA's point
of view so that industry can "adjust" to EPA's
approach. He also stated that the report should
encourage EPA to play the role of "facilitator" as well
as "regulator" in promoting consideration of
environmental justice issues in facility siting
decisions and permitting practices. Mr. Steinberg
responded that the main objective of the report
would be to communicate the benefits of
incorporating environmental justice into facility
decision-making to business and industry.
4.3 Update on the Cumulative Risk Assessment
Framework
Mr. Lee introduced the topic of the next meeting of
the NEJAC: Cumulative Risk and Cumulative Risk
Assessment. He first clarified the relationship
between the terms "risk" and "impact," explaining
that risk is defined as the probability of harm or
adverse effects while "impact" is defined as the
resulting harm or adverse effects.
Beginning in 1997 with the development of a scoping
and planning memorandum, Mr. Lee explained, EPA
had been working to develop a cumulative risk
assessment framework. The draft cumulative risk
assessment framework had been prepared by EPA
in 1999, he said, and had been subject to three peer
involvement meetings and two consultations with the
EPA Science Advisory Committee in 2001. Mr. Lee
explained that the framework document had then
undergone external peer review in June 2002 and
that EPA plans to release the published version of
1-24
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
the document by the end of 2003.
Mr. Lee explained that the framework document is
intended to provide an overview of the parameters
constituting cumulative risk and impacts and
cumulative risk assessment. The framework
document is to serve as a base for development of
case studies and issue papers on specific topics
related to cumulative risk and cumulative risk
assessments, he explained. These case studies and
an issue paper will be developed during 2003, he
said, and presented to the members of the NEJAC at
the next NEJAC meeting schedule for April 2004.
After receiving input from the NEJAC members on
these items, EPA would start developing guidelines
for cumulative risk assessment.
Continuing, Mr. Lee clarified the definitions of
cumulative risk and cumulative risk assessment.
First, he stated that cumulative risk is defined as the
combined risks associated with aggregate (multi-
pathway, multi-source, and multi-route) exposures to
multiple agents or stressors over time. He then
stated that cumulative risk assessment is an
analysis, characterization, and possible
quantification of the combined risks to health or the
environment associated with multiple agents and
stressors over time. He stressed that the "key
definition points" for cumulative risk are the concept
of multiple stressors or chemicals, the concept of
combined risks, and the fact that cumulative risk
assessment can be qualitative rather than only
quantitative.
Mr. Lee explained that the cumulative risk
assessment framework puts forward an iterative,
three-part process for conducting cumulative risk
assessment, including: (1) planning, scoping, and
problem formulation; (2) analysis; and (3) risk
characterization. Important features of the
cumulative risk assessment process include
targeting of multiple chemical and non-chemical
stressors, a population-based approach, emphasis
on all stakeholders, and evaluation of both human
health and ecological factors, he said. Another
important feature to be addressed in the framework
document and integrated into the cumulative risk
assessment process is the concept of vulnerability.
Vulnerability, he explained, refers not only to the
physical susceptibility or sensitivity of a population
but also to social vulnerability to chemicals or
stressors because of factors such as where people
work, income levels, and access to healthcare.
These factors, he noted, can result in differential
levels of preparedness and differential abilities to
recover from environmental stressors.
Regarding the role of the NEJAC in assisting EPA in
the development of guidelines for cumulative risk
assessment, Mr. Lee explained that a workgroup will
be established within the NEJAC in Spring 2003 to
work in partnership with EPA program and regional
offices, other advisory committees, and other
agencies. The workgroup will develop a draft report
and consensus proposal to be presented at the April
2004 meeting of the NEJAC. Mr. Lee provided
examples of the issues that the workgroup would be
charged to address, including:
Exploring how cumulative risk assessment can
be better grounded in a real-life context of
disproportionately impacted communities and
tribes
Determining practices for ensuring stronger
community involvement in the planning, scoping,
and problem formulation phase of cumulative
risk assessment
Addressing how the concept of vulnerability can
be incorporated into the cumulative risk
assessment process
Identifying methods for more effective use of
information obtained from a cumulative risk
assessment.
5.0 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
This section summarizes miscellaneous business
conducted by the Executive Council.
5.1 Announcement of the April 2004 Meeting of
the NEJAC
Mr. Lee announced that the next meeting of the
NEJAC would be held in April 2004 in New Orleans,
Louisiana. He explained that the annual meeting of
the NEJAC, which historically had been held in
December, would be scheduled for April so that the
meeting could be held in the appropriate fiscal year,
while providing additional time for the substantial
preparation necessary to address the topic of
cumulative risk.
5.2 Other Business
The members of the Executive Council passed two
motions proposed by Mr. Yang to (1) correct several
omissions from the final fish consumption report and
(2) clarify how the Executive Council would refer to
requests for EPA actions.
In his first motion, Mr. Yang asked that the set of
1-25
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
"proposed overarching recommendations" dated
March 15, 2002, that had been submitted to the
NEJAC by the Fish Consumption Workgroup and
approved by the Executive Council be added to the
final fish consumption report as an appendix. He
also requested that the report be revised to include
a preface containing a statement made during the
December 2001 meeting of the NEJAC by Ms. Daisy
Carter, Project Awake and former member of the Air
and Water Subcommittee and the Fish Consumption
Workgroup,. Ms. Carter's statement is presented
below.
Let everybody know this environment
belongs to all of us. And when you
contaminate the water and contaminate the
fish, you are contaminating all of us. I tell
you, I don't know if you know anything about
Isaiah. Isaiah was a great prophet, you
know, and he said, "I have played, I have
taught, and I have preserved" - I'm sorry, I
may be misreading something - "and I
wonder if anybody is listening"- so I want to
know if anybody is listening. And if you are
listening, I want to know what you are going
to do about it.
Mr. Yang continued with a request that the work of
the Fish Consumption Workgroup and Ms. Catherine
O'Neill, Associate Professor of Law, Seattle
University, be specifically acknowledged in the final
fish consumption report. Mr. Yang asked that the
changes to the fish consumption report be made
immediately and that the revised report be
transmitted to the EPA Administrator and posted on
the internet.
Mr. Yang then motioned that the members of the
NEJAC vote to clarify and formalize terminology for
referring to requests for EPA action. Specifically, Mr.
Yang proposed that requests for action that have
been approved formally by the Executive Council be
termed "recommendations" and requests for EPA
action that have been forwarded to the Executive
Council for consideration by either a workgroup or
subcommittee be termed "proposals."
1-26
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9,10 and 12, 2002
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 11, 2002
Baltimore, Maryland
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Alice Walker Eileen Gauna
Co-Designated Federal Official Chair
Wil Wilson
Co-Designated Federal Official
-------
CHAPTER THREE
MEETING OF THE
AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Air and Water Subcommittee of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
conducted a one-day meeting on Wednesday,
December 11, 2002, during a four-day meeting of
the NEJAC in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Eileen
Gauna, Southwestern University Law School,
continues to serve as chair of the subcommittee.
Ms. Alice Walker, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Office of Water (OW), and Dr. Wil
Wilson, EPA Office of Air and Radiation (OAR),
continue to serve as the co-Designated Federal
Officials (DFO) for the subcommittee. Exhibit 3-1
identifies the subcommittee members who attended
the meeting or participated by conference call, as
well as those members who were unable to attend.
This chapter, which summarizes the deliberations of
the Air and Water Subcommittee, is organized in
four sections, including this Introduction. Section
2.0, Activities of the Subcommittee, summarizes the
discussions about the Permitting Workgroup.
Section 3.0, Presentations and Reports, presents an
overview of each presentation and report as well as
a summary of significant questions and comments
from the subcommittee members. Section 4.0,
Significant Action Items, summarizes the significant
action items adopted by the subcommittee.
2.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
This section briefly summarizes the discussions of
the subcommittee about the activities of the
Permitting Workgroup.
2.1 Report on the Status of the Permitting
Workgroup
Mr. Kenneth Manaster, Santa Clara University
School of Law and chair of the Permitting
Workgroup, spoke about the efforts of the workgroup
to recommend ways to improve the integration of
environmental justice into federal environmental
permitting. His discussion focused on the
workgroup's efforts to prepare a Environmental
Justice Recommended Practices Guide for
Permitting that provides guidance and
recommendations for improving the integration of
environmental justice into environmental permitting.
He added that the workgroup has recommended
examining permitting processes individually to
determine their compliance with law. Mr. Manaster
pointed out that although adoption of the
recommended best practices is optional, the need to
recognize good practices for including environmental
justice in permitting is crucial. However, he reported
thatthe efforts of the workgroup had been hampered
by limited membership and a lack of enthusiastic
members. He also stated that the workgroup
struggled with defining the distinction between what
is "recommended" and what is regulated or required
by law. He stressed that the objectives outlined in
the guide are only recommended practices and do
not have legal standing. Mr. Manaster concluded
that the situation required use of a "creative
methodology without inhibiting better approaches."
Mr. Manaster then discussed the organization of the
Recommended Practices Guide, which features two
sections. One section focuses on what he termed
"flash points" - the most common steps in
environmental permitting processes where
environmental justice concerns historically have not
been addressed adequately. Examples of common
flash points include site determination, public
participation (including timing and methodologies),
cumulative pollutant impacts, determination of facility
Exhibit 3-1
AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 11, 2002
Ms. Eileen Gauna, Chair
Ms. Alice Walker, Co-DFO
Dr. Wil Wilson, Co-DFO
Ms. Wilma Subra
Members Who Participated via Conference Call
Mr. Kenneth Manaster
Mr. Jason Grumet
Mr. Robert Sharpe
Members Who Were Unable To Attend
Dr. Elaine Barron
3-1
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
compliance, and disproportional impacts. Mr.
Manaster stated that the guide identifies specific
recommendations that would diminish or minimize
those steps as "flash points." Mr. Manaster
explained that the second section of the guide
identifies both litigation issues and various permit
enforcement mechanisms that allow for effective
control of harmful effects of the permit. He
mentioned that this section lists recommended
practices and approximately 10 areas of the permit
where safe practices can be found and which need
to be organized and documented by the permitting
agency and other permit sources.
Mr. Manaster concluded his presentation by stating
that the Recommended Practices Guide represents
a work in progress. His two recommendations for
improving the document were to (1) identify and
gather similar experiences from around the country
and (2) consider other similar efforts and lessons
learned. He commented that the workgroup expects
to complete the guide in fall 2003.
Ms. Gauna supported Mr. Manaster's
recommendations and emphasized the need to
recruit and encourage the participation of individuals
who have "genuine experiences" with the subject
matter to help prepare the guide. Referring to the
workgroup's struggle with definitions and "finding the
right context," she encouraged the members of the
workgroup to seek greater community involvement
while developing the guide.
Mr. Robert Sharpe, Illinois EPAand a member of the
subcommittee, briefly addressed the state's
perspective about permitting and environmental
justice, problems associated with the permits issued,
and concerns of the authorities involved. He
stressed that the guide does not prescribe specific
actions but rather, lists broad recommendations for
improving the integration of environmental justice in
environmental permitting processes.
Ms. Gauna concluded by emphasizing the
importance of timing and public participation in
document planning. She closed by reminding the
group of the conference call in January 2003. She
recommended that as many Workgroup members
as possible participated in the conference call to
integrate all the proposed ideas.
2.2 Investigating Renewable Energy
Mr. Jason Grumet, Executive Director, National
Commission on Energy Policy and a member of the
subcommittee, expressed his interest in renewable
energy projects. He asked whether there is enough
interest in this area to pursue. In response, Ms.
Gauna recommended forming a workgroup to
explore the issue.
3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and reports submitted to the Air and Water
Subcommittee. The presentations addressed
environmental permitting, the EPA Region 6
Environmental Justice Listening Session, and the
use of reductions in nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions
to offset increases in volatile organic compounds
(VOC) to promote the reduction in ozone levels.
3.1 Environmental Permitting
The members of thesubcomm ittee were provided an
overview about environmental permitting.
Presentations included information about the
commitment of EPA OAR to environmental justice
and an update about EPA's Pollution Prevention Pilot
Program.
3.1.1 EPA OAR Commitment to Environmental
Justice
Mr. Robert D. Brenner, Deputy Assistant
Administrator, EPA OAR, presented plans, strategies
and activities to incorporate environmental justice
into OAR's existing programs. He emphasized that
as the office moves forward to reduce air pollution
and protect public health, it will focus on addressing
issues related to pollution prevention and permitting.
He reaffirmed OAR's commitment to achieving
environmental justice, which, he said, is addressed
in OAR's draft Environmental Justice Action Plan
that recently had been submitted to the EPA Office
of Environmental Justice forcomments. Mr. Brenner
also described several programs that reflect OAR's
commitment to environmental justice, which include
promoting indoor air and radiation protection through
radon and childhood asthma education, conducting
transportation planning programs in Baltimore, and
introducing pilot projects that focus on toxics in a
south Phoenix, Arizona community. Mr. Brenner
went on to discuss other efforts that address
environ mental justice concerns, such as the tracking
of emissions caused by the idling of heavy vehicles,
emission reduction levels for power plants, the
retrofit of diesel equipment, and toxic "hotspots."
Mr. Brenner commented that OAR's focus in coming
years will be on new source review. (NSR) program
As he stated, modifications to the NSR requirements
will address changes made to reform and streamline
power plant permitting, the installation of modern
pollution prevention equipment, and the effects of
emissions. He presented a case study that
3-2
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
illustrated the effects of installing a new turbine in a
power plant. He pointed out that the new turbine
would be more efficient but possibly could produce
more total emissions. Therefore, he explained, the
proposed upgrade generated some controversy and
could have resulted in higher costs for the plant.
Mr. Brenner then announced that OAR had
proposed to use a "percent threshold limit" to
address such issues that arise out of routine
maintenance, repair, and replacements. Since 1980,
he explained, EPA regulations have excluded from
NSR review all repairs and maintenance activities
that are "routine," but required a complex analysis to
determine what activities meet that standard. That
approach has deterred companies from conducting
repairs and replacements that are necessary for the
safe, efficient and reliable operation of facilities, he
said, resulting in unnecessary emissions of pollution
and less efficient, safe and reliable plant processes.
Mr. Brenner explained that a percent threshold limit
would encourage companies to implement
improvements to their facilities without being
concerned about triggering a NSR review. As long
as the new development remains under a certain
dollar amount threshold, he continued, a NSR review
would not be necessary. He explained that the
percent value in the case study described above
represents what it would cost to rebuild, renew, or
replace the old facility. Because EPA has not yet
determined the percentage threshold limit, Mr.
Brenner encouraged the audience to provide
comments to EPA about this issue.
Mr. Brenner commented that the important
environmental justice priorities for OAR in the
coming years involve pollution prevention and
promoting initiatives for clean fuels to reduce toxic
chemicals in communities. He provided examples of
projects in Cleveland, Ohio and Phoenix, Arizona
where OAR had successfully worked with local
community groups to develop programs to reduce
toxic chemicals in those communities and implement
toxic emission reductions. He added that in those
projects, the communities had set up coordinated
campaigns that addressed diesel retrofit programs,
thepromotion oflocal initiatives, public transportation
campaigns, the reduction of indoor air pollution in
city schools, and other comprehensive efforts to
reduce toxic chemicals. Mr. Brenner explained that
the applicable EPA regional offices had identified the
generators of significant levels of toxic chemical
contaminants and worked with the local communities
to focus reduction efforts on high-priority sources of
toxic chemicals. He cited the South Phoenix project
to highlight the need to focus environmental justice
efforts based on case-by-case situations rather than
relying solely on regulations because environmental
concerns and environmental justice issues vary from
community to community.
Mr. Brenner closed by reiterating the need for OAR
and the Air and Water Subcommittee to continue to
work together to develop partnerships with
environmental justice communities. He emphasized
that such partnerships are crucial for OAR to be
successful in reducing air pollution and protecting
public health.
Ms. Gauna requested clarification from Mr. Brenner
regarding the percent threshold limit. She also
asked about the non-attainment issues and
downwind transport of air pollution. Mr. Brenner
clarified that the percent threshold limit is still in
development and that he anticipates receiving
comments from the proposal reviewers about that
issue. Regarding non-attainment and downwind
transport, Mr. Brenner assured the meeting
participants that the proposed flexible permitting
program would meet the regular emissions
standards and the ozone transport rule. He
mentioned that each state would still need to set
limits to meet air quality standards and that each
plant would have to develop its own model sources
and its own monitoring programs.
3.1.2 EPA Pollution Prevention Pilot Program
Mr. Robert Kellam, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, discussed the background,
assessment, and findingsofthe Pollution Prevention
in Permitting Pilot Program. He explained that the
program had been introduced as a flexible permitting
program that enabled permitted sources to make
quick changes in response to market pressures. Mr.
Kellam stated that the program recognizes the need
for companies to respond quickly to rapid market
changes. He added thatadministrative friction often
occurred because of the costs and delays
associated with industries having to retool to make
changes driven by the market as well as comply with
environmental requirements. He explained that the
new, innovative approach to permitting is to provide
additional flexibility. This flexibility, continued Mr.
Kellam, will help industries meet environmental
standards while expanding their facilities. He stated
that the most common issue faced by various
companies is the need to increase production while
not exceeding the permitted emissions limits.
Mr. Kellam then discussed the permitting review
process under the pilot program, which includes off-
site research, on-site visits, and report drafting and
reviews. He briefly described each of the companies
participating in the pilot project:
3-3
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
Minnesota-based 3M, one of the first program
participants, makes products that need to be
adapted quickly in response to market changes
DaimlerChrysler joined the program when the
company launched its new line of products
Imation Corp. and Intel Corporation are
semiconductor companies that produce
products that require frequent testing
Lasco Bathware, Inc., a Washington-based firm
produces fiberglass and acrylic baths and
generates styrene emissions as a by-product
Saturn Corporation, based in Tennessee,
participated in the flexible permitting program in
2000 when it retooled its sport utility vehicle line
Mr. Kellam then summarized the findings from
Pollution Prevention Pilot Program:
Although flexible permits ensure compliance and
monitoring and data gathering are sufficient,
there is a need to focus on perm it requirements
when the flexible permit is due for revision.
Flexible permitting is enforceable,
noncompliance is detectable, and the initial
calculations and findings are replicable.
Flexible permitting encourages emission
reductions and pollution prevention (for
example, Intel reduced its emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) from 190 tons per
year to 53 tons per year, and DaimlerChrysler
reduced its general emissions from 1,400 tons
per year to 800 tons per year while increasing
production).
Six of the participating companies believe that
because of market requirements, flexibility in
permitting is needed to reduce emissions.
Companies that have flexible permits do use
them.
Flexible permitting allows and enhances
information-sharing because topics have to be
discussed up front.
Flexible permitting provides the public with
access to more information.
Flexible permitting does produce net financial
benefits for both companies and permitting
authorities; the additional time and associated
cost required to develop a flexible permit versus
a conventional permit typically is offset during
the permit term by the reduced time needed to
process notice of construction applications and
permit revisions .
Participating companies are pleased with the
increased permitting efficiency that allows them
to focus on other priorities with only minor
modifications to the permit.
Flexible permitting should meet an individual
company's needs.
Mr. Kellam reported that another round of pilot
projects would be conducted, which will include the
Eli Lilly and Company papermill facility in Indiana.
He concluded his presentation by pointing out that
successful companies possess two tendencies
within their corporate culture that allow them to meet
the market demand while remaining in compliance
with environmental regulations: (1) documented
compliance history, pollution prevention programs,
and the ability to monitor and track changes through
continuous modeling and monitoring, and (2) the
technical capacity to operate within the requirements
of their permits.
Ms. Guana then opened the floorto discussion from
mem bers of the audience.
Mr. Neil Carmen, Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter and
a member of the audience, commented on the
potential disadvantages of flexible permitting. He
expressed concern that the recommended
methodology for achieving air pollution reductions
would result in increased pollution in other media
such as water and soil. Mr. Carmen also
recommended thatthe permitting agencies examine
air toxicity differences and apply rankings to
differentiate between the "good" and the "bad"
companies that currently are participating in the
flexible permitting pilot program. Mr. Carmen also
inquired about the duration of the program.
Mr. Kellam responded that monitoring of increased
waste in water and soil would be required to examine
the effects of implementing the flexible permitting
program. He noted that the guidance currently does
not address this issue. He also commented on the
need to use analysis, guidelines, and discussions
with waste departments to formulate such a
monitoring program. Discussing air toxicity
differences, Mr. Kellam stated that the issue is being
examined. He stressed, however, that if an
applicable requirement exists for a specific pollutant,
EPA cannot relax the requirement; the Agency can
only promote flexible permitting for meeting the
currentenvironmental demand, he said. Mr. Kellam
commented that it might be difficult to rank
participating companies as "good or bad" because
some companies might be willing to reduce
emissions and assist the community but may not be
aware of their responsibilities to do so. He cited as
an example one company that local residents
complained was emitting an odor. Initially, the
company was not aware of its responsibility to
address the emission or the impact of the odor on
the surrounding environmental justice community;
however, he continued, once the company was
informed about their responsibility, the company
responded quickly to the problem, and in the end,
3-4
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
the community was happy. Mr. Kellam stated that
the duration of the flexible permitting program is
currently five years but the period is not fixed
because companies can apply for permit
modifications.
Mr. Carmen continued to com men tab out ambient air
monitoring before and during the flexible permit pilot
program. He expressed concern about whetherany
of the facilities in the project is emitting hydrogen
chloride (HCI), which is highly toxic even at low
levels. Mr. Carmen also described serious concerns
about emissions of styrene. His final comment
referred to modeling individual sources versus
cumulative sources. Mr. Carmen explained that
traditional screening levels often do not indicate
problems in a point source evaluation; in contrast,
cumulativemodeling would show otherwise, he said.
Mr. Kellam responded that air monitoring was being
performed before and during the pilot program, but
he did not know whether ambient air was monitored
during the project. Regarding monitoring for HCI,
Mr. Kellam said he was unable to comment because
not much off-site monitoring data for HCI is available.
Regarding the issue of styrene and other common
toxic emissions, Mr. Kellam noted that a flexible
permitting program might provide opportunities for
noncompliant companies to improve their
environmental culture, especially larger firms located
in areas or states without responsibility for those
emissions.
Mr. Raju Kakarlapudi, EPA Region 7 and a member
of the audience, commented that some companies
have strong environmental management systems in
place that are worth exploring and learning from. He
also pointed out that the results of small pilot
projects are often difficult to replicate in the real
world.
Ms. Liz Heron, reporter for Inside Washington and a
memberof the audience, raised the question ofwhat
happens after a company moves beyond the pilot
phase. Ms. Heron commented on the histories of
the participating companies and questioned whether
they are aware of their responsibilities and whether
they have had any prior permitting problems. Also,
with regard to community involvement, Ms. Heron
raised the question of whether any independent
support is available for the communities to
participate in the evaluation of flexible permits or
receive technical assistance grants similar to other
programs. She went on to comment about the
traditional distrust of many communities for federal
and state government agencies and wanted to know
what is being done to improve their trust of those
agencies.
Mr. Kellam responded that after the pilot program is
completed, participating companies should be able
to cost-effectively reduce their air emissions while
remaining competitive; companies likely would not
continue using the program if it is not cost-effective,
he said. Mr. Kellam stressed that the program is not
for every company and has natural limiting factors.
He explained thatthe flexible permitting program can
help companies meet or exceed requirements for
emissions reductions, but cannot be used by itself to
negotiate requirements. Regarding the
environmental records of participating companies, he
stated that the companies varied in their
backgrounds. He cited the example of Lasco
Bathware, Inc., which has a history of not following
through on its commitments. Therefore, that
company required greater effort to integrate into the
program, he continued. Mr. Kellam stressed thatthe
"interest of the companies to make things work" is
one of the most crucial factors for success of the
program. Therefore, he said, EPA does not select
program candidates based on a firm's environmental
record.
Turning to community involvement, Mr. Kellam
stated that the extent of support for community
involvement is unknown because there is a lack of
documentation for what is a state-based program.
He repeated that EPA's flexible permitting guidance
is not mandatory; however, it encourages state and
local permitting authorities to use flexible permits
where allowed by theirregulations, and as resources
and needs dictate, he explained. The guidance does
not exempt sources from fully complying with
requirements of the Clean Air Act or the Operating
Permits Program, he cautioned.. Mr. Kellam
commented that it is natural for communities to be
suspicious of companies that lack good
environmental programs; therefore, he stated, in
addition to having faith in those companies,
independent technical review are needed to assist
comm unities in better understanding the issues. He
recommended the participation of academic
institutions as one way to improve trust between
communities and federal and state agencies. He
cited the participation of Tulane University's
engineering and law departments as an example of
how a university can assist communities technically,
as well as "energize" them. He noted that Tulane
University gained the trust of the community by
providing it with engineering support, data calculation
and replication, and continuous monitoring and
modeling. Mr. Kellam concluded by stating thatthe
bottom line for flexible permitting is to motivate
companies to stay underneath the permitted
emissions limits and thus reduce the amount of
pollution emitted.
3-5
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
Mr. Carmen commented that the biggest challenge
for communities that want to participate in
determinations for siting newfacilities is participating
during permit renewal and modification. He stated
thatany flexible permit program must address those
issues, as well as how siting determination is
conducted. Ms. Gauna added that public
participation, timing, cumulative impacts, and
compliance findings are just as relevant and
important to the permit renewal and modification
process. She mentioned that the permitting
guidance makes distinctions between a new siting
decision and permit modification and renewal.
3.2 EPA Region 6 Environmental Justice
Listening Session
Mr. Richard Moore, Executive Director, Southwest
Network for Economic and Environmental Justice
(SNEEJ), and Ms. Sunita Singhvi, EPA Region 6,
provided an overview of the EPA Region 6
environmental justice listening session held in
Houston, Texas, from November 14 through 16,
2002. Ms. Wilma Subra, Louisiana Environmental
Action Network and member of the subcommittee,
served as the chair for the afternoon discussion.
Mr. Moore began the presentation with a general
overview of SNEEJ, its partnership with EPA Region
6, and how that partnership had been formed. Mr.
Moore explained that SNEEJ is an independent,
grassroots non-profit organization based in New
Mexico that initially had struggled with EPA Region
6 over environmental justice issues. He stated that
in early 1990, SNEEJ had sent a letter to President
George W. Bush and the , EPA Administrator,
charging EPA with environmental racism. He
explained that the letter had expressed SNEEJ's
opposition to the proposed changes in the new
source review provisions of the Clean Air Act and the
proposed rule for preventing significantdeterioration
and nonattainment.
Mr. Moore noted the struggle between national
environmental organizations and grassroots
"organizations of color" about environmental issues.
He pointed out that often, there are only "subliminal"
differences between these organizations about
environmental issues and civil issues. Mr. Moore
explained that sometimes environmental cases have
been litigated as civil cases rather than as
environmental enforcement cases. That approach
does not give the community the leverage to protect
itself, he noted. He then cited several examples of
such cases, including children poisoned after eating
chipped lead-based paint, pollution from the uranium
mining industry, and odor from sewage plants, e
Mr. Moore further commented that in the 1990s,
EPA's early environmental justice efforts were not
protecting minority groups living in the southwestern
United States. Therefore, he said, a coalition of
grassroots organizations had requested a meeting
with the EPA Regional Administrator. Mr. Moore
stressed thatthe meeting was a crucial beginning for
an open dialogue among the groups involved. He
noted that trust is a crucial factor which requires
communication between all parties involved. Mr.
Moore reported that the environmental justice
listening sessions now have the endorsement and
support of both the Regional Administrator and the
Deputy Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6. He
stressed the importance of them maintaining an
open-door policy. All public institutions must allow
people to feel that they are part of the process and
that such institutions are accessible to them, he
noted. He emphasized the need to build long-term
relationships and commitments through consistent
participation of all groups.
Mr. Moore ended his presentation by describing the
first Region 6 environmental justice listening session
as mainly an open-dialogue forum conducted in
partnership with representatives of communities;
state, tribal, federal, local, and municipal
governments; industry; and academia. Mr. Moore
stated that a broad number of topics ranging from
enforcement, permitting, United States-Mexico joint
borderissues, and facility siting had been discussed.
Ms. Singhvi also reported on what she termed the
success of the environmental justice listening
session. She mentioned that the planning
committee for the listening session included
representatives of various chemical associations,
local industry, state agencies, and universities. She
also stated thatthe inclusion of academic institutions
was intended to maximize the success of the
session. Ms. Singhvi stressed that the listening
session's focus had been the public; therefore, she
stated, public participation had been highly
encouraged. She summarized the main agenda of
the session, which included encouraging greater
overall participation by various stakeholders, getting
certain individuals "on board," and permitting.
Discussing difficulties with addressing issues related
to the United States-Mexico border, Ms. Singhvi
stated that there is a need to go beyond the current
approach. She mentioned a report being developed
that addresses issues associated with integrating
environmental justice into all the United States-
Mexico border programs and activities.
Ms. Singhvi concluded by discussing the goals of the
listening session, which were to provide the Region
6 environmental justice community; local, state,
3-6
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
tribal, and federal government agencies, and
industry with opportunities to communicate and
develop strong working relationships and to improve
information-sharing among the groups involved.
Ms. Subra concluded by emphasizing the need for
states to be represented at environmental justice
listening sessions and the importance of getting
input directly from the community.
Dr. Mohammad Hatim, EPA Region 2andamember
of the audience, suggested promoting an
environmental justice listening session in each state
or EPA region. Ms. Singhvi responded by discussing
the logistical and resource constraints associated
with conducting a listening session in each state or
EPA region. She explained that the possibility of
having a such sessions in each state would largely
depend on the availability of funding. She stated that
the Texas listening session had been conducted on
a trial basis and that its success could encourage
other states to follow suit. In addition, Ms. Singhvi
stressed the importance of conducting follow-up
work after the listening session. She also stressed
the need for discussion panels to include
representatives of various stakeholders groups,
including environmental justice communities,
industries, and states. Ms. Singhvi concluded by
stating the need to conductlistening sessions based
on state-by-state cases with a focus on local issues
and local participation.
Dr. Hatim raised the possibility of expanding the
United States-Mexico border region. Ms. Singhvi
stated that there EPA had not discussed doing so.
She added that she hopes representatives of Puerto
Rican communities are able participate in the EPA
Region 2 listening session scheduled for March
2003.
In conclusion, Mr. Moore reported that as follow-up
to the Texas environmental justice listening session,
there are plans to conduct environmental justice
training for businesses, communities, and
representatives of other stakeholder groups; the
trainers would be representatives of grassroots
groups and EPA, he said. He mentioned the
possibility of partnering with other agencies to
conduct the training as one way promote the
program. He stressed the importance of promoting
ownership of and participation in the program. He
concluded by requesting recommendations and
feedback from the audience.
3.3 Using NOx Emissions to Promote
Reductions in Ozone Levels
Mr. William Luthans, EPA Region 6 (based in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana), spoke briefly about efforts
underway to use reductions in NOx to offset VOC
increases to obtain reductions in ozone levels. He
reported that EPA Region 6 had conducted a study
aboutthesubstitution ofNOxfor VOCs. Mr. Luthans
explained that NOx was being considered as an
alternative because studies have shown that
reductions in Nox levels are more effective in
promoting ozone quality than reductions in levels of
hydrocarbon . Computer models have shown
decreasing returns for hydrocarbon reduction on
ozone quality, he explained. He pointed out that a
30 percent reduction in hydrocarbons would result in
only a 1 part per million reduction in ozone levels. In
conclusion, Mr. Luthans stressed the need to identify
any concerns the public may have about the offset
program and solicit their comments.
4.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the significant action items
adopted by the Air and Water Subcommittee.
S The subcommittee agreed to develop a best
practices guide that identifies and recommends
useful practices for incorporating concerns about
environmental justice into the permitting process
at the federal, state and local levels. The
Permitting Workgroup will continue work on the
En vironmental Justice Recommended Practices
Guide for Permitting. New members will be
recruited for the workgroup to ensure
representation of appropriate stakeholder
groups. A first draft of the guide is expected to
be completed by fall 2003.
3-7
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 11, 2002
Baltimore, Maryland
Shirley Pate
Designated Federal Official
Robert Kuehn
Vice Chair
-------
CHAPTER FOUR
MEETING OF THE
ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Enforcement Subcommittee of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
conducted a one-day meeting on Wednesday,
December 11, 2002, during a four-day meeting of
the NEJAC in Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. Robert
Kuehn, University of Alabama School of Law, serves
as vice-chair of the subcommittee. A chair for the
subcommittee needs to be identified. Ms. Shirley
Pate, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA), continues to serve as the Designated
Federal Official (DFO)forthe subcommittee. Exhibit
4-1 identifies the subcommittee members who
attended the meeting and members who were
unable to attend.
This chapter, which summarizes the deliberations of
the Enforcement Subcommittee, is organized in five
sections, including this Introduction. Section 2.0,
Remarks, summarizes the opening remarks of Ms.
Phyllis Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, EPA OECA. Section 3.0, Activities of
the Subcommittee, summarizes the discussions
about activities of EPA OECA's Compliance
Assistance Tools Workgroup. Section 4.0,
Presentations, provides an overview of each
presentation made to the subcommittee, as well as
a summary of relevant questions and comments
from the subcommittee members and any answers
provided by presenters. Section 4.0, Significant
Action Items, summarizes the significant action items
adopted by the subcommittee during the one-day
meeting.
2.0 REMARKS
Ms. Pate opened the subcommittee meeting by
welcoming the members who were present. She
then requested that the members of the
subcommittee introduce themselves. Ms. Pate next
introduced Ms. Harris, who provided opening
remarks to the subcommittee.
Ms. Harris began by welcoming the members of the
subcommittee and stated that she was looking
forward to the discussion with the subcommittee.
She continued by explaining that she had begun her
current position in May 2002 and had previously
served as regional counsel and division director in
EPA Region 4.
Ms. Harris explained that environmental justice is
very important to the current EPA administration.
She said that Mr. J.P. Suarez, Assistant
Administrator, EPA OECA, is committed personally
to emphasizing environmental justice and
incorporating it into OECA's programs and activities.
She stated that in keeping with the reinvigoration of
environmental justice within OECA, she wanted to
work more closely with the Enforcement
Subcommittee of the NEJAC. She expressed her
concern that no representative of community
stakeholders currently serves on the subcommittee,
and stated that she recognized the need to improve
the relationship between the subcommittee and
OECA. Ms. Harris stated that OECA values the
Enforcement Subcommittee's input on compliance
and enforcement programs and that she would like
to find a more efficientway to use the subcommittee
as a tool to provide insight on enforcement issues.
Ms. Harris next described activities that OECA is
undertaking taking with regard to environmental
justice. She referenced the OECA organizational
chart and explained that the Office of Planning,
Policy Analysis, and Communications manages
OECA's environmental justice program and
coordinates activities with the subcommittee. She
continued by explaining that each major EPA
headquarters and regional program office had been
asked to develop an environmental justice action
plan thatdemonstrates how environmental justice is
to be incorporated into EPA's programs and policies.
She said that OECA had recently had com pleted its
Exhibit 4-1
ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 11, 2002
Mr. Robert Kuehn, Vice-Chair
Ms. Shirley Pate, DFO
Ms. Beverly McQueary Smith
Mr. Howard Shanker
Mr. Kenneth Warren
Members
Who Were Unable To Attend
Mr. G. William Rice
4-1
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
draft environmental justice action plan, which is
currently is being reviewed by the directors of the
various OECAoffices. Ms. Harris noted thatOECA's
action plan is organized around several main
elements: civil and criminal enforcement,
compliance monitoring, compliance assistance, and
compliance incentives. She continued by adding that
the plan outlines Ms. Harris's and Mr. Suarez's
personal expectations and provides guidance to the
EPA regions on the incorporation of environmental
justice into their programs.
Ms. Harris explained that she and Mr. Suarez
envision enforcement moving in three main
directions, including the: (1) improvement of
information management systems, (2) creation of
additional tools like the Enforcement and
Compliance History Online (ECHO) Pilot Web Site
designed to assist EPA in making smarterdecisions
about enforcement actions, and (3) strategic
targeting to address environmental concerns in
environmental justice communities.
Ms. Harris briefly described some of OECA's current
national priorities that are particularly pertinent to
environmental justice communities. The most
significant priorities include storm sewer overflows
(SSO) and combined sewer overflows (CSO) from
municipal wastewater systems, air pollutants,
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO), and
drinking water. She announced that EPA had settled
a case in Baltimore that would reduce hundreds of
thousands of gallons of raw sewage that was being
discharged in the area. She also announced that the
new policy guiding the use of supplemental
environmental projects (SEP) would be signed by
Mr. Suarez in the nearfuture that would address the
involvement of affected communities with the
development of SEPs.
Ms. Harris concluded by stating that the EPA would
continue to work with states to address resource
issues related to the incorporation of environmental
justice into state programs and to identify more
efficient ways to address issues related to
environmental justice. For example, she continued,
the Environmental Results Program (ERP) in
Baltimore, Maryland represents is a collaborative
effort between the State of Maryland and EPA
Region 3 to use integrated strategies (a combination
of compliance tools) to address environmental
problems on a community-wide basis. She stated
that the use of integrated strategies to enhance the
environment and public health in environmental
justice communities is one of the goals in OECA's
environmental action plan. She added that making
greater use of strategic enforcement targeting to
address environmental concerns in environmental
justice communities would be important because the
results of targeting analysis determines how OECA
will allocate resources.
Ms. Beverly McQueary Smith, Touro College and
member of the subcommittee, asked Ms. Harris
about EPA's budgetforenforcement and compliance
assistance in 2003. Ms. Harris responded that EPA
is currently working under a continuing resolution
that is funded at fiscal year (FY) 2002 levels. Ms.
Harris stated that she remained optimistic that once
the budget for FY 2003 is approved, it would be
funded at the same levels as in FY 2002; however,
she stated that there is a possibility that the budget
could decline to FY 2001 levels.
Mr. Kuehn stated that he agreed with Ms. Harris's
earlier statement that the subcommittee needs to
include among its members a representative of a
community stakeholders. However, he suggested
that more than one community representative be
asked to participate. Commenting He then stated
that 90 percent of enforcement occurs at the state
level, he asked Ms. Harris to identify EPA's role in
"policing" states and whether there would be strict
oversight of enforcement programs that are
delegated to states. She acknowledged that EPA
needs to work with the states to build relationships
and trust. She continued by stating that the
environmental justice action plans currently being
prepared by OECA, EPA HQ program offices, and
EPA regions should facilitate that process.
Mr. Kenneth Warren, Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-
Cohen LLP and member of the subcommittee,
addressed the issue of information flow between
OECA and the Enforcement Subcommittee. He
explained that in the past, the subcommittee had
limited interaction with OECA. He suggested that
ongoing communication be maintained between the
subcommittee and OECA to ensure that the
subcommittee is kept informed of current events.
Ms. Harris responded that it would be productive to
have open discussions between representatives of
OECA and the subcommittee about general
enforcement topics. She suggested that a quarterly
conference call be held between OECA and
members of the subcommittee. The members of the
subcommittee, along with Ms. Pate, and Ms. Harris
agreed to schedule a conference call for January
2003 to clarify the role of the Enforcement
Subcommittee with respect to working with OECA
and to identify ways to improve the relationship and
communication between the subcommittee and
OECA.
4-2
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
Exhibit 4-2
STATUS OF BACKLOG OF
TITLE VI COMPLAINTS
In 199?, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
established a task force headed by Ms. Gail Ginsberg, EPA
Region 5, to address the backlog of Title VI complaints
filed underTitle VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Initially, 66 cases had been backlogged; currently:
• 38 cases have been closed:
- 2 cases were resolved after an investigation was
initiated
- 20 cases were rejected
- 6 cases were withdrawn
- 9 cases were dismissed after investigation
- 1 case was referred to another agency
• 28 Complaints are pending:
- 18 cases currently are under investigation
- 6 cases have been suspended pending litigation
- 4 cases are being held for informal resolution or
alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
EPA anticipates that the backlog should be eliminated by
June 2003. At that time, may be moved to EPA's Office of
Compliance (OC).
Noting thatconcerns aboutthe backlog of cases filed
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
concerns had been discussed during the public
comment period of the previous night, Mr. Kuehn
asked Ms. Harris what role the Enforcement
Subcommittee's should play with regard to
addressing such concerns. Ms. Harris responded
that an update from OECA about complaints filed
under Title VI could be a topic for the January 2003
conference call. She also suggested that Ms. Karen
Higginbotham, EPA OECA, participate in the call to
provide background information about Title VI.
Exhibit 4-2 summarizes the status of Title VI
complaints registered with EPA.
Ms. Smith madea brief comment about compliance
monitoring suggesting that EPA explore ways to
"grow" its own scientists through partnerships with
academia.
3.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
This section discusses the activities of the
subcommittee, which included a status reporton the
activities of EPA's Compliance Assistance Tools
Workgroup.
Compliance Assistance Tools Workgroup
Ms. Deborah Thomas, EPA OECA, provided a
status report about EPA's Compliance Assistance
Tools Workgroup. She began her presentation by
stating that EPA had tasked the Workgroup to
design compliance assistance materials that would
be helpful to communities and to identify ways to
engage the communities in the distribution of those
materials. She reported that members of the
workgroup include Mr. Howard Shanker, Hagen,
Berman & Mitchell, PLLC, and chair of the
workgroup; Mr. Bernie Penner, Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE); Ms. Harris;
Mr. G. William Rice, EPA Region 7; and Ms.
Susana Almanza, People Organized to Defend
Earth and Her Resources.
Ms. Thomas stated that the components of an
effective enforcement and compliance program are:
Providing compliance assistance
Conducting compliance monitoring
Offering incentives to encourage compliance
Taking civil and criminal enforcement actions
Ms. Thomas emphasized that it is important to
integrate the use of each componentto make EPA's
enforcement compliance program successful. She
defined compliance assistance as providing the
information necessary to help the regulated
community understand and comply with
environmental requirements. Compliance
assistance activities also provide information about
pollution prevention, waste minimization,
environmental management systems, and other
ways to improve and protect human health and the
environment, she continued, adding that EPA, other
federal agencies, states, tribes, trade associations,
nonprofit organizations, and environmental groups
all provide compliance assistance.
Ms. Thomas noted that compliance assistance is
provided through a variety of methods, including (1)
outreach (for example, through the development of
compliance guides and fact sheets, as well as web-
based training), (2) organized systems to provide
responses to inquiries (for example, through staffing
a telephone hotline), and (3) on-site assistance (for
example, through conducting compliance assistance
visits, environmental audits, and inspections). She
said that EPA plans to develop compliance guides
that review new environmental rules, summarize
existing requirements for small businesses, discuss
problems business may experience complying with
existing requirements, and explain existing
requirements for specific industry sectors. Ms.
Thomas referenced EPA's Compliance Assistance
4-3
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
Clearinghouse which can be accessed online at
. She stated
thatthe clearinghouse is a web-based vehicle that is
a comprehensive source of information, tools, and
resources. In addition, users can add and share
information, she continued, adding that the
clearinghouse provides links to numerous
environmental web sites.
Ms. Thomas said that EPA has entered into
partnerships with other government agencies,
industry, academic institutions, and environmental
organizations to develop sector-specific Compliance
Assistance Centers. Exhibit 4-3 lists the industry
sectors for which compliance assistance centers
have been established. Additional information about
the compliance assistance centers is available at
.
Ms. Thomas said that compliance assistance is
"linked" to environmental justice because such
assistance can empower communities by giving
them increased knowledge about regulatory
compliance, and environmental and health and
safety. With such knowledge, she commented,
individuals are better able to understand facilities in
their neighborhoods and communities are able to
have more effective interactions with businesses. In
addition, assisting different stakeholders to better
understand environmental compliance "evens out"
the information power balance among EPA, states,
and tribes, she said. Ms. Thomas explained thatthe
link between compliance assistance and
environmental justice could be enhanced through
expanded dialogue with EPA about priority-setting
and planning, development of compliance
assistance, increased knowledge about how EPA
works (for example, its use of regional compliance
Exhibit 4-3
SECTOR-SPECIFIC
COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE CENTERS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) has
established compliance assistance centers for the following
industry sectors:
• Local Governments
• Agriculture
• Transportation
• Federal Facilities
• Automobile Services and Repairs
• Chemical Manufacturers
• Paints and Coatings
• Printers
• Metal Finishers
• Printed Wiring Board
assistance coordinators and environmental justice
coordinators), expanded community involvement in
the selection of SEPs, maintaining a dialogue with
states and tribes about environmental justice issues,
increased participation in EPA-sponsored training to
increase environmental compliance literacy, and
other tools (for example, preparing documents and
web sites in languages other than English). Ms.
Thomas concluded that a dialogue between EPA
and the NEJAC is needed to enhance the
compliance assistance program's value to
environmental justice communities.
Mr. Warren stated that through compliance
assistance, EPA's Office of Compliance is trying to
build capacity in communities. He asked whether
that office has the resources to educate
comm unities in that regard. Ms. Thomas responded
that, currently, the office's resources are stretched
but the budget for education is an issue that should
be discussed in the future. An unidentified member
of the audience stated that the education of
communities is an ongoing problem, adding that
because enforcement flows from complex
environmental regulations, it is difficult to educate
comm unities about the entire enforcement process.
The audience member stated that she would like to
see lawyers work pro bono as liaisons between EPA
and local communities. Ms. Thomas said that she
had attended a compliance forum during the
previous week where she had learned of an effort in
Laredo, Texas where waste was being disposed of
illegally. The community got involved because of
increased truck traffic across the U.S. and Mexico
border and members of the community are helping
to identify the truckers she said. She said thatfunds
to conduct seminars on compliance assistance were
obtained through an environmental justice grant.
Ms. Smith stated that it is important to decide how
to best replicate the success of the Laredo, Texas
effort. She said that there is a "new culture of
people" who are aware of environmental
regulations. She emphasized the importance of
preparing informational material in multiple
languages so that all people can easily understand
such materials. She noted that using the Internet to
disseminate information is a valuable tool, however
she stated that EPA must recognize that "digital
gaps" exist in many communities. She suggested
that EPA donate old computers to communities
where people may not have access to the internet.
Finally, Ms. Smith suggested that a task force
comprised of teachers be created to discuss how to
educate local communities about environmental
regulations. Ms. Thomas said that the EPA Office
of Environmental Education already is attem pting to
address some of those issues.
4-4
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
Mr. Shanker said that the workgroup has had
difficulties in addressing the tasks assigned to it. Mr.
Warren stated that the workgroup's original
assignment to design compliance assistance tools
and identify ways to engage the community in the
distribution of that material might not be the best
assignment for the workgroup. He commented that
the failure to include on the subcommittee
representatives of community stakeholders had
hampered its ability to address the tasks assigned to
it.
The subcommittee then discussed possible issues
that it could address in the future with regard to
compliance assistance. Mr. Penner stated that
enforcement and compliance assistance are not
"either/or" activities but rather form a continuum. He
suggested that the subcommittee develop a "road
map" identifying when compliance assistance is
appropriate. For example, he stated that when
noncompliance is a result of ignorance, it can easily
be addressed with education. He also suggested
that the subcommittee translate regulations into
"plain English," particularly for those communities
with environmental justice concerns. Finally, he
suggested that the subcommittee develop a
research protocol for identifying high-risk sectors in
environmental justice communities.
Ms. Evans suggested that the subcommittee focus
on compliance assistance and pollution prevention
as opposed to enforcement for small businesses.
Ms. Harris added that communities play a big role in
compliance assistance because they are on the
"front line" of the impacts from industry. She added
that EPA needs to convince the public that their
involvement in compliance assistance would be well
spent. Ms. Thomas stated that all information
received from the public is reviewed carefully in
developing compliance/enforcement approaches.
Commenting that every environmental action taken
by EPA is an opportunity to educate the public, Mr.
Kuehn suggested thatthe subcommittee contact Mr.
Mark Dorfman, who is affiliated with a nonprofit
organization in Boston, to obtain information about
possible compliance assistance approaches. Mr.
Dorfman conducts audits but insists thatmem bers of
localcommunities conductthe audits along with him,
Mr. Kuehn explained.
The subcomm ittee members present agreed to work
with OECA during a future conference call to clarify
which questions the Compliance Assistance Tools
Workshop should address. Mr. Shanker requested
that members of the subcommittee forward related
suggestions to him or Ms. Pate.
4.0 PRESENTATIONS
This section summarizes the presentations made to
the Enforcement Subcommittee. The presentations
addressed regional enforcement issues,
Enforcement and Compliance History Online
(ECHO), SEPs, and environmental justice targeting
for criminal enforcement cases.
4.1 Regional Enforcement Issues
Ms. Elisabeth Evans, EPA Region 8, presented
information about the Northeast Denver
Environmental Initiative, the Migrant Farm Worker
Drinking Water Project, and the enforcement of the
Worker Protection Standard (WPS) project. She
described those projects as excellent examples of
the challenges faced by an environmental justice
community. She stated that the communities in
which the projects are conducted:
Exhibitmuch higherethnicdiversityand minority
populations than other areas in the region and
state
Exhibit lower income and socioeconomic status
than other populations in the region and the
state
Have pose health risks and exposures to
contaminants in the area but they are difficult to
quantify
Have produced in some portions of the
communities some frustration and distrust
toward the institutions that work in those
communities
4.1.1 Northeast Denver Environmental
Initiative
The Northeast Denver Environmental Initiative is a
multi-agency, multi-disciplinary project which
addresses environment justice concerns in the
northeast Denver metropolitan area. The project is
envisioned as a cooperative partnership utilizing
federal, state, county and local government
authorities to address community concerns
proactively regarding potentially harmful
environmental consequences of industrial and
transportation developments. EPA has received
support from Federal Highway Administration
(FHW A), Colorado Department of Public Health and
the Environment (CDPHE), Colorado Department of
Transportation (DCOT), the city and county of
Denver, the Tri-County health department,
Commerce City, and several community and non-
profit organizations on this initiative. The goals of
this project are to improve coordination and
communication between the partner organizations
4-5
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
and the communities to address environmental
concerns through compliance assistance,
enforcement authorities, pollution prevention, and
other tools available to the agencies. Exhibit 4-4
highlights information provided in Ms. Evans
presentation.
Ms. Evans explained that the initiative had been
challenging but that the efforts undertaken by EPA
Region 8 had been successful. For example, she
stated that:
59 percent of all regulated facilities in northeast
Denver had been inspected during the last three
years
99 percent of the major, synthetic minor, and
state-permitted minor Clean Air Act (CAA)
facilities had been inspected during that same
period
She reported that few instances of noncompliance
with environmental laws had been found, which
indicates that simply ensuring compliance by
regulated facilities is not enough to protect the health
and welfare of the local communities. Ms. Evans
suggested two strategies for addressing
environmental justice concerns in northeast Denver,
including (1) the formation of partnerships to address
the most apparent health risks in northeast Denver
and (2) the provision of education, public
participation, and empowerment in the community.
Ms. Evans cited the Northeast Metro Pollution
Prevention Alliance (NEMPPA) as an example of a
successful partnership. She explained that
NEMPPA is a coalition of local, state, and federal
government agencies and local industry leaders
working to address pollution in the Denver area.
NEMPPA works with local trucking companies to
develop workable solutions that benefit all parties.
Ms. Evans reported that its projects include energy
efficiency grants; the Diesel Truck Program, which
delivers the message that idling engines waste fuel
and contribute to air pollution; and citizen
involvement program in reporting trucks that do not
comply with efforts to reduce pollution.
Ms. Evans also stated that an example of another
opportunity to address environmental justice
concerns is the upcoming National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) environmental impact statement
(EIS) required for the expansion of Interstate 70.
EPA is working with CDOT and the FHWA to ensure
inclusion of environmental justice concerns in the
EIS, she reported. Ms. Evans stated that the
expansion project represents a unique opportunity
forfront-end, meaningful public involvement and the
development of alternatives that truly consider
potentialenvironmentalimpacts on northeastDenver
neighborhoods.
Ms. Evans then described the following elements
that she believes are important in promoting
successful public participation:
Providing accessible, useful information to the
public
Providing opportunities for meaningful public
involvement
Linking public concerns and values to EPA
actions
Ms. Evans also described several SEPs conducted
by Conoco and the EPA Region 8 environmental
justice listening sessions as examples of success in
public involvement. Ms. Evans stated that the
citizens of northeast Denverhad been asked by EPA
Region 8 to identify the issues of highest concern to
them and that the citizens repeatedly identified air
Exhibit 4-4
Northeast Denver Environmental Initiative
Northeast Denver has many potential health risks associated with the existence of heavy industry, multiple transportation
corridors, and patterns of land use. For example:
• 5,000 diesel tractors are housed, serviced, and operated out of the northeast Denver neighborhoods and almost 500
regulated facilities, 3 major highway corridors, and 2 active Superfund sites also are located in that area.
• Total air releases of hazardous air pollutants in northeast Denver are 10 times higher than in the city of Denver and 5
times higher than those reported for the State of Colorado.
• There are significantly more mobile emissions per capita in northeast Denver than in the city of Denver. Studies
performed by the Colorado Department of Health revealed that approximately 74 more cases of cancer had been
diagnosed among residents living in northeast Denver neighborhoods than would be expected based on state averages.
• Northeast Denver contains some of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. As a result, lead paint issues plague the
neighborhoods.
• Two different studies have demonstrated that children in northeast Denver had blood lead levels that, on average, are at
least twice the national average.
4-6
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
quality, development of a community and recreation
center, and environmental education as important
issues. Through SEPs arising from a settlement
with Conoco, a number of local environmental
projects that address those concerns were funded
by Conoco with more than $500,000.
In summary, Ms. Evans reiterated that most of the
industries located in the northeast Denverarea were
in compliance with environmental laws. Some
successes had been achieved through SEPs,
partnerships, and public involvement; however,
challenges remain, she said. Mr. Warren asked
how she plans to measure the success of the
initiative. Ms. Evans responded thatsuccess would
be measured in terms of improved communication
with government agencies, changes in industry, and
the results of the EIS for the Interstate 70
expansion.
Ms. Mimi Guernica, EPA OECA, asked about EPA's
relationship with the State of Colorado and whether
the agencies shared each others databases. Ms.
Evans responded that EPA is working with many
different agencies in the state and that their working
relationships had been good, especially with CDOT.
However, Ms. Evans stated, EPA had not been
successful in sharing other agencies' databases.
Ms. Guernica then asked whether SEPs and
pollution prevention strategies had been used in the
area. Ms. Karen Kellen, EPA Region 8, responded
by saying that SEPs are being implemented through
state-managed oversight and that pollution
prevention is being implemented through
partnerships with local communities and business.
4.1.2 Migrant Farm Worker Drinking Water
Project
Ms. Evans then presented information about the
Migrant Farm Worker Drinking Water Project, which
she stated addresses the safe drinking water needs
of a sector of the population that is often described
as "invisible." Most of the farm workers (growers) in
Colorado are Hispanic migrant workers, she stated.
Ms. Evans explained that the project grew out of
EPA's focus on drinking water in areas with the
largest presence of migrant farm workers, the
greatest use of agricultural chemicals, and the
presence of migrant worker camps that should be
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). The project was intended to locate such
camps and assess the quality of drinking water
sources without triggering the shutdown of those
camps "as a form of grower retaliation," she
continued. The project was selected as one of 15
national environmental justice demonstration
projects by the Interagency Working Group on
Exhibit 4-5
MIGRANT FARM WORKER
DRINKING WATER PROJECT
PROJECT PARTNERS
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
2 million pounds of pesticide per year is used in the
county.
Ms. Evans said that the project has faced many
challenges. Navigating the jurisdictional tangle of
federal, state, and local agencies that are involved
with migrant farm workers was the first challenge,
she said, stating that there also was some
reluctance by those agencies to share data. Other
challenges, she continued, include the lack of
authority to collect samples on private property
unless the owner granted permission and the fear of
undocumented workers of the federal government.
Ms. Evans emphasized that the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) was not involved in the project.
Ms. Evans also reported that the migrant worker
camps that had met the size requirements to be
regulated under the SDWA were further investigated.
She noted that the SDWA is designed to ensure safe
drinking water through regulation of public water
systems thatserve more than 25 individuals formore
than 60 days per year or which have more than 15
service connections. The SDWA requires periodic
water testing to ensure the safety of drinking water.
Ms. Evans said that EPA had prepared the
agricultural community for the project by meeting
with the Weld County Commissioners, the local
Health Department, and the Colorado Union
Association. Next, she continued, EPA had sent
letters to growers seeking permission to collectwater
samples and followed up with telephone calls, she
said. Ms. Evans reported that four camps then were
sampled the results of which indicated that two
camps had registered nitrate levels at about 25
milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is two and half
times the SDWA maximum contaminantlevel (MCL)
of 10 mg/L. Ms. Evans said the next step would be
to ask permission from the growers to resample the
two camps at which high concentrations of nitrate
and sulfate were detector. She added that EPA
would refer the evaluation of all camps that
potentially are large enough to be regulated under
the SDWA to the Colorado Department of Public
Health and the Environment (CDPHE). CDPHE
would then determine if the camps had public water
systems that should be regulated, she said, adding
that EPA and CDPHE would work with growers to
find technical resources to address nitrate problems
and other contamination.
Mr. Warren asked Ms. Evans whether she had
talked directly to any migrant farm workers. Ms.
Evans responded thatshe had been unable to speak
to many of the workers. Mr. Warren suggested that
EPA Region 8 develop a more proactive way to
include the migrant farm workers in the project. Ms.
Smith suggested involving individuals with bilingual
language skills or who possess strong connections
with the local community. Ms. Michelle Yaras, EPA
OECA, stated that she had been involved in
developing new definitions for the Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) and that the focus had been to
include information provided by workers.
4.1.3 Enforcement of the Worker Protection
Standard
Ms. Evans then reported about revisions to the
WPS, which aims to protectall handlers of pesticide
as well as agricultural laborers. The WPS is
intended to reduce the risk of pesticide exposures to
agricultural workers and handlers, she explained,
stating that the standard requires:
Pesticide safety training for workers
Notification of pesticide applications
Use of personal protective equipment by
handlers
Conformance with restrictions (time intervals)
onto areas at which pesticides have been
applied
Decontamination supplies for workers
Emergency medical assistance
Ms. Evans explained that the WPS had been in
effect since April 1994, but that efforts to ensure
compliance had been challenging. She reported that
EPA inspectors face challenges because (1) the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) does not provide explicit authority for the
inspection of grower operations; (2) the targeting of
inspections must to coincide with periods of recent
pesticide use and farm worker employment; (3) the
interviewing of workers typically requires bilingual
inspectors or the use of a translator; and (4) FIFRA
limits any initial enforcement response to a Notice of
Warning, rather than more stringent enforcement
responses (for example, notice of violations).
Ms. Evans said that a Colorado Legal Services
Survey conducted during the 2001 growing season
had revealed violations of the restricted-entry
intervals and demonstrated that after the application
of pesticides, workers had reported irritation of the
nose and throat, dizziness and weakness, and
breathing difficulty. She reported that EPA Region 8
manages the WPS Program in Colorado and
Wyoming, stating that in 2001, EPA Region 8 had
inspected 23 facilities, 87 percent ofwhich had been
found to be out of compliance. Facilities that were
not in compliance were issued Notices of Warning
and EPA conducted compliance assistance efforts at
these facilities, she continued. Facilities that had
4-8
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
received Notices of Warning, were targeted for re-
inspection in 2002, she said. Ms. Evans announced
that in 2002, EPA Region 8 had inspected 30
facilities, 17 of which had received Notices of
Warning in 2001. She stated that, 81 percent of
those facilities re-inspected in 2002 were in
compliance. Of the 13 facilities inspected for the first
time in 2002, only 5 were out of compliance, she
said.
Ms. Evans concluded her presentation bystating that
facilities found to be out of compliance after
receiving a Notice of Warning are subject to a
penalty. EPA Region 8 had filed and settled one
case against a facility, assessing a $6,090 penalty,
she said. The end goal, she stated, is compliance,
and she stated that EPA Region 8 is aggressively
pursuing facility compliance and permanent
behavioral changes to protect farm workers.
Although penalties are small (FIFRA limits penalties
to $5,500 per violation), the cases would have a
substantial deterrent effect, Ms. Evans said.
4.2 Enforcementand Compliance History Online
Pilot Web Site
Ms. Betsy Smidinger, EPA OECA, provided an
overview of EPA's new ECHO pilot web site. She
announced that the web site had been made
available to the public on November 20, 2002, and is
currently undergoing a 60-day review and comment
period. She explained that the web site had been
developed as part of EPA's effort to build
infrastructure that would make the enforcement
program more "transparent." Commenting that the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes the
right of citizens to request government records, Ms.
Smidinger explained that the FOIA had been
amended by the "eFOIA law", which directs the
governmentto use technology, including the internet,
to make record review easier and to provide
information in the form asked for by the requestor.
ECHO had been designed to fill the information void
and move the EPA enforcement program toward
compliance with eFOIA, she stated. Ms. Smidinger
stated that public access to government information
can serve as a driver or incentive to get problems
fixed and to market successes. In addition, she
continued, many violators are discovered through
tips, and public access to government records
provides a forum to learn more about the operations
of regulated facilities. She also emphasized that with
the increased reliance on information in government
information systems, it becomes increasingly
important that such information is correct.
Ms. Smidingerthen explained the steps that had led
to the development of ECHO. In 1990, she said,
EPA had launched the Integrated Data for
Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) web site and made it
available by subscription. Members of the
subcomm ittee asked whetherthe fee for IDEA could
be waived for environmental justice communities
and academia. Ms. Smidinger stated that she did
not know but she would find out and report back to
the subcommittee. She said that IDEA is the source
of data in the ECHO site; however, not all the data
on IDEA is available on ECHO because of the
sensitive nature of some of the data, she said. In
the intervening 12 years, she continued, EPA had
conducted two web-based pilots: a sector facility
indexing in 1998 and Region 10 EC-Online in 2001.
Ms. Smidinger added that in 2000, an EPA-State
Public Access Workgroup was organized to address
issues related to public access to government
enforcement information and the Online Targeting
Information System (OTIS) had been released to the
states on a virtual "extranet." EPA had also received
FOIA requests for a national web site, she said,
resulting in the development of the ECHO pilot web
site; EPA had begun to develop web-based data
quality review procedures in 2002, she said.
Ms. Smidinger explained that ECHO is unique
because itdoes notuse Oracle; ratherthe backbone
of ECHO is IDEA, a mainframe system that
downloads compliance and enforcement data from
more than 10 databases every month, she said. Mr.
Smidinger stated that ECHO contains compliance
and enforcement data for more than 800,000
regulated facilities, including CAA stationary
sources, CWA permitted dischargers (under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System),
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) hazardous waste generators and handlers,
and other facilities that have been subjected to
federal enforcement actions under any statute (for
example, facilities listed in EPA's Integrated
Compliance Information System [ICIS]). ECHO
users have a variety of search options and are able
to receive multimedia reports, she continued, adding
that ECHO reports are supplemented with data from
the U.S. census. A list of the types of information
found in ECHO is summarized in Exhibit 4-6.
Ms. Smidinger said that ECHO offers many
innovative features. Because of ECHO, a data
steward network had been developed with states to
handle comments on thesystem, she explained, Ms.
4-9
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
Smidinger added that the network uses EPA's
Integrated Error Correction Process (IECP) to allow
data stewards to see the report and line that were
commented on. ECHO also contains caveat boxes
that explain when information is not required and
uses "interpreted" data that makes the web site
much easierto decipher and use. Two weeks after
ECHO had been launched, queries to the system
averaged about 10,000 per workday with more than
125,000queries received since the site's inception),
Ms. Smidinger explained. She added that the
feedback button had received a total about 80
com ments and 50 questions and thatmore than 700
errors had been reported to date for a wide range of
data. Of the 80 comments that had been received,
she continued, 40 percent were positive, 26 percent
were positive with suggestions, 23 percent were
neutral with suggestions, 4 percent were negative,
and 7 percent were concerned with homeland
security. General comments consisted of
recommendations for providing more information
about the nature of the violations and whether they
pose a threat, questions aboutdownloading files, or
questions about why a particular facility is listed in
the database. Ms. Smidinger said that EPA is
responding to comments in a prompt manner.
Examples of specific comments about ECHO are
shown in Exhibit 4-7.
Ms. Smidingerexplained thatthe next step would be
to solicit comments during the 60-day review and
comment period. After EPA addresses the
comments, the "pilot" designation would be removed
from the web site, she said.
Ms. Smidinger said that the subcommittee and the
Exhibit 4-6
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
HISTORY ONLINE (ECHO)
Databases accessed by ECHO include the Air Facility
System (AFS); the Permit Compliance System (PCS); the
RCRA Information System; and the Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS), which contains multi-statute
federal enforcement data. The following data is included
in ECHO:
• Name and address of each facility
• Facility characteristics (type of permit, latitude and
longitude, Standard Industrial Code (SIC) code, etc.)
• Inspection history
• Compliance status and violations
• Formal enforcement actions taken during the last two
years
• Penalties assessed during the last two years
• Demographics within one, three, and five miles of the
facility
• Key compliance and enforcement data from EPA and
environmental justice community could support
ECHO by providing links to ECHO in the web pages
managed by those organizations, sending e-mails
containing information about the project to other
environmental justice organizations, notifying list
servers or e-mail group subscribers that may be
interested, submitting comments about the
applicability of the information on the site to
environmental justice concerns, and submitting to
EPA any errors encountered. She explained that
through ECHO, environmental justice communities
would be able to assess overall or corporate
Exhibit 4-7
USER COMMENTS TO ECHO
The following comments to the ECHO web site were provided by users:
"...the ease of use and speed at which the queries are processed is very good. The level of detail possible is great. Finally
a way to check compliance for facilities and getting new information (RTK site usually has very old information) and it
doesn't cost anything. Thanks
- Industry Representative
"Great database! Very useful information on local companies. Hope you can make this a permanent database. Very
useful to the public. "
- Academian
"This is an impressive and valuable resource for citizens and communities located near industrial facilities. Even though I
have participated in a Citizens Advisory Panel to the South Baltimore chemical industry, I have never received information
on most of these non-compliance and enforcement activities. Keep up the good work!"
- Citizen Group
ECHO Pilot Web Site: www.epa.gov/echo
Send comments to echo@epa.gov
4-10
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
compliance records, determine whether individual
permits are being complied with, examine
environmental justice issues using searches based
on an area's percentage of minorities, and examine
the level of state or EPA enforcement activity in
particular areas. Ms. Smidinger concluded with a
brief demonstration of ECHO. During the
demonstration, Ms. Smidinger explained that a
reference to this web site could be provided in lieu of
a written response to a FOIA request about EPA
compliance/enforcement data. She also said that
discharge management reports required of NPDES
still are being filed in hard copy format, and thus,
would involve significant costs to make them
available electronically.
Mr. Bernie Panner, Maryland Department of the
Environment and a member of the audience,
explained that development of ECHO had been
challenging because of the history of the
development of the data. He noted that, in the past,
enforcement data had been maintained on paper.
He went on to say that when databases (e.g., IDEA)
finally were created, each agency had used different
definitions and data fields. He described this
situation as "information chaos." There is still
concern about how the data is being presented, he
said, but he said he felt EPA is "making progress" to
collect information about large facilities. The
information for smaller facilities still has some
discrepancies, he said.
Ms. Alisa Harris, Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection and a member of the
audience, suggested that EPA use other models as
a reference to improve the web site. She offered to
provide information about Efacts, which was made
available to the public in Pennsylvania. She also
suggested extending the 60-day review and
comment period so that members of the
subcommittee would have adequate time to review
the web site. She further suggested that a
workgroup be formed to review the web site and to
educate the public about how to use those types of
tools.
Subcommittee members also expressed concern
that the public had not been involved in the
development of the ECHO Pilot Web Site. The
subcommittee agreed to request an extension of the
60-day public review and comment period to give the
subcommittee time to conduct a review and provide
advice about the web site.
4.3 Supplemental Environmental Projects
Guidance
Ms. Rosemarie Kelley, EPA OECA, provided an
update about the upcoming Community SEP
Guidance. She described a SEP as an
environmentally beneficial project that is undertaken
by the defendant in an enforcement action as part of
a settlement to reduce the amount of a fine or
penalty. The defendant must agree to complete the
project, she continued, and EPA would consider the
project when determining a fine. To qualify as a
SEP, the project must be completed in response to
an enforcement action, must go beyond compliance
with environmental laws, and must be related to the
environmental action, she stated. For example, if a
company violates a SDWA standard, its SEP should
be related to providing clean drinking water, Ms.
Kelley explained.
Ms. Kelley said that the SEP Policy had been last
updated in 1998, adding that a potential upcoming
change to the policy would allow SEPs that could
eventually result in profits for the violating company.
However, she noted, the policy is expected to dictate
that a project cannot be profitable immediately (that
is, until after 5 years of existence), she also noted
that a profitable project also might be allowed in the
future if it would benefit environmental justice
communities, she said.
Ms. Kelley stated that EPA's 1998 SEP Policy had
included a section on community involvement. She
further stated that, in 1999, a workgroup had been
developed to identify cases where it would be
appropriate to include community involvement. As
a result of the workgroup's efforts, a draft
Community SEP Guidance was published in June
2000, which advises early involvement and
education of the community about SEPs. Ms. Kelley
stated that the guidance encourages communities to
participate in the SEP process and emphasizes that
outreach efforts must be conducted by EPA or state
agencies in the affected community. She said that
comments to the draft guidance had been provided
by four public interest groups and one industry
group. The public interest groups' comments had
overall been very positive, she reported, but they did
suggest that the guidance be written in a more
positive tone. In contrast, she said, comments from
industry representatives had been "very negative" in
which they had stated that involving the community
in decisions about SEPs "would be a mistake."
Ms. Kelley said that the Community SEP Guidance
provides information primarily for the EPA regional
offices and the DOJ, although information is
available to affected comm unities and defendants in
enforcement actions. The guidance also
encourages development of regional SEP libraries
and a national database that are internet-accessible
to be used as resources for new ideas, she said,
4-11
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
adding that the cost to establish the database have
been estimated to be approximately $200,000. Ms.
Kelley said that EPA hopes to start developing this
database in FY 2003. Ms. Smith asked how the
projects would be funded. Ms. Kelley responded that
she hopes the funds can be obtained from the
regional offices. She also referred to the CWA trust
fund bill, which would have funded a dedicated pool
of money for beneficial projects; however, the
legislation had not passed in Congress. In response
to a request, Ms. Kelley said that she would send
Ms. Smith a copy of the bill.
Ms. Kelley stated that one concern about involving
communities in SEPs is that SEPs must comply with
court-imposed deadlines and often have time
constraints and that community involvement may
slowthe process and threaten completion of projects
by those deadlines. For example, she said that the
City of Atlanta had been sued and there had not
been adequate time to involve the community until
the end of the project. She also said that community
involvement would be hard to implement in cases
where there are issues of imm inent and substantial
endangerment to human health or the environment
orconfidentiality. However, she added, the guidance
suggests that in those cases, information be shared
as soon as possible with the community.
Mr. Kuehn asked why a defendantwould be reluctant
to enter into a SEP. Ms. Kelley said that it is getting
harder to find good ideas for SEPs. EPA previously
had given credit for projects as simple as purchasing
a fire engine. She said that EPA no longer is willing
to give credit for projects that have already been
done; rather, she explained, EPA wants SEPs in
which the defendant actually has to do something
that would benefit local environments, such as
providing clean drinking water.
Mr. Kuhn continued the discussion by asking about
how states have implemented with SEPs. Ms. Kelley
responded by saying that she is not involved with
state SEPs. An audience membersaid that several
states (for example, Ohio) keep a running list of
SEPs they would like to see implemented so that
when an enforcement action arises, the state can
make suggestions. Ms. Kelley added that states
also can "bundle" cases. Ms. Harris asserted that
states have more flexibility in crafting SEPs; for
example, she explained, federal SEPs do not allow
a zero penalty, whereas the State of Pennsylvania
does. Ms. Evans said that the real benefit of a
company's entering into a SEP is the positive
publicity. She continued by saying that another
potential for a SEP involves identifying a relationship
(or nexus) between the reason for the environmental
action and the SEP. Ms. Kelley responded that it
sometimes it is necessary to be creative. She said
that SEPs are more flexible than people may think.
Ms. Kelley concluded her presentation by reporting
on the Breathmobile, a Baltimore-based SEP
implemented by SE Johnson. She explained that SE
Johnson had distributed Allocare, an asthma
product, without first registering the product. Ms.
Kelley stated that the fragrance in Allocare had
caused a bad respiratory allergic response, and that
many people who had been exposed to it in their
homes had to be evacuated. Consequently, she
continued, SE Johnson had to recall the product,
remove out the fragrance, pay a $200,000 penalty,
and enter into a $700,000 SEP. For the SEP, SE
Johnson used trained doctors at the University of
Maryland to run the Breathmobile, which is a full-
time project that treats children in inner-city schools
for asthma. In the months since the project's
inception in March 2002, the Breathmobile had
visited 23 schools and treated 200 children, 98
percent of whom were African-American, she
reported. Of the 200 children treated, 94 percent
had asthma and 74 percent had asthma that was
triggered by an allergen. SE Johnson funded the
Breathmobile for one year; it will be funded by the
University of Maryland in future, Ms. Kelley said.
The discussion of SEPs concluded with Ms. Kelley
stating that EPA is trying to implement pollution
prevention in SEPs by considering the benefit of 100
percent fine or penalty mitigation. Ms. Evans made
a final comment that some SEPs have resulted in
technical changes within a facility, which indirectly
benefit the community; however, she stated, some
of the money used for SEPs should directly benefit
the community. Ms. Smidinger noted that a line in
ECHO refers to SEP cost; however, the web site
does not provide any details about SEPs.
4.4 Environmental Justice Targeting for Criminal
Enforcement Cases
Mr. Nick Swanstrom, EPA Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics, and Training (OCEFT),
gave a presentation about the role of criminal
enforcement in environmental justice. Mr.
Swanstrom stated that his purpose for speaking to
the NEJAC members was to share information in an
effort to overcome communities'historical mistrustof
theAgency. HeexplainedthatOCEFT directs EPA's
Criminal Program; provides a broad range of
technical and forensic services for civil and criminal
investigative support; and oversees EPA's
enforcement and compliance assurance training
programs for federal, state, and local environmental
professionals. Mr. Swanstrom continued that the
mission of OCEFT is to identify, apprehend,
4-12
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
prosecute, and convictthose who are responsible for
the most significant violations of environmental law
that pose substantial risks to human health and the
environment. He stated that environmental justice
had been a national initiative in EPA's Criminal
Program since the early 1990s.
Mr. Swanstrom then defined environmental justice
and referred to the Environmental Justice
Collaborative Model (February 2002) developed by
the Federal Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice (IWG). He said that the 11
federal agencies represented on the IWG had
developed and issued an Interagency Environmental
Justice Action Agenda. Mr. Swanstrom noted that
the goals of the agenda are to:
Improve coordination and cooperation among
federal agencies
Make government more accessible and
responsive to communities
Initiate environmental justice demonstration
projects to develop integrated, place-based
models for addressing community quality-of-life
issues
Ensure integration of environmental justice into
policies, programs, and activities of federal
agencies
Mr. Swanstrom explained that the underlying
premise of the action agenda is that a collaborative
model is an effective method for comprehensively
and proactively addressing environmental justice
issues. He also stated that the IWG, in partnership
with various stakeholders, had established 15
demonstration projects to test this premise. Exhibit
4-8 lists the demonstration projects. He explained
that OCEFT's role is to act as a liaison between the
people working on the projects and the federal
governmentand to lookinto unresolved issuesatthe
project sites.
Mr. Swanstrom concluded his presentation by stating
that OCEFT has partnerships with many different
associations, including regional environmental
enforcement associations such as the Midwest
Environmental Enforcement Association, the
Northeast Environmental Enforcement Project, the
Southern Environmental Enforcement Network, and
the Western States Project, as well as law
enforcement support organizations such as the
International Association of Chiefs of Police and the
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives (NOBLE). Mr. Swanstrom also
described as an example OCEFT's partnership with
NOBLE's "pilot" environmental justice project. He
stated that NOBLE had been formed in 1976 and
now has more than 48 chapters across the nation
consisting of more than 3,500 law enforcement
professionals. The purpose of NOBLE is to help
shape law enforcement policy in areas of vital
importance to minorities and the law enforcement
community, he said. OCEFT also has a partnership
with the Hispanic-American Police Command
Officers Association (HAPCOA), an organization that
had been formed more than 30 years ago and which
provides annual national conferences for training,
networking, and establishing relationships and
partnerships within the law enforcement profession.
Exhibit 4-8
Interagency Environmental Justice Action Agenda
15 Demonstration Projects
• Re-Genesis: Cleanup and Revitalization through Collaborative Partnerships
• Protecting the Community Health and Reducing Toxic Air Exposure through Collaborative Partnerships in Barrio
Logan
• Metiakatia Indian Community Unified Interagency Environmental Management Task Force
• Protecting Children's Health and Reducing Lead Exposure through Collaborative Partnerships
• New Madrid County Tri-Community Child Health Champion Campaign
• New York City Alternative Fuel Vehicle Summit
• Addressing Asthma in Puerto Rico - A Multifaceted Partnership for Results
• Bridges to Friendship: Nurturing Environmental Justice in Southeast and Southwest Washington
• Bethel New Life Power Park Assessment
• Camden-City of Children Partnering for a Better Future
• Easing Troubled Waters: Ensuring Safe Drinking Water Sources in Migrant Farm Worker Communities in Colorado
• Environmental Justice and Public Participation Through Technology: Defeating the Digital Divide and Building
Capacity
• Oregon Environmental Justice Initiative
• Greater Boston Urban Resources Partnership: Connecting Community and Environment
• Environmental Justice in Indian Country: A Roundtable to Address Conceptual, Political, and Statutory Issues
4-13
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
5.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the significantaction items
adopted by the Enforcement Subcommittee.
S Schedule a conference call that includes Ms.
Harris for January 2003 to:
Clarify the role of the Enforcement
Subcomm ittee and identify ways to improve
the relationship and communication
between the subcommittee and OECA
Identify specific topics that the
subcommittee should address in the future
Clarify the question that the Compliance
Assistance Tools Workgroup should
address with regard to compliance
assistance. Members of the subcommittee
should forward suggestions to Mr. Shanker
or Ms. Pate
Discuss Title VI concerns (including an
update about EPA's progress with Title VI
complaints)
Discuss the ECHO Pilot Web Site
S Submit a formal letter to Ms. Harris requesting
an extension of the 60-day public review and
comment period for the ECHO Pilot Web Site
4-14
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 11, 2002
Baltimore, Maryland
Brenda Washington Pamela Kingfisher
Co-Designated Federal Official Vice-Chair
Gary Carroll
Co-Designated Federal Official
-------
CHAPTER FIVE
MEETING OF THE
HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Health and Research Subcommittee of the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) conducted a one-day meeting on
Wednesday, December 11, 2002, during a four-day
meeting of the NEJAC in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms.
Jane Stahl, Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection and chair of the
subcommittee, was unable to attend the meeting.
Ms. Pamela Kingfisher, Indigenous Women's
Network and vice-chair of the subcommittee,
presided over that day's session. Ms. Aretha
Brockett, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and Ms. Brenda Washington, EPA Office of
Research and Development (ORD), continue to
serve as the co-Designated Federal Officials (DFO)
for the subcommittee. Mr. Charles Lee, EPA Office
of Environmental Justice (OEJ) and DFO for the
NEJAC Executive Council, was present and
participated extensively in the discussions.
After welcoming the members of the subcommittee,
Ms. Kingfisher informed the group that Mr. Franklin
Carver, North Carolina Central University and a
memberof the subcommittee, recently had resigned
as a member of the subcommittee. Exhibit 5-1
identifies the subcommittee members who attended
the meeting and the member who was unable to
attend.
This chapter, which summarizes the deliberations of
the Health and Research Subcommittee, is
organized in four sections, including this Introduction.
Section 2.0, Activities of the Subcommittee,
summarizes the discussions about the activities of
the subcommittee, including its deliberations about
the subcommittee's strategic plan and procedures
forreviewing and approving NEJAC reports. Section
3.0, Presentations and Reports, presents an
overview of each presentation and report made
during the one-day meeting, as well as a summary of
relevant questions and comments from the
subcommittee members regarding those
presentations and reports. Section 4.0, Significant
Action Items, summarizes the significant action
items adopted by the subcommittee.
2.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
This section summarizes the discussions about the
activities of the subcommittee, which included
deliberations about the Health and Research
Subcommittee Strategic Plan, the Framework for
Cumulative Risk Assessment, and the process for
reviewing and approving NEJAC reports.
2.1 Update on the Health and Research
Subcommittee Strategic Plan
Ms. Kingfisher reminded the subcommittee
members presentthatthe strategic plan was created
in response to a request from the NEJAC Executive
Council. She noted that the document outlines the
activities planned for the subcommittee for the next
two years. She also noted that a copy of the plan
was included among the meeting materials.
During the discussion about the strategic plan, the
members of the subcommittee agreed that the plan
should be kept simple and focus on attainable goals.
Subcommittee members expressed the need to
ensure that:
Goals articulated at previous sessions of the
subcomm ittee are reflected in the strategic plan
Exhibit 5-1
HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 11, 2002
Ms. Pamela Kingfisher, Vice-Chair
Ms. Brenda Washington, Co-DFO
Ms. Aretha Brockett, Co-DFO
Mr. Mark Armentrout
Ms. Valerie Jo Bradley
Mr. Lawrence Dark
Mr. Richard Gragg III
Mr. Walter Handy
Ms. Lori Kaplan
Reverend Adora Lee
Ms. Laura Luster
Mr. Mark Mitchell
Ms. Dorothy Powell
Member
Who Was Unable To Attend
Ms. Jane Stahl, Chair
5-1
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
Schedules are realistic and meet the needs of the
subcommittee
Goals and objectives are consistent with one
another
After reviewing and discussing the draft strategic
plan, the members agreed to revise the goals of the
strategic plan as follows:
Provide comments to the Framework for
Cumulative Risk Assessment to EPA through
the NEJAC Executive Council by July 15, 2003
Prepare a research and programmatic agenda
about environmental stressors and health
disparities
The members also expressed the need to expand
the language used to describe the goals. They
agreed to form a workgroup that would be tasked to
develop language that would reflect the intent of the
members of the subcommittee. Exhibit 5-2 lists the
members of the subcommittee who agreed to serve
on the Strategic Plan Workgroup.
2.2 Status of the Framework for Cumulative Risk
Assessment
The Health and Research Subcommittee held an
extensive discussion about EPA's draft Framework
for Cumulative Risk Assessment (Framework), the
first step in a long-term effort to develop Agency-
wide cumulative risk assessment guidance.
According to information posted on the EPA Risk
Assessment Forum Internet web site , the Framework is "intended to foster consistent
approaches to cumulative risk assessment in EPA,
identify key issues, and define terms used in these
assessments. The Framework identifies the basic
elements of the cumulative risk assessment process
and provides a flexible structure for conducting and
evaluating cumulative risk assessment, and for
addressing scientific issues related to cumulative
risk. Although the Framework report will serve as a
foundation for developing future guidance, it is
neither a procedural guide nor a regulatory
requirement within EPA, and it is expected to evolve
with experience. The Framework is not an attempt
to lay out protocols to address all the risks or
considerations that are needed to adequately inform
community decisions. Rather, it is an information
document focused on describing various aspects of
cum ulative risk."
Mr. Lee clarified the relationship between the terms
"risk" and "impact," explaining that risk is defined as
the probability of harm or adverse effects while
"impact" is defined as the resulting harm or adverse
effects. He explained that with the development of
a scoping and planning memorandum in 1997, EPA
began working to develop a cumulative risk
assessment framework. The draft cumulative risk
assessment framework had been prepared by EPA
in 1999, he said, and had been subject to three peer
involvement meetings and two consultations with the
EPA Science Advisory Committee in 2001. Mr. Lee
explained that the framework document had then
undergone external peer review in June 2002 and
that EPA plans to release the published version of
the document by the end of 2003.
Mr. Lee explained that the framework document is
intended to provide an overview of the parameters
constituting cumulative risk and impacts and
cumulative risk assessment. The framework
document will serve as a base for development of
case studies and issue papers on specific topics
related to cumulative risk and cumulative risk
assessments, he explained. These case studies
and an issue paper will be developed during 2003,
he said, and presented to the members of the
NEJAC at the next NEJAC meeting. After receiving
input from the NEJAC members on these items,
EPA would start developing guidelines for cum ulative
risk assessment.
After some discussion about the document, the
members agreed that in some instances, data
collected as partofacumulative risk assessmentwill
reveal issues considered more pertinent by an
affected comm unity, than concerns about the actual
or potential exposures to toxic chemicals. For
Exhibit 5-2
MEMBERS OF
HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
WORKGROUPS
Strategic Plan Work Group
Ms. Dorothy Powell
Ms. Lori Kaplan
Cumulative Risk Work Group
Mr. Lawrence Dark
Mr. Richard Gragg, III
Ms. Pamela Kingfisher
Laura Luster
5-2
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
example, community concerns about the lack of
access to healthcare may outweigh immediate
concerns about potential exposure to toxic
chemicals, they said. Socioeconomic issues such
an increased exposure within comm unities should be
evaluated in a cumulative risk assessment, the
members said. Ms. Dorothy Powell, Associate
Dean, College of Pharmacy, Nursing and Allied
Sciences, Howard University and a member of the
subcommittee, agreed to draft a white paper that
strengthens the discussion about environmental
stressors and health disparities for inclusion in the
NEJAC draft report titled Advancing Environmental
Justice Through Pollution Prevention (draft pollution
prevention report)
Regarding the role of the NEJAC in assisting EPA in
the development of guidelines for cumulative risk
assessment, Mr. Lee reported that a NEJAC
workgroup on cumulative risk would be created in
Spring 2003 as part of the NEJAC's planning efforts
forthe April2004 meeting of the NEJAC. The policy
topic for that meeting would be "Cumulative Risk and
Cumulative Risk Assessment, he said. Working in
partnership with EPA program and regional offices,
other EPA advisory committees, and other federal
agencies, the workgroup would develop a draft
report and consensus proposal to be presented at
the April 2004 meeting of the NEJAC, he continued.
Mr. Lee provided examples of the issues that the
workgroup would be charged to address, including:
Exploring how cumulative risk assessment can
be better grounded in a real-life context of
disproportionately impacted communities and
tribes
Determining practices for ensuring stronger
community involvement in the planning, scoping,
and problem formulation phase of cumulative
risk assessment
Addressing how the concept of vulnerability can
be incorporated into the cumulative risk
assessment process
Identifying methods for more effective use of
information obtained from a cumulative risk
assessment.
The subcommittee requested that a member of the
subcommittee be appointed to participate on the
work group. The subcommittee also formed an
internal workgroup to evaluate and prepare
comments to the draft Framework for Cumulative
Risk Assessment document. Mr. Martin Halper,
Senior Science Advisor, EPA OEJ, agreed to assist
with the workgroup. Exhibit 5-2 lists the members of
the Cumulative Risk Workgroup.
2.3 Discussion aboutthe Process for Reviewing
and Approving NEJAC Reports
The members of the subcommittee discussed the
process for reviewing and approving reports
generated by the NEJAC, noting that the process is
fluid and often cannot adhere to a specific schedule
or model. When a document like the draft pollution
prevention reportis prepared, the audience for which
the document is written should be clear, they said.
New members of the subcommittee requested a flow
chart of the report review and approval process. Ms.
Marva King, NEJAC Program Manager, EPA OEJ,
indicated such a flow chart had been included
among the materials prepared under the General
and Administrative tabofthe meeting binder that had
been distributed to all conference attendees. The
subcommittee concluded that approval and
implementation of proposals or recommendations
outlined in reports like the draft pollution prevention
report depend either on which proposals or
recommendations are adopted by the NEJAC or on
those for which a consensus is reached. Once
proposals or recommendations are adopted by the
NEJAC, EPA decides which ones can be
implemented, they said.
3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and reports submitted to the Health and Research
Subcommittee. Specific presentations included an
overview of the draft pollution prevention report, an
overview about EPA's Response to the World Trade
Center Attack, and a discussion about interagency
participation and communication.
3.1 Overview of Draft Pollution Prevention
Report
Ms. Sharon Austin, EPA OPPT and DFO of the
NEJAC Pollution Prevention Workgroup, provided an
overview of the draft pollution prevention report.
Ms. Samara Swanston, The Watch Person Project,
provided an explanation of her role in the
development of the draft pollution prevention report.
She noted that she had been contracted to work with
the workgroup, taking the various "issue papers" that
had been prepared by the individual stakeholder
subgroups and integrate them into a cohesive
document. Ms. Swanston indicated that pollution
prevention can be a potentially significant tool for
environmental justice because most projects do not
5-3
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
reflect a true relationship among communities,
business, and government. Communities often are
willing to address issues facing them; however,
resources may not be available to allow them to
devote the time needed to address those issues, she
said.
Ms. Austin stated that written comments to the
pollution prevention report should be forwarded to
her at:
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, MC 7406M
Washington, D.C. 20460
Telephone: (202) 564-8523
3.1.1 Chapters 1 and 2, Stakeholder
Perspectives and Consensus
Recommendations
Ms. Austin noted that Chapter 1 of the draft report
described the perspectives of various identified
stakeholder groups, including impacted
communities, all levels of government, and business
and industry. Recounting the process used by the
workgroup to develop its advice and
recommendations, Ms. Austin explained that the 21
members ofthe workgroup, who represented various
stakeholder groups, were interviewed about their
concerns, expectations, and ideas for the workgroup.
Many areas of common interest as well as areas of
difference were revealed during that process, she
said. The interviews then were used to structure the
face-to-face meeting of the workgroup mem bers that
had been held from July 22 through 25, 2002, she
continued. A key outcome of the face-to-face
meeting was the formation of subgroups to identify
specific topics of interest, including community
perspectives, tribal perspectives, business and
industry perspectives, government perspectives,
critical areas and emerging directions, and multi-
stakeholder efforts. Those perspectives then were
delineated in subsequent chapters ofthe draft report.
Ms. Austin also noted that she anticipates that (1)
discussions about the role of enforcement in a
vigorous pollution prevention strategy; (2) the merits
of relying on the "precautionary principle" (which
states that the lack of full scientific certainty should
not be used as a reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation), and (3) other science-based issues,
should be included in the final version ofthe report.
3.1.2 Chapter 3, Community Perspectives
Ms. Connie Tucker, Executive Director, Southern
Organizing Committee for Economic and Social
Justice, provided a summary of Chapter 3,
Community Perspectives, of the draft Pollution
prevention report. She noted that the omission of
information about the role of enforcement in a
pollution prevention strategy" is a critical mistake."
She also stated that because attendance at the
previous day's NEJAC meeting was not as high as
had been anticipated, the comments submitted
during the public comment period by members of
affected comm unities were not as "aggressive". Ms.
Tucker also indicated that pollution prevention is a
tool that can be used to integrate environmental
justice into existing statutes. She requested that the
members of the subcommittee provide her with
comments to Chapter 3 at a later date. She also
invited members of communities to review and
provide comments about the draft report to her.
Ms. Powell asked who are the target audiences of
the draft pollution prevention report. Ms. Austin
replied that the immediate target audience is the
EPA Administrator and EPA OPPT, which would be
implementing the proposals in the consensus
chapter. Ms. Tucker added that she considered the
two primary target audiences to be the NEJAC and
affected communities.
Ms. Powell recommended that the critical issues
overlooked in the draft pollution prevention report be
revisited and the report amended to reflect them so
that the report would reflect a single voice. The
report should not include a collection of minority or
contradictory perspectives, she said. Ms. Austin and
Ms. Tucker agreed that some issues should be
made clearer in the final version of Chapter 2,
Consensus Recommendations, ofthe draft pollution
prevention report. They added that the Pollution
Prevention Workgroup is expected to reconvene to
revisit the issues at hand and subsequently provide
a document about which the NEJAC could make a
decision.
Other issues about the pollution prevention report
that had been discussed by the subcommittee
included the time frame for completing the report,
obtaining a "true consensus in the consensus
chapter," and defining such terms such as "tribes."
Mr. Halper indicated that the time frame for
completing the Pollution prevention report or any
NEJAC report depends on several issues, including
the number of recommendations identified. The
process takes as long as is necessary to develop a
document on which the NEJAC can agree, he said.
5-4
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
3.1.3 Chapter 4, Tribal Perspectives
Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental
Network, summarized the issues confronting tribes,
tribal communities, and tribal governments that are
discussed in Chapter 4, Tribal Perspectives, of the
draft pollution prevention report. He stated that the
report must use consistent language when referring
to tribes and tribal organizations. People living in the
tribal communities also are concerned about the
erosion of tribal sovereignty, he stated. In addition,
Mr. Goldtooth requested the members of the
subcommittee submit comments to the chapter on
tribal perspectives.
Mr. Dean Suagee, Vermont Law School, also
provided input about the tribal perspectives chapter
of the report. He indicated that historically, tribal
governments had not been included in discussions
with other government bodies. Consultation with
tribal communities is essential for getting tribal
perspectives about pollution prevention initiatives, he
said, explaining that consultation with tribal
communities often is limited to brief discussions with
people who work with tribal communities and not
with the actual members of those communities. Mr.
Suagee also stated thatthe final pollution prevention
report should discuss solar and renewable energy,
and alternative sources of transportation, so that
people would not have to rely on cars.
3.2 Overview of EPA's Response to the World
Trade Center Attack
Mr. Christopher Jimenez, On-Scene Coordinator
(OSC), EPA Region 2, discussed EPA's response to
the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center
(WTC) on September 11, 2001. He stated that
EPA's response activities had focused on
addressing contamination and exposures to
asbestos fibers, chemicals related to jet fuel and
gasoline fuel, and particulate matter in ambient air
thatresulted from the collapse and destruction of the
WTC towers. Mr. Jimenez added that real-time air
monitoring and sampling had been conducted at the
excavation site, throughout the five boroughs of New
York City, in nearby towns in New Jersey, and at the
Staten Island Landfill where debris from the
excavation site had been taken for examination and
disposal. The WTC response involved several
federal, state, and local government agencies as
well as contractors, he confirmed. He noted that
work at the excavation site had continued through
August 2002 and that work at the Staten Island
Landfill had been completed two months later.
Mr. Jimenez stated that additional information about
EPA's response to the WTC attack can be obtained
from:
Mr. Steve Touw, MS21
US EPA Facilities
Raritan Depot
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Telephone: (732) 906-6900
E-mail: touw.steve@epa.gov
3.3 Discussion about Interagency Participation
and Communication
Mr. James Tullos, Health Partnership Specialist,
Division of Health Education and Promotion, Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), briefly discussed improving interagency
participation and communication between the
NEJAC and otherfederal agencies. He reported that
ATSDR had established subcommittees and
workgroups that are available to provide assistance
to the Health and Research Subcommittee.
Dialogue between individuals on the ATSDR
subcommittees and the Health and Research
Subcommittee is encouraged, he stated.
Issues raised during Mr. Tullos's presentation
included how ATSDR views environmental justice,
how ATSDR makes a determination of
environmental justice in a community, and the need
for a consistent definition of environmental justice
among federal agencies. Mr. Tullos stated that the
ATSDR Office of Urban Affairs (OUA) is responsible
for making environmental justice determinations.
Such decisions, which are made by the Director of
OUA, are based on a policy signed by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and ATSDR. He
agreed to provide a copy of the policy document to
the NEJAC. Mr. Tullos further explained that
ATSDR would like to (1) see how agencies can work
together at the community level, (2) determine how
many agencies are needed during an initial contact
with a community, and (3) define how much
information is needed during that first initial contact.
He indicated that ATSDR is anticipating tasks on
which ATSDR personnel can assist the Health and
Research Subcommittee. Mr. Lee indicated thatthe
NEJAC previously had worked with Dr. Faulk,
Director of ATSDR, during the May 2000 NEJAC
meeting that had been held in Atlanta, Geogia. Dr.
Faulk is the ATSDR liaison for the NEJAC, Mr. Lee
said.
Mr. Hal Zenick, EPA ORD, indicated that work is
being done to establish a dialogue with and create
an interagency relationship with Mr. Tommy G.
Thompson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. This effort had started in 2000
5-5
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
when the NEJAC Health Report was being prepared.
Ms. Wilma Subra, Louisiana Environmental Action
Network and member of the Air and Water
Subcommittee, is working on a collaborative model
fordeveloping interagency partnerships notonly with
government agencies but also with the private
sector, Mr. Lee reported.
The discussion ended with remarks by the Reverend
Adora Lee, Director of Environmental Justice
Programs, United Church of Christ and a member of
the subcommittee, who indicated that the work of the
NEJAC should culminate in tangible results for the
people who provide comments to the NEJAC during
the public comment period. Rev. Lee added thatthe
most important work of the NEJAC is to have "real-
life impacts" on communities, such as when it makes
recommendations calling for the involvement of
communities in planning and permitting.
4.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the significantaction items
adopted by the Health and Research Subcommittee.
S Recommend to EPA the name of a
subcommittee member to serve as chair of the
subcommittee
S Engage Ms. Powell to draft a white paper that
strengthens the discussion about environmental
stressors and health disparities for inclusion in
the draft pollution prevention report
S Revise the Health and Research Subcommittee
Strategic Plan to ensure that the goals
articulated previously by the subcommittee are
reflected in the strategic plan,thatschedules are
realistic and meet the needs of the
subcomm ittee, and thatgoalsand objectives are
in tune with one another. In addition, expand the
language used to describe the goals in the
subcommittee's strategic plan to more full
explain the subcommittee's intentions.
5-6
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 11, 2002
Baltimore, Maryland
Daniel Gogal
Designated Federal Official
Terry Williams
Acting 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
Wednesday, December 11, 2002, during a four-day
meeting of the NEJAC in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms.
Jana Walker, attorney at law, resigned as chair of
the subcom mittee, and Mr. Terry Williams, Fisheries
and Natural Resources Commissioner for the T ulalip
Tribes, had been asked by the subcommittee
members to serve as the Acting chair of the
subcommittee, pending appointment by the EPA
Administrator. Mr. Daniel Gogal, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Environmental
Justice (OEJ), continues to serve as the Designated
Federal Official (DFO) forthe subcommittee. Exhibit
6-1 identifies the subcommittee members who
attended the one-day meeting and 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, Activities of the Subcommittee, summarizes the
discussions of the activities of the subcommittee
during the one-day meeting, including its discussion
of the NEJAC Pre-Meeting Draft Report, "Advancing
Environmental Justice through Pollution Prevention."
Section 3.0, Presentations and Reports, provides an
overview of each presentation and report as well as
a summary of relevant questions and comments
from the subcommittee members. Section 4.0,
Significant Action Items, summarizes the significant
action items adopted by the subcommittee.
Mr. Don Aragon, Wind River Environmental Quality
Commission and member of the subcommittee, led
the participants in an invocation to begin the
meeting. Following the invocation, Mr. Gogal
reviewed the agenda forthe meeting and explained
that comments from observers would be welcome
during the public dialogue session scheduled for
that afternoon. Mr. Gogal then took the opportunity
to allow observers to introduce themselves.
2.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
This section discusses the activities of the
subcommittee, which included nomination of a new
chair of the subcommittee, discussion of the NEJAC
draft pollution prevention report Advancing
Environmental Justice Through Pollution Prevention,
and an overview of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee Strategic Plan.
2.1 Nomination of a New Chair
Ms. Walkermade a motion to nominate Mr. Williams
to serve as acting chair of the subcommittee for the
upcoming year. Mr. Dean Suagee, Vermont Law
School and a member of the subcommittee,
seconded the motion. Mr. Williams accepted the
nomination and was unanimously selected by the
members present to lead the subcommittee, pending
appointment by the EPA Administrator. Mr. Williams
agreed to serve as acting chairforthe duration of the
one-day meeting.
2.2 NEJAC Draft Pollution Prevention Report
The members of the subcommittee discussed the
N E J AC draft repo rt Advancing Environmental Justice
through Pollution Prevention (pollution prevention
report). Ms. Walker suggested that the
subcommittee review recommendations 6, 8, and 10
described in chapter 2 of the that report which had
not been discussed during the deliberations of the
NEJAC Executive Council on Tuesday, December
Exhibit 6-1
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE
Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 11, 2002
Mr. Terry Williams, Acting Chair *
Mr. Daniel Gogal, DFO
Ms. Jana Walker
Mr. Dean Suagee
Mr. Don Aragon
Mr. Tom Goldtooth
Members
Who Were Unable To Attend
Mr. Moses Squeochs
Ms. Karen Wilde Rogers
Ms. Coleen Poler
Mr. Jose Aguto, Alternate DFO
Ms. Anna Frazier
* Pending approval of EPA Administrator
6-1
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
10, 2002. The members of the subcommittee also
agreed to discuss recommendation 9 because of its
relevance to the issues of indigenous peoples.
Exhibit 6-2 lists the recommendations discussed
during the subcommittee meeting.
Ms. Walker emphasized the importance of
embracing in the draft report all indigenous
populations, including Indian tribes, Pacific islanders
and Alaskan Natives. To avoid cumbersome
repetition throughout the report, she recommended
incorporating in the pollution prevention report the
language provided in the "Interpretive Notes" section
of the NEJAC Fish Consumption and Environmental
Justice report which had been revised and published
in November 2002. She explained that a paragraph
from that report explains which phrases should be
substituted in the text of the pollution prevention
report for a comprehensive list of indigenous
communities. The members of the subcommittee
agreed to advise the NEJAC to edit the fourth
paragraph of the Executive Summary of the pollution
prevention report to read as follows:
This draft report works to identify and discuss
the particular issues that this question raises
when - as is often the case - those negatively
impacted by pollution are communities of color,
low-income communities, tribes, and other
indigenous peoples. This Report uses the
phrase "communities of color, low-income
communities, tribes, and other indigenous
peoples" in an effort to capture, in shorthand
form, all of the various groups and subgroups
that are affected by environmental injustice. It is
meant to include all people of color, low-income
people, American Indians, Alaska Natives,
Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders,
and other indigenous people located within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the United States. In
an effort to avoid cumbersome repetition of this
phrase, the Report also substitutes the phrases
"affected communities and tribes"and "affected
groups;" these shorter phrases are meant to be
similarly inclusive.
2.2.1 Comments to Recommendation 6
Recommendation No. 6 in Chapter 2 of the pollution
prevention report discusses product and process
substitution in areas that affect low-income, minority,
and tribal communities. Mr. Aragon opened the
discussion aboutthat recommendation bydiscussing
the transfer of federal facilities to tribal communities.
Many of those facilities, he stated, are highly
contaminated with lead and asbestos. Mr. Aragon
argued that such facilities must be brought into
Exhibit 6-2
NEJAC DRAFT
POLLUTION PREVENTION REPORT
Chapter 2 Recommendations
Recommendation 6: Promote Product Substitution
and Process Substitution in Areas which Impact Low
Income, Minority, and Tribal Communities
Recommendation 8: Promote Just and Sustainable
Transportation Projects and Initiatives
Recommendation 9: Strengthen Implementation of
Pollution Prevention Programs on Tribal Lands and
Alaskan Native Villages
Recommendation 10: Promote Efforts to
Institutionalize Pollution Prevention Internationally,
Particularly in Developing Countries
compliance with environmental laws before they are
transferred out offederal ownership so thattribes do
not inherit facilities that pose health hazards. The
members of the subcommittee agreed that facility
transfer is an important issue affecting indigenous
communities and proposed adding the following
action item to the pollution prevention report:
Action Item E (new): In carrying out the federal
trustresponse, work collaboratively with the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), and other federal agencies
to ensure that all federal facilities and property
transferred to tribes area safe, and in
compliance with all applicable environmental
laws
Ms. Walker acknowledged that indigenous
communities must be afforded the same level of
environmental protection that is given to other
minority groups when communities containing those
groups assume take possession of former federal
facilities. The members of the subcommittee agreed
that language fora new action item should be added
that reads:
Action Item F (new): Work collaboratively, with
other federal agencies to ensure that all federal
facilities and property transferred to low income
and minority communities are clean, safe and in
compliance with all applicable environmental
laws
Mr. Williams suggested the addition of a third action
6-2
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
item designed to promote model agreements to limit
the types of pollutants entering and leaving a facility.
He stated that these agreements would provide an
opportunity for EPAand tribes to workcollaboratively
to develop and provide new opportunities for tribes
to communicate with one another. The members of
the subcommittee agreed that the language for such
a new action item should read:
Action Item G (new): Develop and promote
model agreements in pollution prevention in
Indian lands and within Alaska Native villages.
2.2.2 Comments to Recommendation 8
Recommendation No. 8 in Chapter 2 of the draft
pollution prevention report discusses efforts to
promote justand sustainable transportation projects
and initiatives. Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous
Environmental Network and a member of the
subcommittee, suggested that the subcommittee
add language to the background text of that
recommendation to address the transportation
through native lands and reservations of hazardous
and radioactive wastes, including mixed oxide
(plutonium/uranium nuclear fuel) waste. He added
that a discussion of sacred sites and cultural
considerations should be added to the text as well.
The members of the subcommittee agreed to
recommend new language to address Mr.
Goldtooth's concerns. The new language, which
could appear after the phrase "land use issues" on
page 32, line 26 of the draft pollution prevention
report, would read as follows:
". . . , including but not limited to places that
have religious and cultural importance to tribes
(including Alaska native villages) and other
indigenous peoples. ..."
Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. Goldtooth and
suggested that the text on page 32, line 10 of the
draft pollution prevention report be revised to add the
words "urban and rural"after "lowincome and tribal."
He explained that this addition would broaden the
scope of the sentence to include those communities
in rural settings through which hazardous wastes
often are transported.
Mr. Suagee suggested that the recommendation
include a discussion about "walkable
neighborhoods." He explained that walkable
neighborhoods are planned communities in which
roads are not necessary because all basic
necessities are located within walking distance of a
resident's home. He acknowledged that this concept
may not apply in a rural setting but stated that it
should be should considered as an alternative to
building roads. The members of the subcommittee
agreed to revise the last sentence of action item B to
read as follows:
"... Transportation planning should emphasize
the use of walkable neighborhoods."
Mr. Aragon added that state agencies should be
included among the organizations listed in Action
Item A as working in partnership with the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. Williams
agreed and suggested that two additional action
items be added to recommendation 8. The first
recommendation, he stated, would promote
cooperating agency status for indigenous peoples
and the second would better define the term
"meaningful and early" within the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to mean
participation beginning at the point where "purpose
and need" have been identified. He explained that
two states, North Carolina and Washington, have
adopted language that calls for early participation of
indigenous peoples in their state NEPA processes;
a similar approach should be referenced in the new
action item, he stated. The members of the
subcommittee agreed to recommend language for
two new action items:
Action Item J (new): Promote cooperating
agency status for tribes and Alaska Native
villages with the U.S. Department of
Transportation when transportation projects will
or may affect tribal or village interests.
Action Item K (new): Define "meaningful and
early" to mean participation beginning at
"purpose and need." (within NEPA, see North
Carolina and Washington state laws).
2.2.3 Comments to Recommendation 9
Recommendation No. 9 in Chapter 2 of the draft
pollution prevention report focuses on activities to
strengthen the implementation of pollution
prevention programs on tribal lands and in Alaskan
Native villages. Mr. Goldtooth proposed that the
second paragraph of the background text for this
recommendation be modified to discuss the impacts
of pollution on the rights of native communities to
practice their culture and maintain the integrity of
sacred sites. He added that the language should
clarify any misunderstandings that exist about the
protections afforded to sacred sites and the cultural
practices of indigenous communities. He
emphasized the importance of properly representing
in the draft report the needs of indigenous peoples
and urged the subcommittee to further review the
6-3
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
text of this recommendation after the meeting.
Mr. Aragon pointed out that only three Indian
organizations are named in the first paragraph of
recommendation 9. He argued that the text either
should be inclusive of all such organizations or
exclude all references to specific organizations. Mr.
Suagee, who said that he had participated in the
development of that section of the draft pollution
prevention report, responded that he had included
the three organizations for which EPA provided
funding but that he would edit the text to be more
inclusive of other tribal organizations.
2.2.4 Comments to Recommendation 10
Recommendation No. 10 of the draft report
discusses ways to promote internationally efforts to
institutionalize pollution prevention, particularly in
developing countries. Mr. Suagee suggested that
the subcommittee devote some time to addressing
international sustainable development and how they
apply to indigenous communities. He stated his
belief that less developed countries, in pursuing
solutions to their environmental problems, want what
they perceive to be "proper solutions" to
environmental problems because more developed
countries have adopted those solutions.. The
members of the subcommittee agreed thatsuch less
developed countries, including countries with
indigenous communities, must move beyond what
developed countries have implemented and explore
new and more innovative ways to solve
environmental problems. Mr. Suagee advised the
subcommittee to discuss whether Indian
organizations can play an appropriate role in the
transfer of technology from developed countries to
undeveloped and rural countries around the world.
Indigenous tribes may be willing to consider
technology transfer, a topic, he added, that should
not be considered beyond the scope of the mission
of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee.
The members of the subcommittee agreed to
propose two new action items focusing on biological
diversity and resource management:
Action Item D (new): Add in parentheses:
"Including the convention of biological diversity
Article 8D"
Action Item E (new): Promote the use of
traditional knowledge to focus on resource
management with less disturbance with
maintaining ecosystem structure.
Mr. Suagee suggested that the subcommittee
compose a new action item to improve the tribal
consultation process, particularly when Alaskan and
Hawaiian Natives participate in global treaties. He
added that seldom has consultation been a formal
process and that representation of tribal
communities has not been adequate. The U.S.
State Department has argued thatitis not underany
legal obligation to include tribes in the consultation
process, he continued. The members of the
subcommittee agreed to write a new action item
addressing that issue.
Mr. Aragon proposed a new action item that
addresses trans-boundary pollution prevention
issues. The action item, he said, would address the
issues of border tribes (those tribes living along the
U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico) and coastal
tribes (tribes living in the coastal regions of the
United States). He added that in many cases, the
contamination created in one country affects tribes
residing in a neighboring country, forcing the tribe in
the neighboring country to deal with the cleanup. He
acknowledged that climate change also is an
important issue with regard to international and
trans-boundary pollution prevention. Mr. Williams
responded that those issues historically have been
addressed under the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). He added that some
processes had been started to address those issues
but that there has been minimal insight into which
direction to go. Therefore, Mr. Williams continued,
NAFTA may not be the appropriate means through
which to address such issues but it is a place to
start.
The members of the subcommittee agreed to
compose an action item advocating a new, multi-
prong approach to encourage discussion of issues
that affect tribes internationally, such as climate
change, watercontamination, and species shift. Mr.
Aragon suggested that the report include a
discussion about treaty rights because some tribes
possess treaty rights that extend beyond their tribal
boundaries. He added that the International Joint
Commission (IJC), an independent, joint Canada
and U.S. agency that provides oversight of shared
water resources, intends to fill two seats with a
Canadian and a Native American because the
commission now recognizes that it must include
indigenous peoples in its discussions.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Goldtooth agreed to write a
comprehensive list of action items within
recommendation 10 to be submitted to the NEJAC
for inclusion in the final pollution prevention report.
2.3 Review of the Strategic Plan
6-4
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
The members ofthe subcommittee briefly discussed
the subcommittee's strategic plan, including the
subcommittee's goals and objectives as well as the
development of proposed activities and target
completion dates. Mr. Williams and Ms. Walker
reviewed the four goals of the subcommittee for
2003 as outlined in the strategic plan. Exhibit 6-3
presents the four goals of the subcommittee to be
pursued during 2003 and 2004.
The members of the subcommittee agreed to meet
in 2003 despite the fact that they would not be
meeting with the NEJAC for a year and a half. The
2003 meeting would allow Mr. Williams and new
subcommittee members to become familiar with the
goals and operations ofthe subcommittee.
3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and reports submitted to the Indigenous Peoples
Subcomm ittee.
3.1 Presentation About the Tribal Wind Power
Demonstration Project Plan
Mr. Robert Gough, consultant with the Rosebud
Sioux Tribe (RST) & the Intertribal Council on Utility
Policy (COUP), provided background information
about the Tribal Wind Power Demonstration Project,
which advocates tribal development of wind
resources on Indian reservations in the northern
Great Plains. Mr. Gough explained that the
demonstration project is the first phase of the
Environmental Justice Revitalization Project, a
grassroots initiative intended to realize tribal
aspirations for community revitalization.
Mr. Gough stated that the Tribal Wind Power
Demonstration Project encourages the development
of wind energy generation on Indian reservations as
a viable strategy forcomm unity revitalization through
the development of sustainable tribal economies.
He added that the project would address past and
ongoing environmental injustices that he said have
resulted from the building of mainstream dams on
the Missouri River. Mr. Gough stated thatthe project
is an opportunity for tribes to control the
development of energy sources and benefit from the
management of such sources.
Following the presentation, Mr. Goldtooth pointed out
that the draft pollution prevention report includes an
unfinished section addressing energy issues to
which the subcommittee can provide additional text
advocating tribal energy management as part of
pollution prevention efforts. Mr. Gough provided a
written statement that he offered for use in
completing that section.
Mr. Gogal noted that the wind power demonstration
project is one of 15 projects identified for the second
round of projects being considered by the
Interagency Working Group on Environmental
Justice (IWG) chaired by Mr. Charles Lee, EPA OEJ
and DFO of the NEJAC Executive Council. If the
project were to be selected as a finalist, Mr. Gogal
explained, the project would be funded by EPA and
the tribes would begin to implement the first phase of
the project.
Mr. David Ullrich, EPA Region 5, stated thatconcern
about climate change is worldwide, especially in the
areas surrounding the Great Lakes. He asked Mr.
Gough whether the demonstration project proposal
had considered concerns about the aesthetics of
Exhibit 6-3
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE STRATEGIC PLAN
GOALS FOR 2002 THROUGH 2004
1. Assist the NEJAC in providing recommendations and advice to EPA on the development and implementation of
EPA policy, guidance, activities, and protocol as well as environmental legislation and regulations to help achieve
environmental justice for Tribes and other indigenous peoples
2. Provide opportunities for representatives of Tribes, other indigenous peoples, and national, regional, and local
tribal and indigenous organizations to bring their environmental justice concerns to the NEJAC's attention as it
develops policy advice and recommendations for EPA to address those concerns
3. Provide recommendations and advice to the NEJAC and its subcommittees to ensure that environmental justice
issues affecting, involving, or of concern to Tribes are addressed by EPA in a manner that fulfills the trust
responsibility, respects tribal sovereignty and the government-to-government relationship, upholds treaties, and
promotes tribal self-determination
4. Coordinate and collaborate with EPA-supported tribal organizations and the NEJAC and its subcommittees and
workgroups to identify priority environmental and public health concerns of Tribes and other indigenous peoples
and determine ways that EPA can address these issues
6-5
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
large wind turbines, noise pollution, and hazards to
bird populations. Mr. Gough answered that such
potential problems arising from the project had been
considered and addressed in the proposal. For
example, he said, to address the aesthetic concerns,
the project would include a screening process giving
tribes the opportunity to oppose construction of the
wind turbine near their villages. He added that
results from a survey had shown that tribes are
receptive to the construction of such equipment and
any possible resultant noise because the project
would give them a sense of ownership and
independence. He acknowledged that birds could be
at risk if the project were implemented but stated
that the risk would be minimized by constructing in
areas outside the migratory patterns of native birds.
3.2 Presentation by the Native Village of Selawik,
Alaska
Mr. Benten Davis, water technician for the Native
Village of Selawik, Alaska, provided information
about the environmental impact of a new gravel road
scheduled to be built that would lead from his village
to a newly constructed landfill. He stated that the
dust from the road would compound the problems
that the village residents already have with silt
deposits and melting permafrost, which can result in
giant sinkholes and other damage to the local
ecosystem. He argued that dust particulates from
the road would pollute the air, causing health
problems for the people in the village. Mr. Davis
requested that the subcommittee speak on his
behalf to the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) to advocate paving the road to minimize dust
pollution. Mr. Williams asked whetheranyone other
than members of the village would use the road, and
Mr. Davis replied that the residents of his village
would be the only people using the road.
Clarifying why this issue is appropriate for
consideration bythesubcommittee, Mr. Gogalstated
that building a gravel road rather than a paved one
might cause adverse health effects such as asthma
and other respiratory problems for the people in the
village. He added that this issue is a pollution
prevention issue and should be addressed by the
mem bers of the subcomm ittee.
3.3 Presentation by the Ponca Tribe of
Oklahoma
Mr. Ron Sherron, Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma,
described the environmental impacts caused by
leaking wastewater lagoons located near his tribe.
He explained that the company that owns the
lagoons had operated two years without permits,
after which it received permits for two of the four
lagoons. However, Mr. Sherron stated, there is
evidence to prove that the permits were fraudulently
obtained. The permits state thatgroundwater atthe
site is located 80 feet below ground surface (bgs),
but actually, he explained, groundwater is located at
20 feet bgs. Mr. Sherron further stated that the
lagoons for which the permits were obtained were
faulty and that contaminants from the lagoons have
leaked into the groundwater and contaminated the
drinking water wells of 14 homes adjacent to the
company's plant. The tribe had taken this issue to
the Oklahoma state attorney general, the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (Oklahoma
DEQ), and EPA, urging them to withdraw the
permits, he reported. Mr. Sherron then explained
that a visible kill zone is present where the
groundwater from the lagoon area reaches the
Arkansas River. According to Mr. Sherron, no
sampling has been conducted at the lagoon site,
although Oklahoma DEQ has sampled seeps,
lagoons, and pools in the area and has identified
hydrocarbons in the water.
Mr. Sherron urged the subcommittee to
communicate with EPA about this situation.
Specifically, he asked fora letter of supportfrom the
NEJAC to the EPA Administrator on behalf of his
tribe. He also requested that the letter propose an
independent assessment of the situation with EPA
support.
Mr. Suagee asked whether the area where the
groundwater enters the river is tribal land. Mr.
Sherron responded that ownership of this area is
disputed and that tribal land lies immediately
adjacent to the impacted area. Mr. Williams asked
Mr. Sherron to provide the subcommittee with a
more detailed written historical summary about the
lagoon site so that the NEJAC could include the
information in a letter to EPA.
Mr. Aragon commented that EPA should step in on
behalf of the tribe and enforce a cleanup under the
Safe Drinking Water Act because the Agency has
exhibited little tolerance at similarsites for the type of
contamination involved at the site described by Mr.
Sherron. Mr. Gogal and Mr. Williams provided Mr.
Sherron with information for several points of contact
within EPA who would be able to help with his
request for assistance.
3.4 Presentation by the Inupiat Community of
the Arctic Slope
Ms. Edith Tegoseak, Inupiat Community of the Arctic
Slope, first spoke about language barriers between
government agencies and tribal communities. She
6-6
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
asked the subcommittee to encourage the use of
broad terms (such as "community" rather than
"village) when tribal communities are discussed or
referred to in text. She also advocated that agencies
should ask questions of Alaskan Native participants
while they are at meetings rather than later, when
agency representatives have returned home and are
more likely to not remember the context of previous
conversations.
Ms. Tegoseak then described some of the
environmental problems faced by the native people
of Alaska. She noted that, often, roads into and out
of villages are not available. Where roads are built,
she added, Alaskan Natives must deal with dust
control and air quality issues. She stated that EPA
would be wise to include Alaskan communities in its
discussion about pollution prevention because native
people know firsthand what environmental problems
exist. Ms. Tegoseak urged that if Alaskan Natives
are included in the discussion, the information must
be presented in a manner that they can understand.
Mr. Williams asked Ms. Tegoseak, as an Alaskan
Native, to explain the difference between a village
and community. Ms. Tegoseak responded that
lands in Alaska are not referred to as "reservations,"
but as "communities." She then explained that the
term "community" is used most often and that
"villages" typically refers to places that have
populations of less than 500 people.
Mr. Suagee, agreeing with Ms. Tegoseak, added
that EPA generally is aware that Alaska's culture,
institutions, and ecosystems are differentfrom other
states but few people within EPA specifically
understand how the culture and language are
different. He expressed his appreciation to the
Alaskan Natives present at the meeting for traveling
to Baltimore, Maryland to help the subcommittee
understand the issues facing Alaskan Natives.
3.5 Presentation by the Tanana Tribal Council of
Tanana, Alaska
Ms. Kathleen Peters-Zuray, Tanana Tribal Council of
Tanana, Alaska, provided information about a tribal
environmental agreement submitted by members of
her community to EPA. The agreement involved
enforcement of environmental assessments and
cleanups in her community. She began by
describing the lifestyle ofthe people living in Tanana.
She explained that the residents rely on salmon for
a large part of their subsistence. Unfortunately, she
explained, the salmon population had been seriously
diminished in recent years by metals contamination
in the Yukon River, from which people in Tanana
also receive their drinking water.
Ms. Peters-Zuray requested that the subcommittee
make a statement to EPA on behalf of the people of
Tanana with regard to a multi-agency project that
she currently manages. As part of that project, she
reported that she had submitted a tribal
environmental agreement that affirmed the
government-to-government relationship between the
Tanana Tribal Council and eight federal agencies,
including EPA, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), the U.S. Air Force, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). The agreement outlined seven steps
that described how the parties to the agreement
would work collaboratively to address the
environmental problems in Tanana. The steps
included identifying problems, setting priorities
among the problems, agreeing on strategies for
solving the problems beginning with the highest-
priority problem, and implementing the mostfeasible
cleanup strategies.
Ms. Peters-Zuray stated that after submitting the
tribal environmental agreement to the federal
agencies, she invited them to Tanana to meet with
the people and sign the agreement. She explained
thatto date, she has received verbal agreements but
no commitments in writing. She then stated thatshe
needs the NEJAC to influence EPA and the other
agencies to sign the agreement. She also
advocated holding an environmentaljustice listening
session in Alaska because, she said, Alaskans often
cannot afford to attend listening sessions elsewhere
in the United States and, therefore their concerns
often are not considered in the discussions at those
sessions.
Ms. Walker asked whether individuals own the land
in Tanana or whether it is owned communally. Ms.
Peters-Zuray responded that the land is owned
communally but that members ofthe tribe recognize
and respectthe hunting grounds and individual lands
of individual residents. Mr. Suagee urged Ms.
Peters-Zuray to bring her concerns to the NEJAC
Enforcement Subcommittee because it would be
better able to address the problems that she had
described.
3.6 Presentation about Supplemental
Environmental Projects
For this presentation, members of the NEJAC
Enforcement Subcomm ittee joined the members of
the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee. Ms. Shirley
Pate, EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance and DFO of the Enforcement
Subcommittee, facilitated the joint session about
supplemental environmental projects (SEP).
Ms. Rosemarie Kelley, EPA Office of Regulatory
6-7
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
Enforcement, gave a brief overview about SEPs.
She explained that in a SEP, in-kind services are
performed for, or cash contributions made to, a
projectdesigned to advance environmental interests.
For these projects, an organization agrees to
perform the project in partial settlement of an
enforcement action, but the organization is not
otherwise legally required to perform the project and
retains no monetary benefit from the project. Mr.
Gogal asked Ms. Kelley to describe ways that tribes
can get involved with SEPs. She responded that
tribes should reference the community involvement
guidance for SEPs that recently was issued by EPA.
She also stated that guidance for tribal involvement
with SEPs is scheduled to be issued in the near
future. She went on to describe two situations in
which SEPs can be applied in tribal communities:
(1) when a tribe is a plaintiff and (2) when a tribe is
affected by a person already being sued.
Mr. Gogal asked Ms. Kelley to explain how SEPs
have been implemented in tribal communities. Ms.
Kelley responded that one common situation in
which a SEP is implemented is when a company that
had been found in noncompliance hires a tribe as a
contractor. She explained that there must be a
relationship between the requirements of a SEP and
the affected community. For example, she stated, a
com munity could be located along an impacted river
several hundred miles downstream from the source
of contamination and still participate in the
implementation of a SEP. Mr. Williams asked Ms.
Kelley who initiates a SEP. She responded that a
SEP can be initiated by any source, however she
added, the defendant company decides whether to
conduct a SEP or pay the full penalty.
Mr. Williams asked whether SEPs are implemented
in criminal cases. Ms. Kelley responded that SEPs
only are used in civil cases. However, a member of
the audience stated that she had knowledge of a
criminal case in which SEPs had been implemented
as a form of punishment during settlement.
Ms. Kelley urged the members of the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee to submit through the
NEJAC comments to EPA about the tribal guidance
on SEPs. She also suggested that the
subcommittee advocate educating tribal
communities about SEPs and obtain feedback about
the types of projects tribes would like to see. Ms.
Kelley explained that it is important to get tribes
involved early in the SEP process because often, a
com munity does not get an opportunity to comment
on such remedies until after a SEP has been
implemented.
3.7 Presentation about the EPA Criminal
Investigation Division
Mr. Nick Swanston, Director of the EPA Criminal
Investigation Division, made a presentation aboutthe
role of criminal enforcement in environ mental justice.
See Chapter 3 of this report for a summary of that
presentation.
3.8 Presentation by the Native Village of
Nowatak, Alaska
Ms. Hilda Booth, Native Village of Nowatak, Alaska,
described the problems that her village has
experienced with erosion. She explained that every
year, the riverbank near her village erodes
approximately five additional feet. When erosion first
became a problem, she explained, the people in the
village used logs and sandbags to control it. She
reported that EPA had assured the tribe that the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would control the
erosion by implementing a $2 million project to block
part of the river to divert the water in another
direction. However, in the spring, the structure
blocking the riverbank was washed away, she said,
and now the tribe is back where it started, still
looking for ways to getfunding to control the erosion.
Ms. Booth and Mr. Francis Chin, Maniilaq
Association, then described the problems that the
village has faced as a result of the erosion. They
explained that the dump site for the village used to
be located next to the river. Over time, however, the
erosion of the riverbank caused the contaminants at
the dump site to leach into the river and to move
toward nearby homes, the said. Ms. Booth went on
to explain that a new dump site was built farther
away from the river and that, in response to
concerns about erosion, the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development has built new
houses farther away from the river but closer to the
new dump site. Ms. Booth added that the residents
living in the new houses close to the dump site are
beginning to develop health problems caused by the
burning of wastes at the site.
Mr. Williams asked Ms. Booth what the USACE had
done since the water diversion project failed. She
responded that people in the village had asked the
USACE to return to Alaska in the Spring but that
USACE personnel had not. Mr. Gogal asked
whether representatives of the EPA office in Alaska
had made any contact with her tribe about the
situation. Ms. Booth replied that EPA
representatives had observed the dump site during
the Spring and had been informed of the situation
since then. Mr. Chin added that EPA now has said
that it could offer no assistance because no funding
currently is available.
6-8
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
Mr. Gogal asked about the size of the original dump
site. Mr. Chin responded that the dump site
occupies about 100 square feet but that the problem
is the content of the site, not its size. Mr. Gogal
replied that it might not cost much to remove the
original and new dump sites and build a new one far
away from the homes and the river. He added that
EPA should conduct a cost analysis for that action
and that the site might qualify for Brownfields
redevelopment grants. Mr. Gogal assured Ms.
Booth and Mr. Chin that he would contact EPA
representatives in Region 10 to explain the situation
and ask those representatives to contact Ms. Booth
or Mr. Chin discuss the next plan of action.
Mr. Williams added thatfederalagencies, nottribes,
are responsible for obtaining grants. He advised the
tribe to begin by identifying which government
agency is responsible for addressing the issue. Mr.
Gogal cautioned that the tribe should not rely on
government agencies to do the work to address the
situation. He stated that the tribe should do what it
could to make the situation better while and should
also seeking help. There must be a commitment
from the tribe, he added, to manage the situation so
that it does not happen again.
4.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the significantaction items
adopted by the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee.
S Departing members of the subcommittee will
provide pertinent contact information to new
members
S Prepare a comprehensive list of new action
items for the NE JAC to consider when it reviews
the draft pollution prevention report
S Prepare a letterto the chair of the NEJAC urging
that the council (1) consider holding an
environmentaljustice listening session in Alaska
and (2) get a response from the EPA Indian
Coordinator for that area
S Encourage more interaction between the
Enforcement Subcomm ittee and the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee. Ms. Pate and Mr.
Williams will develop questions to be addressed
in a joint conference call between the two
subcommittees.
S Consider establishing a new organization
composed of tribal law enforcement officers
S Develop a list of experts within indigenous
communities to encourage the involvement of
such communities in international issues
S Track points of contacts so that members of the
community can be quickly directed to the
appropriate person. During the next conference
call, the subcommittee will discuss ways to
implement this new policy.
6-9
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 11, 2002
Baltimore, Maryland
Wendy Graham Tseming Yang
Designated Federal Official Chair
-------
CHAPTER SEVEN
MEETING OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The International Subcommittee of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
conducted a one-day meeting on Wednesday,
December 11, 2002, during a four-day meeting of
the NEJAC in Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. Tseming
Yang, Vermont Law School, continues to serve as
chair of the subcommittee. Ms. Wendy Graham,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office
of International Activities (Ol A), continues to serve as
the Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the
subcommittee. Mr. Jose Bravo, Just Transition
Alliance, a former member of the International
Subcommittee, attended the meeting as proxy for
Mr. Cesar Luna, Border Environmental Justice
Campaign, who as unable to attend. Exhibit 7-1
identifies the subcommittee members who attended
the meeting and the members who were unable to
attend.
This chapter, which summarizes the deliberations of
the International Subcommittee, is organized in five
sections, including this Introduction. Section 2.0,
5.0, Activities of the Subcommittee, presents items
identified by the members to facilitate a beneficial
relationship between the subcommittee and EPA
OIA. Section 3.0, Discussion of Corporate
Responsibility, summarizes the discussion about the
corporate responsibility of United States-based
multinational corporations to comply with the health,
safety, and environmental laws and regulations of
theforeign countries. Section4.0, Presentations and
Reports, presents an overview of presentations and
reports about topics other than corporate
responsibility and includes a summary of relevant
questions and comments from the subcommittee
members. Section Section 5.0, Significant Action
Items, summarizes the significant action items
adopted by the subcommittee.
2.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Yang described the subcommittee's
accomplishments during the past year, including:
Its work with the Amazon Alliance on Plan
Columbia, a group examining at the effects of
eradication of coca crops in Colombia
Its completion of the Draft Report on the
International Roundtable on Environmental
Justice on the United States-Mexico Border,
August 1999, National City, California, which
had been submitted to the Executive Council for
review and approval
The work of Mr. Philip L. Hillman, Polaroid
Corporation and mem ber of the subcomm ittee,
in preparation for the discussion about
international corporate responsibility. See
Section 3.0 ofthis chapterfora summary of that
discussion.
Mr. Yang stated that although the next complete
meeting of the NEJAC is not scheduled to occur until
April 2004, the subcommittee should attempt to meet
prior to that date He suggested that the
subcommittee meeting be convened in a city such
as San Diego, California, or El Paso, Texas that is
located near the United States-Mexico border.
Mr. Yang pointed out that the items to be discussed
during the current meeting of the subcommittee
reflect the priorities outlined in the International
Subcomm ittee Strategic Plan that recently had been
revised. Pointing to Goal 6 of the Strategic Plan, Mr.
Yang suggested that the relationship between
environmental justice and the work of the various
international agencies is important and should be
actively engaged by EPA. Exhibit 7-2 presents the
text of that goal.
Exhibit 7-1
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 11, 2002
Mr. Tseming Yang, Chair
Ms. Wendy Graham, DFO
Mr. Jose Bravo, proxy for Mr. Cesar Luna
Mr. Larry Charles
Ms. Carmen Gonzalez
Ms. Dianne Wilkins
Members Who Were Unable To Attend
Mr. Philip L. Hillman
Mr. Cesar Luna
Mr. Jose Matus
7-1
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
Exhibit 7-2
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal 6
Engage in further discussion with OIA about the
subcommittees's work on the accountability of:
• The Commission for Environmental Cooperation
(CEC), the Border Environmental Cooperation
Commission (BECC), the North American
Development (NAD) Bank, and the International
Boundaries and Waters Commission
• International environmental institutions such as the
United Nations Environmental Program and other
treaty organizations
• Foreign policy-oriented federal agencies and
entities
Mr. Jerry Clifford, Deputy Assistant Administrator,
EPA OIA responded that the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) is overseen by an
advisory committee; adding that he did not think it
would be helpful for the International subcommittee
to assist with that advisory committee's processes.
However, he stated, the Border Environmental
Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North
American Development (NAD) Bank do not have
effective advisory committees. Reporting that there
is a plan to restructure the BECC and the NAD Bank
to work under the same advisory board, Mr. Clifford
stated he would like to see a citizen advisory position
added to that new board. Mr. Clifford suggested that
he would like to use the existing Good Neighbor
Board in that capacity.
Commenting about the subcommittee's continuing
concerns about U.S. international trade policies and
the U.S. Department of State, Mr. Clifford
recommended the subcommittee provide advice
about environmental justice through the Trade and
Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC), a
federal advisory committee jointly administered by
EPA and the United States Trade Representative
(USTR). Mr. Clifford stated that through its role as
an advisory body to OIA, the NEJAC could provide
recommendations about how OIA could challenge
TEPAC to engage in environmental justice issues.
The subcommittee members agreed to meet with
TEPAC via a teleconference call to provide
recommendations about environmental justice as it
relates to international trade. Ms. Carmen Gonzalez,
Seattle University School of Law and member of the
subcommittee, pointed out that the NEJAC is unique
among advisory councils in that it also serves as a
conduit between environmental justice grassroots
organizations and EPA. Mr. Clifford encouraged the
subcommittee to continue to bring such issues as
the aerial eradication of coca crops in Colombia to
the attention of EPA.
3.0 DISCUSSION ABOUT
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE
RESPONSIBILITY - THE MORAL DILEMMA
This section summarizes the subcommittee's
discussion abouthowto encourage the responsibility
of United States-based multinational corporations to
comply with the health, safety, and environmental
laws and regulations of the foreign countries in which
they operate. The discussion also examined
whethersuch corporations were required to maintain
the standards they employ to operate their facilities
located in the United States. Various perspectives
were offered by representatives of an advocacy
organization, a corporation, and the EPA.
Mr. Yang introduced the discussion by stating that
there is a perceived disconnect between economic
and financial policy and environmental responsibility
in developing countries. He noted that United
States-based multinational corporations have moved
their production operations to foreign countries,
typically developing countries, where there are weak
environmental regulations or poor enforcement of
the health, safety, and environmental standards that
must be met in the United States. The
subcommittee is concerned about international
environmental responsibility, he explained,
particularly as it relates to transboundary issues in
the United States-Mexicoborderarea and shipments
of hazardous waste from the United States to South
Africa. Mr. Yang summarized his remarks by
reading the following statement prepared by Mr.
Hillman:
"The goal of the International Subcommittee
is to develop best practices and identify
strategies that can be used by government
and non-government organizations to
challenge and influence United States
multinational corporate behavior, We want
to develop a method that would encourage
companies to take the 'high road' and
become better global citizens.'"
Drawing a connection between international
corporate environmental responsibility and pollution
prevention (the policy issue being discussed during
the current meeting of the NEJAC), Ms. Dianne
Wilkins, Bullock Memorial Association and member
of the subcommittee, stated her belief that in the
7-2
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
United States many corporations consider pollution
prevention to be a voluntary effort. For the many
United States-based multinational corporations
operating in locations outside the United States, that
perception is "more than voluntary," she asserted;
explaining that those corporations operate as if they
do not have to be proactive about pollution
prevention. She emphasized the importance of
international pollution prevention efforts because
"pollution does not know boundaries."
The presentations are described below, as well as a
summary of the relevantquestions and comments of
the subcommittee.
3.1 Coalition for Environmentally Responsible
Economies
Ms. Debra Hall, Coalition for Environmentally
Responsible Economies (CERES), opened her
presentation about international corporate
responsibility by stating that the discussion would
examine the complexities of corporate responsibility,
address moral dilemmas and management
challenges, and link pollution prevention to
sustainability and a "systems approach" by
highlighting corporate best practices. For
companies, she stated, there are values for "doing
the right thing," and a company's values must be
consistent with its management approach.
Ms. Hallthen provided background information about
CERES. She described CERES as a coalition of
more than 80 environmental, religious, labor, and
public interest groups as well as investors
representing more than $300 billion in invested
capital. The coalition was established in response to
the 1989 Exxon oil spill in Alaska. Its members
include a network of more than 65 corporate
endorsers representing diverse industries and
businesses, she said. Ms. Hall explained that the
members of CERES advocate an innovative,
practical approach to advancing corporate
accountability through public reporting and
stakeholder engagement. She reported that the
coalition had developed the CERES Principles, a
10-point code of environmental conduct that its
members have endorsed:
Protection of the biosphere
Sustainable use of natural resources
Reduction and [safe and responsible]disposal of
wastes
Energy conservation
Risk reduction
Safe products and services
Environmental restoration
Informing the public
Management commitment
Audits and reports
CERES has promoted standardized environmental
reporting since its formation in 1989, Ms. Hall
continued, noting that CERES has helped turn
corporate environmental disclosure into a routine
part of business behavior. In 1997, she said,
CERES launched the Global Reporting Initiative
(GRI), an international effort to create a common
framework for reporting the economic,
environmental, and social impacts of corporate
activity. Ms. Hall noted that the GRI Sustainability
Reporting Guidelines are a widely accepted standard
for corporate sustainability reporting worldwide.
Companies that have endorsed the CERES
Principles are obliged to report annually on their
environmental performance, she said. In 2002, GRI
became an independent institution whose mission is
to develop and disseminate globally applicable
sustainability reporting guidelines, she said.
Mr. Bravo then asked about CERES' position on
environmental justice and whether environmental
justice is integrated into the coalition's work. Ms.
Hall replied that CERES is an environmentally
focused coalition that is concerned about
sustainability and social responsibility issues but that
itdoes not specifically spell outenvironmentaljustice
as part of its principles.
3.2 DuPont Company
Mr. Ed Mongan, DuPont Company (DuPont),
described DuPont as a multinational chemical
company in which corporate responsibility is part of
the culture. He then presented an overview of
DuPont's com mitment to corporate responsibility. In
the 1980s, he said, when it became apparent that
environmental issues such as ozone depletion and
global warming were "not just local but global in
scope," DuPont began making changes involving
environmental corporate responsibility. DuPont now
has an environmental policy board that focuses on
the broaderissuesof global impacts, including those
related to environmental impacts, workersafety, and
product stewardship.
Mr. Mongan then shared his personal experience
involving pollution prevention and DuPont's supply
chain relationship with the automobile industry. He
began by explaining that DuPont Canada's
Performance Coatings had initiated a partnership
with Ford Motor Company's Oakville, Ontario,
automotive assembly plant. The resulting financial
contract was based on the number of cars painted
rather than the historical metric of gallons of paint
used, he said. DuPont applied its extensive know-
7-3
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
how in paintapplication technology to Ford's painting
operations, he continued, noting that as a result,
paint application efficiency improved greatly; less
paint was used; volatile organic emissions from the
plant were lowered by 50 percent over a four year
period; and Ford Motor Company's costs related to
painting operations dropped by almost 35 percent.
The improved efficiency also created significant
value for DuPont, more than offsetting the reduction
in gallons of paint sold, he said.
Mr. Mongan mentioned that DuPont interacts with its
competitors, including the Dow Chemical Company,
to discuss the process for benchmarking pollution
prevention and "sustainable systems" performance
across a company or industry and to share best
practices. He added that among the industry, there
is a fair level of comfort with the sharing of
environmental information.
Mr. Mongan continued by describing DuPont's
experience with stakeholder engagement and
involvement. He stated that DuPont has established
a community advisory panel or similar interaction
process for almost every DuPont facility around the
world. Such stakeholderengagement has increased
corporate transparency and communication between
a facility and the local communities and, in most
cases, has helped to forge a relationship of trust and
mutual respect, he said. Mr. Mongan added that in
foreign countries, stakeholder involvement has
proven to be more challenging, in part because
governments in those countries often discourage
interaction between the company and stakeholders.
DuPont does not track stakeholder involvement in its
environmental database, Mr. Mongan explained,
noting thatstakeholderengagement has led DuPont
to develop the following corporate statement on
sustainable growth: "to increase the value of goods
and products to society while decreasing their
environ mental footprint." Ms. Wilkins suggested that
DuPont share its experience in stakeholder
involvement with other companies.
Ms. Gonzalez asked whether any government
regulations, such as limits to chlorofluorocarbons,
had pushed DuPont into developing environmental
policies. Mr. Mongan replied that they had and that
DuPont felt it was better to cooperate with the limits
than to oppose them. Ms. Wilkins added that the
development of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI),
an EPA database containing information available to
the public about toxic chemical releases and other
waste management activities, spurred many
companies to begin revising their environmental
policies and practices. Mr. Mongan replied that
DuPont once topped the TRI listing of toxic chemical
releases, mostly because of its deep well injection of
hazardous waste.
Mr. Mongan explained that in the late 1980s, when
public opinion polls had ranked DuPont low,
DuPont's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) had
challenged the company to push corporate
environmental policy as a company priority. He said
that the CEO had set company goals for emission
reductions, pollution prevention, and a reduction in
the use of deep well injection of hazardous waste.
Those goals, Mr. Mongan continued, led to the
development of a corporate environmental plan that
includes a database through which DuPont facilities
can track their wastes, emissions and consumption
of energy and water. DuPont began to report
internally on the progress corporate environmental
goals, which drove the individual facilities and
associated business units to improve their
performance, he continued. Those reports identified
where cost savings had occurred as a result of
pollution prevention and reductions in emissions and
waste, as well as where deficiencies were occurring.
Mr. Bravo asked whether the information contained
in the reports is available to the public or EPA. Mr.
Mongan replied that the information is not available
to parties outside the company.
Ms. Wilkins stated that there must be a commitment
from top management in a company for pollution
prevention to be successful. Lower-level employees
need the direction and commitment of management
to implement pollution prevention, she stated. She
added that pollution prevention can create cost
savings for companies but that in her experience,
there are often problems with quantifying savings
and conducting accurate benefit analyses. Ms.
Wilkins stated many companies can experience
cost-savings from implementing low-cost or no-cost
pollution prevention projects. Mr. Mongan added
that a company also can pursue "the low-hanging
fruit" (those pollution prevention objectives that are
easiest to meet) and the associated cost savings
can be used to fund future projects.
Mr. Larry Charles, ONE/CHANE, Inc. and a member
of the subcommittee, added that corporate
environmental responsibility contributes to corporate
competitiveness because such responsibility
becomes part of the performance appraisal for
business sectors. Mr. Mongan agreed and said that
DuPont is determined not to be the number one
polluteramong chemical companies. DuPont has a
companywide standard that each division within the
company has a goal of zero waste generation and
zero emissions, he said, adding that each division is
expected to implement the best technology
available, giving priority to technologies that limit
7-4
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
potential risk to human health or the environment.
Mr. Bravo asked whether DuPont had considered
whether the transportation of goods could be
conducted in a "sustainable manner." Mr. Mongan
replied that although DuPont manufactures many
products in large volumes to be used locally rather
than shipped, he suspects that DuPont may ship
some products between the United States and
Mexico.
Mr. Bravo also asked whether DuPont looks at
violations of human rights in foreign countries where
it does business. Mr. Mongan replied that this
subject is outside of his environmental expertise and
that he could not provide an accurate answer. Mr.
Bravo added that the mem bers of the subcomm ittee
do not separate human rights issues from
environmental issues.
Mr. Charles asked whether Mr. Mongan had
suggestions for encouraging other companies to use
recommended best practices and tools for
environmental . Mr. Mongan stated that engaging
the companies is a challenge but that management
changes are effective. Mr. Charles also asked
whether DuPont has a statement of principles about
environmental stewardship. Mr. Mongan answered
that DuPont does have a commitment to safety,
health, and the environment, explaining that although
DuPont is not an endorsing member of CERES, it
does evaluate itself against the performance of other
firms that participate in that organization. Mr.
Mongan then provided DuPont's web site address,
, which contains additional
information about its environmental program.
With regard to motivating multinational com panies to
be environmentally responsible, Mr. Yang asked Mr.
Mongan what motivated DuPont to pursue internal
environmental standards. Mr. Mongan stated that
the founder of the company had been an advocate of
worker safety who recognized that efforts to improve
safety resulted in improved environmental
performance.
Mr. Charles asked whether Mr. Mongan believed if
DuPont's view of corporate responsibility is being
embraced by other companies. Mr. Mongan replied
that he did believe that others were embracing that
philosophy.
3.3 Recent Efforts by EPA OIA
Ms. Suzanne Giannini Spohn, EPA OIA, Office of
Technology Cooperation and Assistance, began by
describing OlA's efforts to promote internationally,
standards for pollution prevention and environmental
sustainability. She stated that the mission of OIA is
to cultivate capacity-building (the development of an
organization's core skills and capabilities, such as
leadership, management, financial, programming,
and evaluation, to build that organization's
effectiveness and sustainability) for environmental
protection. OIA works with governments and
companies to foster such capacity-building, she said.
She then provided brief examples of projects
conducted in Thailand and China with United States-
based companies that have operations in those
countries.
Ms. Giannini Spohn stated that many international
locales need investments from private resources
because the public sector cannot fund investments
that address environmental quality. She noted that
as United States-based companies adapt domestic
environmental standards to the foreign countries in
which they operate, foreign governments are able to
see improvements to local environments and how
such standards can be applied within the context of
local laws. She stated that it is not realistic to expect
a company to compete in an economic environment
where it is seen as a bad corporate citizen. She
pointed out that countries often have environmental
laws and regulations in place but there is a lack of or
poor enforcement of such laws. The reasons for this
situation, she said, includes limited resources and
the dilemma created when workers are displaced
when enforcement actions resultin plantshutdowns.
Mr. Charles asserted that for many United States-
based corporations, profit is the only motive and
companies must see a competitive advantage to
achieve corporate environmental responsibility. Ms.
Giannini Spohn replied that environmental costs
often are not factored into the cost model for the
development of products and that when operations
are shut down for irresponsible environmental
activity, often the workers bear the burden in the
form of layoffs or termination. Many international
companies do not see it as cost-effective to use
natural resources efficiently; some firms actually
receive government subsidies for resource
extraction and water and energy usage, she
explained. Such companies would rather increase
sales and decrease costs than implement
environmentally responsible practices, she noted.
Ms. Wilkins stated that corporations need to
consider pollution prevention and environmental
justice jointly, not as separate issues.
Mr. Bravo stated that one problem with promoting
environmental justice has been the dilemma posed
when communities are made to choose between
remaining silent about concerns about pollution
caused by theiremployerand jeopardizing their jobs
7-5
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
when calling for employers to address polluting the
environment in which residents live and work.
Communities must choose between jobs or the
environment, he said. He stated that he does not
support sacrificing public health for employment, nor
does he consider the choice of jobs over the
environment as an "either/or" dilemma. Mr. Bravo
added that existing zoning policies add to this
dilemma when polluters operate in residential areas
but whose activities are tolerated because the firms
provide jobs for local residents. He pointed to the
workerdisplacement thathad led to the development
of the maquiladora industry along the United States-
Mexico border as an example of what can happen if
the problem is not addressed.
Mr. Chris Herman, EPA OIA, stated that trade
agreements should be designed to "level the
environmental playing field" for multinational
companies of all sizes. He stated that the failure to
promote environmental stewardship often does not
lie with the inability of small- or medium-sized
companies to comply with environmental regulations
but rather the problem lies with the those
governments that perceive changes in market
competition as barriers to trade. Mr. Herman added
that one way to protect a society's ability to change
corporate behavior and promote innovate corporate
mechanisms is to develop appropriate trade rules
and that this is a process that already should have
begun.
3.4 Tools forChange in Corporate Responsibility
Ms. Hall described the following tools for change in
corporate responsibility:
Stakeholder dialogue
Reporting
Investor activism
Partnerships
Technical assistance
Funding
She also explained that GRI, an independent global
institution, is developing a "generally accepted
framework" for sustainability reporting. Ms. Hall
stated that GRI has created Sustainability Reporting
Guidelines that are available at
. The goal of the
Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, she continued,
is to enable companies and other organizations to
prepare comparable reports about economic,
environmental, and social indicators. The guidelines
also describe reporting principles that detail how to
address the life cycle of products, she added, noting
that GRI also plans to begin development of facility
reporting guidelines.
As an action item for the subcommittee, Mr. Charles
suggested the development of a set of principles for
United States-based multinational corporations to
use as tools to address what he termed "the
corporate environmental responsibilitydilemma." He
said he envisioned the proposed principles as a
productthatcould positively influence "people's lives
in areas are impacted negatively by United States-
based multinational corporations." He further
suggested that the subcommittee obtain the support
of the NEJAC for the development of the principles.
Ms. Hall then introduced Ms. Leslie G. Fields,
Friends of the Earth and member of the NEJAC
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee. Ms. Fields
described the efforts of her organization to promote
international right-to-know standards. Noting that
United States companies operating abroad are not
required to disclose information about their
international operations that they are required to
disclose about its domestic operations, she stated
that this lack of disclosure has resulted in
environmental, labor, and human rights abuses.
Such abuses have given rise to public distrust of the
United States among communities around the world,
she said.
Ms. Gonzalez raised a concern that multinational
corporations learn to work with local communities
when addressing environmental, health, and safety
issues. She added thatwhen discussing trade rules
and funding options, corporations also should
consider the concerns and needs of local
communities affected by their operations.
Mr. Yang mentioned that in addition to enforcement
actions and associated legal penalties, social norms
play a significant role in influencing the behavior of
multinational companies. He added that the problem
with achieving corporate responsibility across
various countries is that trade markets are
influenced largely by economic incentives, not
environmental incentives.
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and reports submitted to the International
Subcommittee that involved issues other than
corporate responsibility.
4.1 Update on United States-Mexico Activities
Mr. Gregg Cooke, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 6, opened his presentation with an update
aboutthe developmentofthe Draft Border2012 Plan
- United States-Mexico Environmental Program, a
10-year program that is designed to protect public
7-6
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
health and the environment along the United States-
Mexico border. He stated that to develop the draft
plan, EPA had worked with local, state, and tribal
governments along the border to achieve a
"community-based level of participation." As part of
that effort, EPA had hosted 11 public meetings to
discuss the development of the draft plan, he added,
noting that many of the meetings were well attended
by citizens of Mexico. Mr. Cooke added that copies
of the Draft Border Plan had been distributed to
obtain public comments and that the public comment
period had ended on November 22, 2002. Mr.
Cooke encouraged the members of the
subcommittee to submit comments to the report.
Mr. Bravo asked why site-specific cleanup plans are
not addressed in the draft border plan. Mr. Cooke
replied that the draft plan divides the United States-
Mexico borderarea among fourregional committees
centered in "sistercities," those cities located directly
across from another city situated on the Mexico side
of the border. These committees have been asked
to focus on environmental and environmentally-
related public health issues specific to each region,
he said, which should address site-specific cleanup
efforts.
Ms. Laura Yoshii, Deputy Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9, began by stating that the draft border
plan reflects the International Subcommittee's desire
to take a community-based, "bottoms up" approach
to environmental issues in the border area. She
added that the plan focuses on EPA's obtaining
positive environmental results, not just conducting
meetings about environmental issues. Ms. Yoshii
said that in addition to developing the draft border
plan, EPA is continuing to promote progress on
water infrastructure development and tribal land,
solid and hazardous waste, and airquality monitoring
issues. She emphasized that EPA wants to build the
capacity of communities located along the border to
address local environmental issues and that the EPA
border offices in San Diego, California and El Paso,
Texas, remain available as resources for this effort.
Mr. Charles asked what environmental standards
would be applied to projects or activities along the
border. Ms. Yoshii replied that the standards would
be specific to the country in which a site is located.
Mr. Jerry Clifford, Deputy Assistant Administrator,
EPA OIA, stated that the initiation of an
environmental program, such as that outlined in the
Draft Border Plan, is not a revolutionary idea for the
United States but is entirely revolutionaryfor Mexico.
In the past, he explained, efforts to address
environmental issues along the border had not
involved Mexican citizens because there had not
been a mechanism through which to engage
individual citizens. Mr. Clifford added that public
participation is new to many citizens of Mexico. Until
the development of the Draft Border 2012 Plan, he
explained, representatives of EPA and Mexico's
Secretariat for Environment and Natural Resources
(SEMARNAT), the environmental authority for
Mexico, had been working together on a
government-to-government basis but that such
efforts had not involved the citizens of Mexico in any
local capacity.
Mr. Bravo stated that although binational
partnerships had been formed to address
environmental issues along the United States-
Mexico border, efforts to ensure environmental
justice in that region had not had an impact. He also
stated that despite the fact that commissions, such
as the BECC and the NAD Bank, they do not focus
on environmental justice issues in the border region.
Citing the recent com pletion of the subcommittee's
report about the International Roundtable on
Environmental Justice on the United States-Mexico
Border, Mr. Bravo stated that there is a need for a
regular avenue for community input into decisions
about environmental issues. He recommended the
creation of an additional comm unity-based advisory
committee to provide input to EPA about border
environmental justice issues. He asserted that
people living in communities located along the
United States-Mexico border are not interested
solely in attending meetings; rather, he said, they
would prefer to see results in the form of site
cleanups.
Ms. Yoshii addressed Mr. Bravo's comment by
stating that under the Draft Border 2012 Plan,
tangible results should be obtainable. Mr. Enrique
Manzaniilla, EPA Region 9, added that site cleanups
are an issue throughout Mexico, not solely at sites
along the United States-Mexico border. Mr. Cooke
stated that the formation of an additional advisory
committee to address environmental justice in the
border region would not be effective. In addition, he
stated, site-specific environmental justice issues are
better approached on a local or regional level. Mr.
Clifford added that the Draft Border 2012 Plan is not
designed to have "government bureaucrats sitting
around the table" but rather to have local community
representatives living on both sides of the border
working together to address priorities.
Mr. Bravo stated that the existing commissions
addressing border issues focus primarily on water
pollution issues. Many other issues need to be
addressed, he asserted. Mr. Clifford responded that
the BECC and the NAD Bank were designed to
7-7
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
address water and water infrastructure issues. The
top three priorities for SEM ARN AT are "water, water,
and water," acknowledged Mr. Cooke.
4.2 Update about Persistent Organic Pollutants
Ms. Angela Bandemehr, EPA OIA, presented
information about the progress of the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP),
a global treaty adopted in May 22, 2001 to protect
human health and the environment from POPs. She
reported that the United States, along with 150 other
countries, have signed the treaty; only 23 countries
have ratified it, she said. Ms. Christine Whitman,
EPA Administrator, signed the treaty in May 2001,
Ms. Bandemehr noted; adding that the legislative
package forthe treaty is under Congressional review
for ratification. Voluntary implementation of the
Stockholm Convention begins prior to its entry into
force, which will occur after 50 countries have ratified
the treaty, she said.
Ms. Bandemehr then provided a description of
POPs, explaining that they are organic compounds
from natural ormanmade sources that remain intact
in the environment for long periods of time, become
widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the
fatty tissue of living organisms, and are toxic to
humans and wildlife. There are two different types of
POPs, she continued, commenting that POPs either
are substances produced intentionally (such as
pesticides and industrial chemicals which include
chlordane, DDT, endrin, heptachlor, mirex, and man-
made polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)), or
unintentionally (such as dioxins, furans, and
naturally-occurring PCBs). Ms. Bandemehr
explained that exposure to POPs can occur through
during their production and use, and in the
consumption of food contaminated with POPs.
Populations with a potentially higherriskof exposure
to POPs are those exposed through use and those
who rely on a subsistence diet of foods contaminated
with POPs, she said.
Ms. Bandemehr explained thatthe key provisions of
the Stockholm Convention require parties to:
Prohibit most of the production and use of nine
pesticides and industrial chemicals
Restrict the production and use of DDT
Prohibit the production of new PCBs, and plan
the phase-out of the use of PCBs by 2025
Take measures to reduce or eliminate releases
of POPS generated as the by-product of other
processes
Manage wastes containing POPs in an
environmentally sound manner
The treaty also contains a provision for the addition
of new POPs to the list of chemicals subject to the
terms of the treaty. Each of the ratifying parties is
required to develop an implementation plan, an
action plan, and a national focal point for the
exchange of information, she said. She noted that
the Global Environmental Facility is the principal
organization tasked with providing interim financial
assistance to countries. Provisions for technical
assistance for participating countries currently is
being developed, she reported.
Ms. Bandemehr reported thatthe United States has
taken a series of actions to address POPs:
Pesticides
— All uses canceled under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA)
— All food tolerances revoked
No production, import, or export
• PCBs
Manufacture and new uses prohibited in
1978 under the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA)
Regulated as a hazardous air pollutant
under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
Regulated as a priority toxic pollutant under
the Clean Water Act (CWA)
Dioxins and Furans
Regulated as hazardous air pollutants under
the CAA
Regulated as priority toxic pollutants under
the CWA
Ms. Bandemehr also presented the subcommittee
with copies of resources about POPs and the
Stockholm Convention through which to find
outreach materials and information about points of
contact.
4.3 Update on the Aerial Eradication of Coca
Crops in Colombia
Ms. Betsy Marsh, Amazon Alliance, a non-
government organization, provided an update about
Plan Colombia, a program to eradicate coca crops in
Colombia that is funded by the U.S. Department of
State (State Department). She commented that the
issues associated with the program first had been
broughtto the attention of the NEJAC more than two
years ago, who had in turn had asked EPA to
become involved in monitoring Plan Colombia. She
then praised the subcommittee for its opposition to
Plan Columbia.
7-8
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
Ms. Marsh reported that since the plan's inception,
more than $1 billion in support had been provided by
the State Department for the counter-narcotics
program thathas as its primary component the aerial
spraying of herbicides that are intended to destroy
illegal coca crops in Columbia. The program initially
covered 235,000 acres in 2001 which was increased
to 300,000 acres in 2002, she explained. She stated
that the program is considered by many to be
ineffective.
Ms. Marsh stated that her organization had been
working with EPA to encourage the U.S. Congressto
require the State Department to conduct the aerial
spraying of herbicides in accordance with all label
requirements and to conduct an adequate
assessment of the human health risks associated
with the program. She said that in response to the
State Department's Report on Aerial Spraying in
Columbia, EPA had prepared a report which
highlighted its uncertainty about the human health
risks and the lack of data about the effects of the 20-
year program. Ms. Marsh added that a letter written
by EPA to Congress refrained from drawing attention
to such concerns and thatthe State Department had
downplayed the concerns and stated that it would
switch to a less toxic mixture of pesticides.
Currently, the State Department is supporting a $440
million foreign aid bill to continue the aerial spraying
program in Columbia, but the legislation has not yet
been approved, she stated. The bill includes the
conditions that the herbicide application must be
carried out in accordance with label requirements
and thatthe risk to human health must be evaluated,
she said.
Ms. Kim Stanton, Washington Office on Latin
America, first commented that her organization
focuses on the "human rights side" of the aerial
spraying program. She then explained that the
legislation, first proposed by the U.S. Senate and
which includes provisions for effective monitoring
and enforcement, had not been voted on by either
members of the Senate or the U.S. House of
Representatives. She noted that in addition to the
President signing the final legislation, the Secretary
of State will be required to certify the bill. She added
that the fate of the bill would be known in January or
February 2003.
Ms. Cameryl Hill-Macon, EPA OIA, explained that
EPA had insufficient information to perform an
adequate analysis of the aerial spraying program.
The actual chemical make-up of the herbicides used
had not been communicated to EPA.
4.4 Update on Farmworker Health and Worker
Protection Programs
Ms. Allie Fields, EPA Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), began
by introducing that office's recent work on pesticide
worker safety programs. She noted that the
programs currently include an applicatorcertification
and training program, an agricultural worker
protection program, outreach and education
programs, and the development of national
strategies to encourage health care providers to
provide coverage for agricultural workers.
Ms. Fields stated thatthe applicatorcertification and
training program includes national standards for
purchasing and applying restricted-use pesticides.
She reported thatthe program had been reviewed by
EPA in 1998 and 1999, which had identified several
recommendations for revisions to the program.
Those recommendations were presented in a Draft
Program Proposal as follows: update competency
standards for applicators, establish a core
competency exam for applicators, establish a
minimum age standard forapplicators, and integrate
the program with otherworkersafety programs, such
as those handled by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
Ms. Fields stated that EPA's agricultural worker
protection program is designed to reduce risks of
illness or injury resulting from occupational exposure
to pesticides by agricultural workers and pesticide
handlers. The program requires basic safety
training, informationalposters, notification to workers
about pesticides, the central posting of labels, and
site information, she said. Ms. Fields then described
the milestones achieved by the program from 1983
through 2002. She explained that the program
assessment facilitated development of a national
enforcement program element review, national
program assessment workshops, and workgroup
projects. Ms. Fields also described the outreach and
education programs, whose elements include
training, Hispanic radio network programs, videos,
manuals, and curricula.
Dr. Artensie Flowers, EPA Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, presented
information about an initiative of the National
Environmental Education and Training Foundation
(NEETF) and the EPA Office of Pesticides Program
working in collaboration with the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS), the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL). The objective of the
initiative, she reported, is to improve the recognition,
management, and prevention of health effects from
exposure pesticides and to integrate environmental
health and safety concerns at all levels of education
for the target audiences, primary health care
7-9
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
providers.
Continuing, Dr. Flowers noted that the initiative
includes a three-pronged strategy for implementation
within educational and practice settings, and
resources and tools. She reported that specific
accomplishments include development of an
Implementation Plan in March 2002, as well as
development of National Pesticide Competency
Guidelines for Medical and Nursing Education,
National Pesticide Practice Skills Guidelines for
Medical and Nursing Education, and a Pediatric
Health Care Providers Pilot Study. Dr. Flowers then
stated that a national forum is planned for 2003 to
launch the initiative, build a national consensus
about the goals and objectives of the initiative, and
establish a nationwide network of health care
providers committed to incorporating environmental
health into educational and practice settings. Dr.
Flowers added that a children's health network is
developing a national registry to track immunizations
of the children of farmworkers.
Ms. Marva King, EPA Office of Environmental
Justice, recommended that Dr. Flowers and Ms.
Fields contact Dr. Dorothy Powell, Howard University
and member of the Health and Research
Subcommittee, to discuss common issues.
Asserting that there is an enforcement problem
associated with farmworker health and worker
protection, Mr. Yang stated that despite the fact that
the USDA is responsible for inspection of farmworker
conditions it is inclined to promote the best interests
of the farm owners rather than the farmworkers. Mr.
Yang added that EPA is helping USDA improve its
enforcement of farmworker protection.
Mr. Clifford asked why the International
Subcommittee addresses farmwork health issues
that arise domestically and indicated that they might
be better addressed in another subcommittee. Mr.
Bravo replied that Mr. Fernando Cuevas, Sr., a
former member of the International Subcommittee
who works with farmworker health organizations,
initially had broughtthe issues to the attention of the
subcommittee. Mr. Bravo added that concerns
about the health of migrant farmworkers in the
United States had evolved from concerns associated
with the exportation of pesticides to Mexico from the
United States, as well as concerns about produce
treated with pesticides that is imported to the United
States. Mr. Bravo suggested that outreach and
education about pesticides and their effect on
farmworker health should be provided to migrant
farmworkers when they initially arrive to begin work
in the United States.
5.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the significant action items
adopted by the International Subcommittee.
S Create a set of principles for United States-
based multinational corporations to use as tools
to address the corporate responsibility dilemma,
and obtain the support of the NEJAC for the
development of the set of principles
S Meet with TEPAC via a conference call to
provide recommendations on environmental
justice in international trade.
7-10
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
WASTE AND FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 11, 2002
Baltimore, Maryland
Kent Benjamin
Designated Federal Official
Veronica Eady
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
Wednesday, December 11, 2002, during a four-day
meeting of the NEJAC in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms.
Veronica Eady, Tufts University Department of
Urban and Environmental Policy, continues to serve
as chair of the subcommittee. Mr. Kent Benjamin,
Environmental Justice and State Liaison, Innovation,
Partnerships, and Communication Office (IPCO),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER), continues to serve as the Designated
Federal Official (DFO) forthe subcom mittee. Exhibit
7-1 identifies the subcommittee members who
attended the one-day meeting and members who
were 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, the DFO, and the
Assistant Administrator of EPA OSWER. Section
3.0, Activities of the Subcommittee, summarizes the
discussions about activities of the subcommittee,
including its discussion of the subcommittee's
strategic plan and reports. Section 4.0,
Presentations and Reports, presents an overview of
each presentation and report, as well as a summary
of relevant questions and comments from the
subcommittee members. Section 5.0, Significant
Action Items, summarizes the significant action
items adopted by the subcommittee.
2.0 REMARKS
Ms. Eady opened the subcommittee meeting by
welcoming the members present and introducing
Mr. Benjamin; Ms. Marianne Horinko, Assistant
Administrator, EPA OSWER; and Mr. Tom Dunne,
Associate Assistant Administrator, EPA OSWER.
Ms. Eady announced that Ms. Mary Nelson, Bethel
New Life, Inc., had been selected to serve as the
vice-chair of the subcommittee. Finally Ms. Eady
then thanked Ms. Tasha King, EPA OSWER, who
assists Mr. Benjamin, and Ms. Holly Welles, Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, who assists Mr. Robert
L. Harris, Vice President of Environmental Affairs,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and a member of
the subcommittee, for their support of subcommittee
activities.
Ms. Eady reviewed the agenda for the subcomm ittee
meeting and reminded the subcommittee members
present that the theme of the NEJAC meeting was
pollution prevention. She encouraged the
subcommittee members to review the NEJAC's draft
pollution prevention reportand provide comments to
its content, with special attention to recommendation
number 5 that addresses Brownfields and
redevelopment programs.
Mr. Benjamin then addressed the subcommittee
members present and the public audience. He
stated that the subcommittee members were
meeting to share ideas about subcommittee
business and that they had invited speakers and
presenters to discuss topics pertinent to such
business. He stated that although the meeting was
open to the public, itwas notan open forum at which
Exhibit 8-1
WASTE AND FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 11, 2002
Ms. Veronica Eady, Chair
Mr. Kent Benjamin, DFO
Ms. Michelle B. Alvarez
Mr. Robert Collin
Ms. Judith M. Espinosa
Ms. Denise D. Feiber
Ms. Leslie G. Fields
Mr. Randall Gee
Ms. Donna Gross McDaniel
Mr. Robert L. Harris
Mr. Mosi Kitwana
Mr. Michael J. Lythcott
Dr. Mildred McClain
Mr. Harold Mitchell
List of Members
Who Were Unable To Attend
Ms. Mary Nelson, Vice-Chair (Acting)
Mr. Melvin Holden
Mr. Vincent Wardlaw
8-1
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
members of the audience could participate in
deliberations. He noted that only subcommittee
members and invited speakers should speak during
the subcommittee meeting unless a member of the
public had requested and had been invited to speak
on a topic that was relevant to subcommittee
business.
At the conclusion of Ms. Eady's and Mr. Benjamin's
remarks, Ms. Horinko greeted the subcommittee
members and thanked them for their efforts. She
noted thatshe was familiarwith the past and present
work of the subcommittee. She then briefly outlined
two key points regarding the interaction of the
subcommittee and OSWER. First, Ms. Horinko
reiterated OSWER's continued commitment to
environmental justice concerns. She stated that
since 1991, OSWER had demonstrated this
commitment by incorporating environmental justice
into its programs. Notable achievements, she said,
include OSWER's environmental justice directive of
1994 and the annual reporton environmental justice
begun in 1995. She indicated that she would like to
continue OSWER's positive relationship with the
NEJAC, a relationship that had been fostered by Mr.
Timothy Fields, former Assistant Administrator for
OSWER, and others, especially in the area of
Brownfields redevelopment. Ms. Horinko stated that
the latest environmental justice and revitalization
projects, which had been fostered through
interagency partnerships such as the Federal
Brownfields Partnership, demonstrate a direct link
between environmentaljusticeand Brownfields. She
stated that the work of the NEJAC and the
subcommittee had directly led to implementation of
new initiatives, such as the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard for
Brownfields sites. Ms. Horinko commended the
subcommittee members present for their efforts.
The second key point that Ms. Horinko discussed
was OSWER's intention to incorporate ideas and
lessons learned from the NEJAC and the
subcommittee into future programs and efforts. She
noted that there are many ways to do this, including
addressing stakeholder concerns in local
neighborhoods, conducting site visits as part of
publishing case studies, and providing assistance
and guidance under the Superfund program. Ms.
Horinko committed OSWER to partner with the
NEJAC in what she termed the "important and
groundbreaking work" of cleaning up and returning
sites back to the community to create community
pride-of-ownership. She stated that the NEJAC's
input about the OSWER priorities is an example of
a key activity for integrating environmental justice
concerns into OSWER's programs. She concluded
by noting that Mr. Benjamin would continue to be of
service to the NEJAC and the subcommittee and
that he would continue to work with her on these key
issues.
At the conclusion of her discussion, Ms. Horinko
welcomed any questions from the subcommittee
members. Dr. Mildred McClain, Executive Director
of Harambee House, Inc. and member of the
subcommittee, noted that several communities had
reviewed the OSWER's list of priorities and had
noted that there is no explicit mention of
environmental justice. Dr. McClain asked Ms.
Horinko to share her thoughts regarding
development of those priorities. Ms. Horinko began
by explaining that the absence of explicit mention of
environmental justice concerns in the list of priorities
does not indicate a lack of commitment to
environmental justice by OSWER. She cited
OSWER's continued commitment to and
involvement in Brownfields redevelopment and
revitalization as examples of actions taken by EPA
that had resulted from recommendations by the
NEJAC. Ms. Horinko specifically highlighted
OSWER's one-stop Brownfields web site initiative;
its focus on pollution prevention, waste minimization,
and recycling issues; homeland security and job
training programs; and OSWER's continued
commitment to workforce diversityand development
as additional examples of OSW ER's commitment to
environmental justice. She concluded by noting that
although the words "environmental justice" are not
explicitly referenced in the priorities, OSWER
remains committed to the NEJAC and its
recommendations. Dr. McClain thanked Ms.
Horinko for her candid response and added that
OSWER may want to explore a partnership with the
Academic Institutions, Communities, Agencies
Network (ACA-NET), which is a coalition of
universities that work together and with communities
that may be threatened in some fashion by
contaminated sites. She also asked Ms. Horinko to
consideradding the words "environmental justice" to
the OSWER priorities, and Ms. Horinko agreed to
examine the issue and consider the proposal.
Mr. Michael J. Lythcott, President of The Lythcott
Company and member of the subcommittee, then
commented that there are many definitions of
"community," such as "impacted community" and
"environmental justice community." He asked Ms.
Horinko whether OSWER was aware of the many
terms commonly used today to describe
communities and whether OSW ERhadanyplansto
standardize how it defines communities. Ms.
8-2
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Horinko replied that OSWER had not considered a
formal policy to date, although it would entertain the
creation of a policy to standardize the definition of an
environmental justice community. She also stated
that OSWER could suggest a standard definition to
its partners in other federal agencies and that she
and Mr. Benjamin would examine this issue in the
future.
Mr. Robert L. Harris, Pacific Gas & Electric Company
and member of the subcommittee, then asked about
OSWER's hiring practices; specifically, he inquired
about policies that encourage hiring locally as part of
workforce development efforts. Ms. Horinko
responded that she is very interested in this issue
and that she, Mr. Benjamin, and Mr. Barry Green,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA OSWER, would
examine the idea of local hiring practices as a
possible policy for the OSWER workforce
development program.
Mr. Harold Mitchell, Director of Regenesis, Inc. and
member of the subcommittee, then asked when
OSWER would sign the [insert name of report]
dioxin report that had been approved by [insert
person/organization]. Ms. Horinko responded that
she did not know the exact date, but she felt that the
report would be signed soon. She said she
understood that the report had been approved for
some time and that OSWER is preparing to
implement the programs associated with the report.
She agreed to take the question of timing to Mr.
Steven Johnson, Associate Administrator, EPA
Pesticides Program.
Ms. Horinko concluded her remarks by stating that
she, Mr. Benjamin, and her staff would address the
action items identified during the subcommittee's
discussion.
3.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
This section discusses the activities of the
subcommittee, which included review of the Waste
and Facility Siting Subcommittee Strategic Plan, a
status report on the Federal Facilities Working
Group, development of recommendations for the six
OSWER priorities in the NEJAC context, and a
status report on the Unintended Impacts Working
Group.
3.1 Review of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee Strategic Plan
Ms. Eady reminded the subcommittee members
present that the strategic plan was created in
response to a request from the NEJAC Executive
Council and that it contains the planned activities for
the subcommittee for the next two years. She also
noted that the copy of the plan that was included in
the meeting materials had a typing error on page
one. She explained that the document identified
four goals but only described three of them in the
strategic plan. She indicated that this error would be
corrected in future printings of the strategic plan.
Ms. Eady then reviewed each goal:
Goal 1: "Strengthen the role of community
residents in the cleanup and disposition of
federal properties through the work of the
NEJAC Federal Facilities Working Group." Ms.
Eady noted that the working group had been
delayed in recent months but is revitalizing its
work with renewed energy. She also stated that
additional information regarding the activities of
the working group would be presented later in
the subcommittee meeting (see section 8.X of
this chapter for that discussion).
Goal 2: "Foster community-based planning
approaches for the reuse of property that will
promote sustainability, properly weigh impacts of
cleanup, and foresee and forestall unintended
consequences such as gentrification and
displacement." Ms. Eady stated that she feels
good progress has been made toward achieving
this goal through the energy and activities of the
subcommittee members. She also stated that
additional information regarding this goal would
be presented later in the subcomm ittee meeting
(see section 8.X of this chapter for that
discussion).
Goal 3: "Influence land use issues and
initiatives within OSWER as they develop to
make them as sensitive as possible at the outset
to environmental justice issues and to ensure
thatenvironmentaljustice goals are incorporated
into the implementation of the six OSWER
priorities." Ms. Eady stated that she feels good
progress has been made toward achieving this
goal through the subcom mittee's continued work
with OSWER and that this topic would be
discussed in further detail during the
subcommittee meeting (see section 8.X of this
chapter for that discussion).
Mr. Robert Collin, Associate Professor of
Environmental Studies, University of Oregon and
member of the subcommittee, expressed concern
that the subcommittee would not meet in full or face-
to-face for 16 months afterthis meeting. He stated
8-3
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
that the subcommittee might need a "fuller
expression" before the next full subcommittee
meeting to address the issues related to federal
facilities. Mr. Benjamin responded by stating that the
subcommittee and the working groups would be
meeting via conference call later in the fiscal year
and that resources would be available for continued
communication. Mr. Benjamin concluded by stating
that additional information about future meetings
would be discussed later in the subcommittee
meeting (see section 8.x of this chapter for that
discussion.
3.2 Status Report of the Federal Facilities
Working Group
Dr. McClain and Ms. Trina Martynowicz, Analyst,
EPA Federal Facilities Reuse and Revitalization
Office (FFRRO), updated the subcommittee about
the activities ofthe Federal Facilities Working Group.
Dr. McClain and Ms. Martynowicz were joined by Ms.
Doris Bradshaw, Defense Depot, Memphis,
Tennessee, who is assisting the working group. Dr.
McClain commended Ms. Bradshaw for raising her
own funding to attend the NEJAC and subcommittee
meetings.
Dr. McClain began the update by stating that work
had slowed in the past year but that the working
group is back on task. She noted that the
communities thathad requested the formation ofthe
working group are in the same position in which they
found themselves before the group was formed.
She stated that U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)
and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities
under possible examination by the working group are
still operating and that the communities still need
assistance addressing issues concerning these
facilities. Therefore, she concluded, it is important
that the work continue. Dr. McClain stated that the
report being produced by the working group will be
important for those and other federal facilities, as
well as for EPA.
Dr. McClain explained that the working group initially
had reviewed case studies for 30 facilities and then
narrowed the number down to 15. She stated that
the working group now must select 5 of the 15 case
studies; the criteria and process for selecting the
case studies would be discussed during a January
2003 conference call, she added. She noted that the
selected case studies must include at least one with
a DoD facility, one with a DOE facility, and one with
a U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) facility. Dr.
McClain also stated that the working group is
completing the case study methodology, including
the approach and structure of the study, methods for
data collection and analysis, and approaches for
interviews. She indicated that the methodology is
being examined in conjunction with the structure of
the final report.
Dr. McClain stated that the working group currently
is scheduling conference calls with the communities
that had requested the formation of the working
group. She indicated that the focus of the
conference calls would be communication and
strategies for involving the communities. She then
asked that a representative of the subcommittee
present the subcommittee's strategic plan to the
communities during the work group's next
conference call to foster better communication
between the groups. Ms. Eady and Mr. Benjamin
agreed to participate in the next conference call.
Dr. McClain continued by stating that the working
group is preparing a budget for the coming year
because it needs operating funds as well as funds
for its consultant to develop the case studies. She
stated that the working group also is developing a
schedule of deliverables in conjunction with the
budget, as well as a time line showing the history of
the working group. Lastly, Dr. McClain stated that
the working group would like to add two new
members, one from academia and one from local
communities.
Ms. Martynowicz then thanked the subcommittee
members present for their support and noted that
although she has been in her position for only two
months, she is looking forward to working with them.
She stated that a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) regarding the working group had been
distributed among EPA OSWER, DoD, DOE, and
DOI. She noted that this represented a good step
toward establishing working relationships with those
agencies. She also stated that she is working to
obtain technical support for the working group. Ms.
Martynowicz concluded by stating that the working
group is planning to visit the five selected
communities, depending on thefunding available, to
examine firsthand the exact local problems
encountered by the communities.
Dr. McClain noted that the working group also is
looking for EPA-sponsored events upon which the
group could "piggyback" to use its funding efficiently
and effectively. She stated that this approach would
allow the working group to use every venue possible
to gather data that would contribute to better
recommendations. She then asked the
subcommittee members to notify the working group
8-4
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
about any new EPA events in the coming year.
Ms. Bradshaw asked the subcommittee to consider
allowing two more community members to assistthe
working group. She noted that if EPA has limited
funding for these community members, the
communities are willing to send letters to Ms.
Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, EPA,
requesting that she send a letter to DoD asking for
funding for a local workgroup. She also noted that
the communities feel that DoD, DOE, and DOI are
not communicating with them and are not fulfilling
promises. She stated that EPA should ask those
agencies about their intentions toward the
communities.
Dr. McClain then stated thatthe working group would
revisit the MOU to ensure that all the agencies still
agree with the commitments outlined therein. She
indicated that the working group would invite their
federal partners to participate in the next conference
call. Dr. McClain then asked that Mr. Charles Lee,
Associate Directorof Policyand Interagency Liaison,
Office of Environmental Justice, EPA, share his
perspectives, as he has been addressing issues
such as those encountered by the working group.
Mr. Lee stated that he was happy to see the working
group make progress and was looking forward to
reviewing its deliverables. He also stated that the
leadership of OSWER seeks to understand the
perspectives of other agencies and that the working
group must work in concert with OSWER and not
working at cross purposes. He also explained that
the working group needs to focus on the charter of
the NE JAC, which is to provide advice to EPA about
environmentaljustice concerns, notto conductpublic
meetings and create case studies. He noted that
those activities are elements of good
recommendations but that the end product of any
working group or subcommittee effort should be
recommendations that the NEJAC, as an advisory
committee, can provide to EPA. He suggested that
the actions of subcommittees focus on those types
of recommendations. Mr. Lee continued by
commending the subcommittee and the working
group; he stated that he thinks their efforts represent
a good start. He suggested, however, that they
focus their activities on the advice that they, and the
NEJAC, want to provide to EPA. He suggested that
this approach would help focus their efforts and
minimize community frustration.
Mr. Lee also suggested that the working group
create definitions, such as a definition for the term
"stakeholder" and identification of the stakeholders
in specific communities, as it continues its work. He
noted that this would help familiarize communities
with the views and approaches of the government
agencies and promote understanding by all the
stakeholders. Also, he emphasized that the
environmental justice community, the NEJAC, the
subcommittee, and the working group all need to
understand and define what constitutes success.
Mr. Lee explained that the success of their efforts
would not be measured by easier identification of
contaminated sites, but rather by clarification of the
activities conducted to not only identify but clean up
contaminated sites. He cited as an example the
Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C.,where
the Commanding Officer is a proponent of
environmental justice concerns and openly
discusses revitalization of the local communities.
Mr. Lee concluded by challenging the subcommittee
members to not only focus on problems but to
provide recommendations and solutions.
Dr. McClain responded by stating that Mr. Lee's
comments represent the thoughts and activities of
the working group. She noted that the case studies
and final report to be produced by the working group
are tools to provide advice through the NEJAC and
that they do not represent end products. She also
stated that the working group is careful not to make
excessive promises to the communities, as the
communities are sensitive to government
organizations that do n ot fulfill commitments. Lastly,
Dr. McClain asked Mr. Lee to participate in the
working group's next conference call to share his
thoughts and ideas. Mr. Lee agreed to do so.
Ms. Eady noted that many comments expressed
during the December 10, 2002 public comment
period of the NEJAC meeting pertained to federal
facilities.(see Chapter 2.0 for a detailed summary of
those comments). She then asked whether it is
appropriate for the subcommittee to refer the
commenters to the working group with regard to
issues related to its study and whether the working
group had a mechanism through which to address
such comments. She also asked how the NEJAC's
pollution prevention report would address issues
related to federal facilities. Dr. McClain replied that
after the last meeting of the working group in
Charlotte, North Carolina, it was decided that the
subcomm ittee mem bers could provide information to
the working group. She concluded by stating that
the working group members do not want to over-
commit itself but will welcome additional comments
from the public and additional candidates for case
studies. She stated that the working group wants to
select the five case studies by the second week of
8-5
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
January 2003 to move the project to the next phase.
She asked the subcommittee members to quickly
recommend any potential case studies to the
working group to help it meet that deadline. Ms.
Martynowicz added that the subcommittee should
encourage any members of the public who have
questions to contact the members of the working
group.
Ms. Bradshaw noted that the communities are not
receiving any information from the working group.
To alleviate this situation, she said, the working
group intends to obtain theirfeedback by sending its
draft report to the communities. Dr. McClain added
that she and Ms. Martynowicz had discussed this
issue and would continue to foster better
communication between the working group and the
communities. Mr. Lee stated that using the draft
pollution prevention report and involving all the
communities are important butthatif these activities
slow the process, the working group might need to
forego them. He then shared a quotation that
illustrated his point: "The enemy of producing
something worthwhile is trying to be perfect."
Mr. Harris thanked the working group for the update
and then asked whether the group included a
representative of industry or business. He
suggested thatthe working group consider including
a representative of one of those sectors if they
already are not represented. Dr. McClain responded
that the working group currently does not include a
representative of industry or business but indicated
that the group would examine this issue with Mr.
Benjamin in light of current resource constraints.
Mr. Lythcott noted that the Washington, D.C., site
proposed for one of the case studies also is on the
short list of case studies to be examined by the
Unintended Impacts Working Group. He cited this
as an example of an opportunity forsynergy between
the two working groups and suggested that the
groups also could collaborate on case study
methodologies. Ms. Denise D. Feiber, Public
Information Director, Plant Industry Division, Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
and member of the subcommittee, stated that she
had raised the idea of cross-fertilization between the
working groups in a previous meeting and felt it
would be helpful. She also stated that she would like
to see more concrete goals and objectives for the
working groups, as some of the current goals and
objectives are vaguely stated. She noted that the
goals should be measurable and concrete. Dr.
McClain responded that the Federal Facilities
Working Group currently is examining its goals and
objectives to ensure that they are specific,
measurable, and time-phased. She then asked that
Mr. Benjamin discuss the availability of resources.
Mr. Benjamin stated thatthe subcommittee currently
is working to identify available resources. He then
gave one example of some of the funding choices
that the subcommittee faces. Noting that not all the
members of the Federal Facilities Working Group
were funded to attend the NEJAC meeting, he stated
that because the working group's mission is very
focused, its limited resources must be used for the
specific tasks of the working group and not for
attending the NEJAC meeting. Mr. Benjamin stated
that he is supportive of all the subcommittee's
initiatives but that funding must be focused. Mr.
Benjamin also noted that the federal government
continues to operate under a continuing resolution
from Congress and may receive funds in January
2003; until then, he continued, EPA is operating
under fiscal year (FY) 2002 funding levels.
3.3 Status Report of the Unintended Impacts
Working Group
Mr. Lythcott provided background information about
the Unintended Impacts Working Group. He stated
that the project had evolved over time and that the
need for the project had developed from the
subcommittee's interactions with communities. He
noted that the U.S. Congress, local governments,
and developers all are supportive of the project and
continue to show support as it continues to evolve.
Mr. Lythcott then indicated that Mr. Mosi Kitwana,
Directorof Researchand Development, International
City/County Management Association (ICMA) and
member of the subcommittee, and Ms. Suganthi
Simon, EPA OSWER, are coordinating the working
group.
Mr. Lythcott stated thatthe goal of the working group
is to determine whether there are unintended
impacts on communities as a result of revitalization
and redevelopment projects and, if so, what can
EPA do to identify, mitigate, and address those
impacts with local communities. He explained that
the working group plans to use case studies of
successful revitalization and redevelopment projects
nationwide on which to base its recommendations.
He also noted that the working group assumes for
the candidate projects that some activities have
taken place and that the local governments feel the
projects are successful.
Mr. Lythcott also stated that the working group is
aware of the scarce resources available for case
s-6
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
studies and that it will rely on literature searches to
identify additional candidates , explaining that if a
project is successful, it likely has been the subject of
a publication. He noted, however, that such
publications usually highlight only the positive
impacts of the projects and not necessarily
unintended impacts, which are the focus of the
working group. Mr. Lythcott stated that the working
group is not concerned about the type of property
reuse , such as residential or light industrial reuse,
associated with the potential projects. He continued
by stating that the working group reviewed more than
100 p projects from which it is recommending
seven. . He stated that once the subcommittee
approves the projects, the working group would
conductmorecomprehensive researchof the project
sites. He stated that Mr. Vincent Wardlaw, Senior
Project Manager, DecisionQuestand memberof the
subcommittee, had developed a template for
reporting about performing place-based studies and
that the working group is considering using that
template.
Mr. Lythcott referred to a table provided to the
subcommittee members present that outlined the
possible projects. Mr. Kitwana stated that the table
shows the preliminary profile of each site proposed
for the case study and that the working group had
already produced more detailed analyses of several
of the sites. He stated that the working group seeks
subcommittee approval to move forward with
research on the proposed sites. Mr. Lythcott stated
that the subcommittee could either agree with the
working group's research to date or discuss the
proposed sites. Urging a decision from the
subcomm ittee he gentrification already is occurring
at several of the proposed case study sites and the
receivers of monies associated with Brownfields
redevelopment have multiple agendas; an
overarching concern about this situation led to the
working group's project, he said. He then briefly
presented several key points for each proposed case
study site:
Portland, Oregon: The project involves a
redevelopment zone near a light rail line in an
African-American community. Displacement
and gentrification are the key issues.
East Palo Alto, California: Several issues facing
the site include the history of minority
segregation in the area, the need to provide
geographic balance with a case study on the
west coast, and the fact that significant
Brownfields money is available in the region.
Washington, DC: Issues of concern at this site
include gentrification, the number of
publications concerning the city, and the
availability of funds.
Dallas, Texas: This "interesting" site is a
housing project located next to a lead smelter
that was active during the 1960s and was
selected because it has substantial local history,
plenty data, and involvement of several federal
agencies.
Camden, New Jersey: This case study involves
a planned waterfront redevelopment and was
suggested because of interesting "local politics,"
including organized African-American groups
and the mayor's recent criminal conviction for
ties to organized crime.
Lowell, Massachusetts: This case study
involves an EPA Brownfields Showcase
Community with good documentation, plenty
data, and a diverse local population.
Stanford, Connecticut: Several issues include
diversity of geography, planned waterfront
development, gentrification, and the
socioeconomics of the region and state.
Ms. Feiber asked how the case study projects
correlated with the OSWER program areas such as
brownfields revitalization and Superfund. Mr.
Lythcott stated that the working group had agreed
that the emphasis should not be on specific EPA
programs because the funding for those programs
comes from the same agency. Although the issue
still is being discussed by the working group, the
members have agreed that it is not an issue of high
priority, he said.
Ms. Alvarez asked M r. Lythcott to review the project
selection criteria. She noted that the geographic
locations of the proposed projects are concentrated
in the eastern and western portions of the country,
while none are located in the central United States.
She asked whether geographic diversity was
necessary. Mr. Lythcott stated that although the
working group is concerned about geographic
diversity, it does not consider it to be essential the
credibility of the report, are He concluded by stating
thatthe working group is willing to discuss the issue
if the subcommittee members feel that such diversity
different would help make the report more credible.
Mr. Kitwana added that the mem bers of the working
group, who all had identified several sites, had
designed the study as a "snapshot"of the issue
8-7
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
rather than as a full research project because of
limited resources. He stated that the working group
is hopeful that their effort would illustrate the need to
research the issue further with more funding. Mr.
Kitwana then noted that six EPA regions are
represented in the proposed case studies and that
they would appreciate input about the research
conducted thus far.
Mr. Lythcott asked how many members of the
subcommittee were willing to approve the proposed
list of case studies without further discussion. Ms.
Gross McDaniel stated that she was in favor of the
proposed list and indicated that she had substantial
information about the Lowell, Massachusetts, site
and the diverse minorities living nearby. Ms. Eady
indicated that she would like to continue the
discussion and opened the floor to further questions.
Ms. Feiber asked whether a tribal site would be
included in the study; she noted that the issue might
be raised by the public at a laterdate. Mr. Gee, who
stated that gentrification is not prevalent on tribal
lands in Oklahoma, commented that the public
wants to build on "greenfields" rather than on
Brownfields sites. Mr. Collin reminded the
subcommittee members that there are Native
Americans living in cities and not on reservations
who could be included in the urban focus of the
study. Mr. Gee agreed, adding that although Indian
reservations are defined and designated by federal
or state governments, Native American heritage
transcends those boundaries. He added that the
subcommittee should consider evaluating the impact
of revitalization on urban Native Americans.
Ms. Leslie G. Fields, Director, International
Programs, Friends of the Earth and member of the
subcommittee, stated that the subcommittee had not
envisioned gentrification in a rural setting and asked
whether there are other unintended impacts in a
rural setting that the working group shou Id consider.
Ms. Alvarez stated that such impacts have never
been addressed in Dallas, Texas, and that the
intention of the study is to identify such impacts. Mr.
Gee reminded the subcommittee members that
communities generally favor revitalization despite
possible unintended impacts, because, he said,
communities believe such projects generally help
localeconomies. Mr. Collin countered thatalthough
he appreciates the point made by Mr. Gee, he stated
that some communities may not favor revitialization
projects that satisfy a goal that is national in scope if
they feel it will hurt the local economy. As example,
he cited concerns about the old-growth forestry in
Oregon as an example of a land use decision that
may hurt local communities and economies. He
explained thatalthough the people of the nation may
benefit by the setting aside of forested lands, local
logging communities bear the economic burdens
when timber is not harvested.
Ms. Espinosa also suggested the working group
examine small, urban communities along the border
of the United States and Mexico. She noted that
such communities are located in semi-rural settings
with diverse populations and are probably good sites
for the study. Mr. Lythcott agreed that the border
communities would offer good case studies for
examining the patterns of unintended impacts, as
there are many revitalization projects in the region.
Mr. Benjamin noted that the subcommittee and the
working group must keep budget and schedule
issues in mind while discussing possible case study
sites. He stated that the working group must focus
the study so that it does not grow into a large,
multiyear project. He encouraged setting time and
resource constraints and managing the study within
these constraints. He also noted that rural and
border areas might have substantial data gaps and
that the subcommittee and working group must be
mindful of the extra time and effort that would be
necessary to collect information that is not readily
available.
Last, Mr. Lythcott urged the subcommittee members
to remember the focus of the NEJAC, which is to
provide recommendations to EPA. He stated that
the intent of the study should not be to solve the
identified problems but to present an overview of
those problems to EPA with recommendations for
possible solutions. Mr. Lythcott thanked Mr.
Benjamin for reminding the subcommittee of these
points and stated that one of the recommendations
of the study and of the NEJAC could be to conduct
additional research into the topic. He stated that this
is a fairly easy recommendation to present but that
the conducting a cost-benefit analysis related to
further studies would be difficult. He noted that such
studies must balance the needs of the stakeholders
with the funding and benefits of the projects.
Ms. Eady asked whether the report would discuss
unintended impacts that are not necessarily
negative, such as situations in which gentrification
has been beneficial. She cited the example of
businesses moving into revitalized areas and the
benefits to the local community of increased
services. Mr. Lythcott acknowledged that some
people may feel that gentrification has positive
impacts. He indicated that if the working group finds
examples ofsuch impacts, they would be included in
s-s
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
the final report. He also stated that the interests of
owners of buildings must be compared to the
interests of their tenants. Mr. Kitwana stated that
gentrification is a difficult issue because people
approach the subject from different value-laden
perspectives. He indicated that the impacts of
gentrification might be intended or unintended,
depending on a person's viewpoint and values. He
stated that all perspectives must be taken into
consideration in the study. He also stated that
different types of impacts are associated with land
and real estate compared to health care and other
services. He suggested that another way to think
about this issue is to call the impacts "trade-offs."
He stated that the value of the case study report lies
in highlighting the issue as one that communities,
stakeholders, and all levels of government, must
discuss as part of future development and
revitalization efforts. He concluded by stating that
the subcommittee should enrich the discussion and
increase community participation in the discussion.
Mr. Benjamin added that the report may be able to
capture attitudes toward change and how change is
perceived by local communities. Mr. Lythcott stated
that although the focus is to provide
recommendations, the value-laden issue of
gentrification could be addressed in the general
section of the report. He stated, however, that the
focus of that section should be on community
information and achieving community power over
revitalization projects by preparing for them. He
acknowledged that the report must be objective and
thus such value-laden subjects as gentrification
might not be fully explored.
Mr. Collin stated that most revitalization funds go to
urban planners who usually do not think that
gentrification has a negative impact. He offered that
it all depends on one's perspective and that some
groups feel that gentrification is all about winning
new funding awards. He agreed that the
subcommittee must remain objective and initiate
constructive dialogue about the issues.
Ms. Espinosa stated that the issue of gentrification
involves local government zoning and politics or the
lack thereof. She explained that local governments
control or influence local zoning which affects the
success of gentrification. She stated that the
discussion is timely and that the issues should be
kept in mind while the study is undertaken. She also
reminded the subcommittee that although the
NEJAC is offering advice to EPA about the issue, it
must recognize that local governments also would
see the final report.
Ms. Eady stated that as the project evolved, there
had been conversations about creating focus groups
composed of representatives of communities and
government agencies. She asked how the working
group had developed its proposed approach to the
study, which does not use focus groups. Mr.
Kitwana responded that one factor in changing the
methodology of the study is that a whole body of
research about gentrification exists thatis not related
to environmental or Brownfields issues. He stated
that the subcommittee must remember its goal to
provide recommendations about environmental
justice; focus groups could raise many other
unrelated subjects, he said. Mr. Lythcott added that
cost also was a factor considered when developing
the current methodology. He stated thatthe working
group would like to "piggyback" onto other projects
being conducted by other agencies, an approach
thatcould be difficult if focus groups were used. He
also stated that there had to be a balance between
numbers (facts and figures) and the voice of the
people (narrative), and the working group felt that it
could better achieve this balance by using a case
study approach. Ms. Simon added that the
emphasis at the community level on qualitative data
rather than quantitative data is part of the proposed
methodology and that the group would rather spend
the available resources obtaining the communities'
point of view rather than the perspectives of focus
groups.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the
subcomm ittee agreed that the working group should
move forward to the next level of research on all the
proposed place-based sites.
3.4 Developing Recommendations for the Six
OSWER Priorities
Ms. Eady referred thesubcommittee members to the
handoutthatoutlined the six OSWER priorities. She
noted that the priorities are good mechanisms
through which to communicate with OSWER about
the subcommittee's goals. She stated thatthe face-
to-face meeting conducted in the pastyearhad been
a good forum for increasing comm unication between
OSWER and the NEJAC. Ms. Eady reminded the
subcommittee that during that meeting, several
subcommittee members had agreed to contact
OSWER staff about the priorities. Ms. Eady then
indicated that she had written a letter to Ms. Horinko
informing her about the subcommittee's intent to
contact OSWER staff about the six priorities. Mr.
Benjamin noted that the subcommittee had been
provided a list of points of contact within OSWER
and who on the subcommittee is responsible for
s-9
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
contacting each. Ms. Donna Gross McDaniel,
Laborers-AGC Education and Training Fund and
member of the subcommittee, stated that Mr. Green
should be added as a point of contact for workforce
development.
Dr. McClain asked whether the language in the
handout and the language on the OSW ER web site
are different, as the web site appears to include
more information about the priorities. She
suggested that the subcommittee use the
information on the web site.
Ms. Eady again encouraged the subcommittee
members to examine the pollution prevention report.
She noted that the subcommittee had accomplished
the two goals set forth since the face-to-face
meeting: (1) find information for points of contact
and (2) gather data. She then asked the
subcommittee about the next step. Ms. Gross
McDaniel stated that she thinks the next step is to
obtain the "buy-in" of the OSW ER points of contact
about the NEJAC's response to the priorities and
that their efforts should be focused to move forward.
Ms. Michelle B. Alvarez, Staff Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council and member of the
subcommittee asked whether resources are
available for technical support for reports, such as
the pollution prevention report. Mr. Benjamin noted
that technical personnel could participate in the
telephone calls but that their participation would be
informal. Mr. Lythcott noted that communication
between the environmental justice community and
OSWER is the cornerstone for developing new
ideas. Ms. Feiber agreed with Mr. Lythcott and
stated that this was the original intent behind
reviewing OSWER's six priorities. She added that
communication is necessary to expose
subcomm ittee mem bers to the OSW ER organization
and to bring information back to the subcommittee.
Ms. Eady then reviewed the action items of the
discussion:
S The following subcommittee members who are
responsible for communicating with OSWER
about its six priorities would contact their
counterparts in OSWER before the
subcommittee conference call scheduled for
February 2003:
- Ms. Judith M. Espinosa, Directorofthe ATR
Institute, University of New Mexico , would
coordinate for the revitalization priority
Mr. Randall Gee, Environmental Scientist,
Cherokee Nation Office of Environmental
Service, would coordinate for the homeland
security priority.
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and reports submitted to the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee, including pollution prevention
projects related to worker training and homeland
security, OSWER waste minimization programs,
OSWER electronic permitting, and lessons learned
from the EPA Region 6 listening session on
environmental justice.
4.1 Pollution Prevention Projects Related to
Worker Training and Homeland Security
Ms. Sharon Beard, National Institute for
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and Mr.
Brian Christopher, Alice Hamilton Occupational
Health Center, provided a general overview of their
organizations'missions and programs. Specifically,
Ms. Beard and Mr. Christopher indicated that their
organizations can provide training to local
governments and communities aboutsuch topics as
weapons of mass destruction, emergency response,
and pollution prevention. Ms. Beard stated that they
had conducted such training at various locations
throughoutthe United States. Mr. Christopheradded
that they also had conducted various other types of
training related to worker safety and homeland
security that had been developed after the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and later
anthrax incidents. He also noted that 60 percent of
their training courses are conducted in Spanish to
accommodate Spanish-speaking communities.
Dr. McClain asked how federal facilities, such as
DOE facilities that routinely deal with homeland
security and counter terrorism issues, could help
train the communities surrounding them. She cited
as an example the DOE Savannah River facility and
the surrounding communities, as it had been
determined that communities on both sides of the
river required training about such issues. Ms. Beard
stated that they are working with various groups to
identify needed training and that grant recipients are
allowed to use their funds to obtain training in the
appropriate subject areas. She also stated that their
organizationsalsoare creating more train-the-trainer
programs to help communities establish their own
training programs.
Mr. Gee asked whether tribal organizations are
included in the current training efforts. Ms. Beard
responded that no tribal organizations currently are
involved in the training initiatives. However, she
s-io
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
stated, several organizations are working with local
tribes to identify funding to begin training initiatives in
2003.
Ms. Fields asked about the communication process
between the agencies cleaning up the Brentwood
Post Office in Washington, D.C. at which a letter
laced with anthrax had been found and the
surrounding community. Mr. Christopher stated that
multiple agencies at all levels of government are
involved in communicating with the community at
that site. He stated that the Washington, D.C.
Department of Health is responsible for
communication with the community, which is
particularly important because dioxin gas now is
being pumped into the facility using a new process.
He stated that the D.C. Department of Health has
undertaken community meetings to provide
information to the community. He noted that
although the meetings were conducted well the
technical material presented could have been
simplified.
Mr. Lythcott asked whether the trainees usually are
beginning a career in homeland security or counter
terrorism or are receiving the training for short-term
use. He also asked whether mechanisms exist for
nontechnical people to become 40-hour certified
underthe regulations ofthe OccupationalSafetyand
Health Administration (OSHA). Ms. Beard stated
thatanyone can receive the OSHA training and if Mr.
Lythcott is interested, he should contact the grant
recipients. She also stated that although trainees
who usually attend the courses come from a variety
of backgrounds, the training provides the basic skills
and is introductory in nature. She added that if
trainees are interested in new careers, this training
could serve as the initial training in an apprenticeship
leading to more advanced training in the future.
4.2 OSWER Waste Minimization Programs
Ms. Janette Petersen, Acting Associate Division
Director, Hazardous Waste Minimization and
Management Division, EPA OSWER, presented an
overview of the EPA's Resource Conservation
Challenge (RCC) and environmental justice. She
stated that the RCC is a program designed to
encourage greater recycling, more waste reduction,
and better recovery of energy from waste. She
indicated that the program reflects the original intent
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), which was to create better systems of
waste management as well as to recover valuable
materials and energy from wastes. Ms. Petersen
stated thatthe program has two distinct goals related
to Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) requirements:
S Increase the national recycling rate to 35 percent
by 2005
S Cut the presence of 30 priority chemicals in
hazardous waste by 50 percent by 2005
Ms. Petersen indicated that the program uses the
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and data from
biannual reporting to measure progress toward
achieving those goals.
Ms. Petersen also described in general several
environmental justice-oriented projects, including
helping tribes reduce waste and protect the
environment, implementing outreach programs in
Hispanic communities, and reaching out to educate
urban African-American consumers. She described
the National Waste Minimization Partnership, which
is the driving force behind those projects. Lastly, Ms.
Petersen stated that the charter members of the
partnership want to know whether environmental
justice waste minimization partnerships are a good
idea and whether the NEJAC can help with these
efforts.
Dr. McClain asked how the RCC addresses the
commitment of business to voluntary programs,
given that many companies do not "live up" to
promises made during conferences such as the
World Summit on Sustainability Development,
convened in Johannesburg, South Africa on August
26 through September 4,, 2002. Ms. Petersen
responded the there are programs in EPA that have
been successful, such as EPA's 33/50 Program,
which targeted 17 , and that some "beyond -
compliance" initiatives have achieved substantial
results. Dr. McClain then asked whether
communities also are agree that such programs are
successful. Ms. Petersen indicated that she did not
know. Mr. Collin stated that under the 33/50
Program, retailstores were successful because they
had face-to-face interaction with customers, whereas
wholesalers were not successful because they did
not have such interaction with their customers. See
Exhibit 8-2 for additional information about EPA's
33/50 Program. Mr. Collin then asked whether
generators of low-level waste can join such
partnerships and whether cumulative impacts are
examined in the projects. Ms. Petersen replied that
anyonecanjoin the partnerships. She also indicated
that cumulative impacts had not been examined thus
far. Mr. Kitwana asked whether household waste
also is examined in such programs, and Ms.
Petersen stated that it is.
8-11
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Ms. Petersen asked the subcommittee whether it
was interested in participating in joint projects. The
subcommittee members agreed that they were
interested in pursuing such projects, as such
projects are both beneficial and good opportunities
to partnerwith OSWER. Ms. Petersen indicated that
she would create a plan of action to work with the
subcommittee and discuss it through conference
calls. Dr. McClain indicated that she was interested
in participating in such conference calls and would
represent the subcommittee if necessary.
4.3 Electronic Permitting
Mr. Vernon Myers, EPA OSWER, presented
information about EPA's new electronic permitting
(E-Permitting) project. He stated thatthe purpose of
his presentation was to provide information to the
subcommittee and to open a dialogue about possible
projects of interest to the subcommittee and the
NEJAC. Mr. Myers explained that E-Permitting is a
process by which permitting activities are automated,
including providing guidance, preparing applications,
issuing permits, and compliance reporting, in a
paperless, electronic manner. He explained thatthe
benefits of E-Permitting include a reduction in
paperwork, an improvement of permitting efficiency,
better tracking of the status of permits, an
Exhibit 8-2
EPA 33/50 PROGRAM
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
33/50 Program targeted 17 priority chemicals and set
as its goal a 33% reduction in releases and transfers of
these chemicals by 1992 and a 50% reduction by 1995,
measured against a 1988 baseline. The first of EPA's
growing series of voluntary programs, its primary
purpose was to demonstrate whether voluntary
partnerships could augment the Agency's traditional
command-and-control approach by bringing about
targeted reductions more quickly than would
regulations alone.
The program also sought to foster a pollution
prevention ethic, encouraging companies to consider
and apply pollution prevention approaches to reducing
their environmental releases rather than traditional end-
of-the-pipe methods for treating and disposing of
chemicals in waste.
Since the program ended in 1995, businesses can no
longer commit to participation in the 33/50 program.
improvement of compliance reporting, more accurate
data, more efficient collection of permit fees, and a
more transparent permitting process. He stressed
that for the E-Permitting project to be successful, it
must reach communities, various stakeholder
groups, and environmental groups.
Mr. Myers stated that E-Permitting is feasible but
requires a significant investment of resources;
therefore, EPA is developing the system piece by
piece in conjunction with the states. He explained
that EPA does not expect to build a national E-
Permitting system; rather, EPA would assist states
in integrating RCRA E-Permitting into the state's
electronic systems. He explained that EPA currently
is assessing state RCRA E-Permitting needs,
developing model permits and applications, studying
additional data needs, and developing electronic
forms. He stated that EPA had visited New York,
Mississippi, and Texas to gather information about
their E-Permitting systems and to determine the
potential interest in partnering to assist with a RCRA
E-Permitting module. Finally, Mr. Myers explained
that stakeholder involvement is needed to help
shape the direction of RCRA E-Permitting and that
OSWER would continue to work with states, EPA
regions, environmental groups, industry, and
community groups to gather data and solicit input
about the process.
Mr. Lythcott then stated that the perspective of
comm unities is that permitting is a high-level function
and that communities can gain leverage over
industry through hearings for new permits or
applications for permit renewal. He stated that
communities rely on the existing process to ensure
their active participation in that process. He
explained that communities and permitting
administrators have different perspectives; for
example, he explained, there is a "digital divide"
because not all communities are online and have
access to electronic systems. Citizen involvement is
critical to good policy, but it takes time, he
concluded. Mr. Myers responded thatthe permitting
process can be automated in such as way as to
notify the communities about pending actions. He
stated that the goal is to make the permit application
process more transparent and less cumbersome for
communities. Mr. Lythcott added that state
regulators often deal with communities, and those
communities often rely on the existing EPA
permitting process to help balance their concerns
with those of state regulators.
Ms. Fields asked what evidence would be made
available to communities through E-Permitting. Mr.
8-12
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Myers replied that EPA currently is exploring options
and that this is one issue about which OSWER is
soliciting input from groups, such as the NEJAC.
Dr. McClain stated that to gain the real support of the
communities, such communities need to be involved
throughout the permitting process. She added that
the United States is divided into rural and urban
areas and that sometimes communities in rural
areas do not even have access to telephones, much
less computers. She recommended thatstates build
technology centers to increase interaction with the
communities. She asked how states currently share
information about the permitting process with
communities. Mr. Myers indicated thatthose issues
are being examined and that OSWER is finding that
each state is dealing differently with its communities.
He stated that OSWER had begun to work with the
states and communities to address those issues and
offered to share additional information about those
issues in the coming months. Ms. Sonya Sasoville,
Chief, Permits Branch, EPA OSWER, added that
OSWER views the Internet as a good medium
through which to disseminate information but wants
to give communities access both through the internet
and through sensible parallel processes.
Ms. Alvarez noted that the E-Permitting project
should include electronic access to other information
such as logs, notices of violation, settlement
agreements, fines, fine history, mitigation measures
for violations, and accident reports. Mr. Myers
indicated that OSWER currently is working with
EPA's Enforcement Branch to provide access to this
information by coordinating information with identical
EPA facility identification numbers. He added that
EPA would develop training about this information,
as many stakeholders are not familiar with all the
documentation.
Ms. Espinosa noted that E-permitting would build
trust with the communities and that she welcomes
such a system as a positive addition to the permitting
process. She added that such a system would need
to be user-friendly and searchable by using simple
words. Ms. Espinosa then asked whetherthe permit
application themselves would be on line, whetherthe
public would be able to track applications through the
permitting process, and whether public hearing
information would be included in the system. Mr.
Myers stated that there are proposed systems that
update information daily; if such a system is properly
implemented, he explained, it should make all the
information available in real time, allowing the public
to track applications through the process. He added
that OSW ER is looking for these types of questions
to gain a better perspective about what stakeholders
would like to see built into the system.
Regarding communication with communities, Mr.
Harris noted that communities should be aware that
the permitting regulations, requirements, and
process had not changed and that the documents
are available in hard copy format upon request if
Internet access is not available. Mr. Myers agreed
that this is a very important message to send to
stakeholders and stated that EPA would work with
communities throughout implementation of the
system to ensure that the stakeholders understand
this point. Mr. Benjamin indicated that he would
remain in contact with Mr. Myers regarding the
subject of E-Permitting and that he would keep the
subcommittee informed of future progress.
4.4 EPA Region 6 Environmental Justice
Listening Sessions
Ms. Sunita Singhvi, EPA Region 6, presented
information about EPA Region 6 environmental
justice listening sessions. She explained that the
listening sessions were interactive, solution-oriented
dialogues conducted with comm unity representatives
and in partnership with state, tribal, federal, local,
and municipal government representatives and
industry. She explained that the first such listening
session had occurred in November 2002 in Houston,
Texas. She stated thatthe region took three months
to plan this session to get the appropriate
stakeholders involved early in the process. She
reported that the session was very positive. She
explained that the region partnered with the
Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic
Justice, Exxon Mobil Corporation, and several other
representatives of industry, as well as academic
partners and representatives of other federal and
state government agencies. She stated that
coordination with these groups was the key to the
successful session. She also explained thatseveral
other activities contributed to the success of the
session, including:
Conducting weekly conference calls
Soliciting input about the discussion topics from
the stakeholders
Narrowing the topics to an established agenda
Recording the session using notetakers or a
court reporter
Using a public comment period
Conducting a "meet and greet" before the
session to allow stakeholders to meet one
another
8-13
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Mr. Gee noted that he knows of several communities
in Oklahoma that would be interested in such
sessions. Ms. Singhvi stated that she would be
happy to come to Oklahoma and speak about the
approach used to conduct such sessions.
Ms. Espinosa asked whether the information
recorded during the November 2002 listening
session would be available through the EPA Region
6 web site. Ms. Singhvi indicated that the
information would become available but that she was
unsure of the timeframe. She added that a
document outlining the region's lessons learned also
would be made available.
Mr. Lythcott noted that environmental justice
meetings sometimes do not run smoothly, as
participants' expectations do vary greatly. He asked
how EPA Region 6 had managed that issue. Ms.
Singhvi replied that trust was the most important
factor, adding that involving the community early in
the process and living up to promises made had
contributed to the success of the session. Ms.
Singhvi concluded by stating that this session had
been successful but that success is a journey, and
such sessions would continue to improve over time.
Ms. Eady indicated that the subcommittee would like
future updates about the listening sessions.
5.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the significantaction items
adopted by the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee.
S Ms. Horinko and Mr. Benjamin will continue to
work together to increase the coordination
between the NEJAC and OSWER with a specific
focus on OSWER's six priorities. Additionally,
they will work on such specific issues as
standardization of the definition of an
environmental community, local hiring practices
and policy under the workforce development
program, final approval of the dioxin report (in
conjunction with the pesticides program), and
the possibility of adding the words
"environmental justice" to the OSW ER priorities.
S The subcommittee members responsible for
communicating with OSWER about OSWER's
six priorities will contact their counterparts in
OSWER before the subcommittee conference
call scheduled for February 2003. Ms. Espinosa
will coordinate for the revitalization priority, and
Mr. Gee will coordinate for the homeland
security priority.
S The Unintended Impacts Working Group will
move forward to the next level of research on all
proposed case study sites.
S The members ofthe subcommittee will continue
to coordinate with the pollution prevention, waste
minimization, and E-Permitting programs
conducted by OSWER.
8-14
Baltimore, Maryland, December 11, 2002
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
CASE STUDY PRESENTATIONS AND
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 9 and 10, 2002
Baltimore, Maryland
Charles Lee Peggy Shepard
Designated Federal Official Chair
-------
CHAPTER TWO
CASE STUDY PRESENTATIONS
AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On December 9,2002, two case studies dealing with
pollution prevention and environmental justice were
presented to the members of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council's (NEJAC)
Executive Council. The case studies provided the
NEJAC with examples of pollution prevention
projects that have been undertaken in different
communities.
The Executive Council of the NEJAC also held a
public comment period on December 10, 2002.
During the evening session, 22 individuals offered
comments to the Executive Council.
This chapter presents summaries of the information
that the Executive Council received during the
presentation of the case studies and the comments
offered during the public comment period. Section
2.0, Case Studies Presented on December 9, 2002,
summarizes the case study presentations about
pollution prevention and opportunities to apply
pollution prevention to benefit communities
addressing concerns about environmental justice.
Section 3.0, Public Comment Period Held on
December 10, 2002, summarizes the comments
offered on that date related to pollution prevention
and other general topics of interest to the NEJAC.
This section also summarizes the dialogues that
occurred between the presenters and the members
of the Executive Council which followed those
presentations.
2.0 CASE STUDIES PRESENTED ON
DECEMBER 9, 2002
This section summarizes the two case studies that
were presented to the members of the Executive
Council of the NEJAC.
2.1 Source Reduction Project
Mr. Neil Carman, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra
Club, presented a case study titled "Source
Reduction Project: A Step-by-Step Method of
Reducing Pollution in Our Communities." The
Source Reduction Project is a community-based
effort to work with the Equistar Chemicals and
Lyondell Channelview plants in Houston, Texas to
reduce air emissions at the source, he explained.
He stated that the project could serve as a model
that other community groups could adopt if they are
interested in performing source reduction activities.
Mr. Carman pointed out that the Houston
metropolitan area, located in Harris County, Texas,
is one of the most industrially polluted urban areas in
the United States and is home to a sizable minority
population. According to the 2000 federal population
census, the county has a 56 percent minority
population of about 3.4 million people, he said. He
noted that there are many industrial communities
within the county, including Pasadena, Deer Park,
Baytown, Channelview, Laporte, and Bayport. In
1996, he reported, Harris County posted the highest
number of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) releases of
cancer-causing chemicals. In addition, he continued,
the area ranks number one in the number of oil
refineries, chemical and petrochemical plants,
hazardous waste incinerators, and other "polluting
plants." In 2000, approximately 190 TRI chemicals
accounted for 23 million pounds of air releases in
Harris County, he declared. Some of the TRI
chemicals released were benzene; 1,3-butadiene;
ethylene; propylene; toluene; xylene; and vinyl
chloride. Mr. Carman pointed out that, in 1999 and
2000, Houston surpassed Los Angeles, California as
the U.S. city with the greatest number of high-ozone
days.
As a result of the conditions described above, the
Source Reduction Project was undertaken with the
intent of reducing source air emissions at the
Equistar Chemicals and Lyondell Channelview
(formerly ARCO) plants, Mr. Carman continued.
Participants in the project included the members of
the Community Advisory Panel for Lyondell and
Equistar (CAPLE) and plant corporate staff and
employees. He pointed out that the community had
expressed concern because not only do the plants
routinely emit toxic chemicals but because a deadly
accident in which 18 people at the Equistar plant had
been killed in 1989.
Mr. Carman emphasized that the goal of the project
has been to reduce emissions to promote a cleaner
and healthier environment within the local
communities affected by the plants. He explained
that the project focused on eliminating emissions at
the source - pollution prevention - rather than
minimizing emissions once they have been created
- pollution control. In addition, he continued, the
project's goal also included establishing a dialogue
2-1
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
between the two chemical companies and the
surrounding community. However, he continued,
that goal proved to be a challenge because of the
historically adversarial relationship between the
community and personnel at the plants, the threats
of lawsuits by local residents, and citizens contacting
regulatory agencies with complaints about the plants.
The mission of the Source Reduction project was to
address community concerns that emissions have a
direct effect on community health, the environment,
and the quality of life of local residents, he added.
He noted that although industries typically do not
agree that emissions are linked to health issues,
they have been making substantive operational
changes to address community concerns by
implementing pollution prevention measures.
To date, Mr. Carmen reported, progress on the
Source Reduction Project has been made in
achieving the following seven goals:
Reduce emissions to promote a cleaner and
healthier environment
Focus on source reduction, starting with an
overview of all processes and possibilities for
reduction
Make continuous improvements in plant
operations
Achieve community and plant agreement on
which source reduction opportunities to pursue
Give the community a better understanding of
source reduction
Create a process for dealing with source
reduction that can serve as a model for dealing
with other environmental issues
Do not neglect other issues while giving time to
source reduction
In addition, he continued, the plants have responded
to six citizen requests dealing with the following
issues:
Implement an aggressive fugitive emission
monitoring program
Reduce flaring at the Equistar Chemicals plant,
particularly emergency flaring and the flaring of
off-specification olefins, through source
reduction and better flare efficiency
Implement aggressive reactive, preventive, and
predictive maintenance programs
Reduce benzene emissions from a specific
process flare at the Lyondell Channelview plant
Reduce styrene emissions from a specific tank
at the Lyondell Channelview plant
Reduce butadiene emissions at the Equistar
Chemicals plant
Mr. Carman pointed out that as a result of the
project, there have been several actual reductions in
emissions of target chemicals, such as benzene.
Recent sampling at the Lyondell Channelview plant
had indicated that the plant had reduced the level of
benzene sent to its flare by more than 2 million
pounds per year;, consequently, he continued, ,
more than 40 thousand pounds less benzene was
emitted from the flare, he stated. In addition, he
continued, Equistar's reduction in flaring at its plant
had reduced 1,3-butadiene emissions from 261,000
pounds in 1996 to 74,600 pounds in 1999. In
addition, Equistar had four engineering teams
examining ways to reduce olefin flaring, and Lyondell
personnel were looking for ways to reduce styrene
emissions, he stated.
The project has yielded significant benefits for the
companies as well as the community, Mr. Carmen
explained. Both Equistar Chemicals and Lyondell
have benefitted from source reduction, which has led
to less waste and an increase in profits, and an
improved image in the community, he pointed out.
He explained that plant personnel have become
more aware of community concerns and have
developed an understanding of why citizens target
certain chemicals. The community has benefitted
from reduced emissions and a potential for more
reductions, an increased knowledge of plant
operations, a reduction in flaring, and improvements
in plant maintenance and reliability, he said. In
addition, he continued, with an increased knowledge
of plant operations, the community can influence
plant culture.
No regulatory agency representatives of the city,
county, state, or the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) were involved in the project, he noted.
This approach was initially difficult, he continued,
because the community did not have a sufficiently
technical understanding about the technical aspects
of the project. Mr. Carman explained that because
the community and plant personnel maintained
extremely polarized positions, initially, meetings and
technical debates often were hostile. However, he
pointed out, small group meetings allowed for in-
depth discussions about residents concerns and
focused problem-solving of technical issues. A
united focus on source reduction was maintained
throughout the process by all parties, he stated.
The local residents used a step-by-step process to
achieve their goals, he explained. That process
included improving their understanding of technical
issues with the creation of a matrix through which to
select target chemicals, participating in tours of the
plants, developing requests and evaluating the
2-2
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
responses of plant management, and determining
how corporations make decisions related to
environmental issues, he added. He noted that other
communities can use this process as a guide.
Mr. Carman stated that Phase II of the project had
been terminated, primarily because the city of
Houston is being pressured to reduce smog and to
cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 percent and the
plants now need to divert resources away from the
Source Reduction Project. As a result, there
probably will not be any further emission reductions
achieved from this project, he noted.
Following his presentation, Mr. Carman opened the
floor to questions from the Executive Council. Mr.
Larry Charles, ONE/CHANE, Inc. and memberofthe
International Subcommittee, stated that the project
represents a breakthrough for communities without
adequate resources that want to address similar
challenges and handle similar environmental issues
themselves. He noted that the model that was
described should encourage community members to
act as equal stakeholders with industry, as well
aspossess the capacity for funding ongoing
compliance monitoring and continuous process
improvements.
Ms. Peggy Shepard, West Harlem Environmental
Action and chair of the Executive Council, asked Mr.
Carman whether regulatory officials were involved in
the Source Reduction Project. Mr. Carman
responded that many local residents living near the
Equistar and Lyondell plants had been
extremelyfrustrated because they had been fighting
the companies for "a long time" and knew that the
plants would not be shut down. They also had
expressedfrustration with the state and federal
regulatory agencies, and as such, chose to avoid
dealing with those agencies, he stated. Mr. Carman
added that Equistar and Lyondell maintained that
they were in compliance with all their existing
permits, and therefore the regulatory agencies were
not included in the project.
Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental
Network and member of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee, stated that it is important to develop
a matrix to establish priorities for reduction among
chemicals. In addition, he continued, community
involvement is very important. Mr. Goldtooth then
asked whether there was strong participation of
minorities in the Source Reduction Project. Mr.
Carman responded that an effort was made to talk to
and reach out to all members of the community but
that there had not been strong participation in the
project by minorities. Mr. Goldtooth then asked
whether dioxin was discussed for inclusion in the
target chemical matrix. Mr. Carman noted that dioxin
had been considered but the Equistar and Lyondell
companies had indicated that they had no
maintenance data showing that dioxin was an air
emission, present in water discharges, or present in
hazardous waste at their plants.
Mr. Tseming Yang, Vermont Law School and chair of
the International Subcommittee, asked Mr. Carman
whetherthe plants had been in compliance with their
permits and what made the plants willing to
participate in the project. He also asked what
alternative action the community would have taken
if the plants had not been willing to participate. Mr.
Carman responded that initially there had no record
of regulatory compliance issues but that a violation
was discovered after a subsequent Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request had been submitted.
However, there was no basis for a citizen lawsuit
because there were not enough violations, he
explained, adding that the companies were willing to
initiate a formal dialogue with the community
because the residents had been extremely persistent
in raising issues with the plants over the years.
Ms. Lori Kaplan, Indiana Department of
Environmental Management and member of the
Health and Research Subcommittee, stated that
pollution prevention measures that go above and
beyond regulatory requirements are the right thing to
do. She pointed out that demonstrating the cost
savings benefit of implementing pollution prevention
measures can persuade companies to undertake
those types of projects. She asked Mr. Carman to
elaborate on the increased profits realized by the
companies during the project. Mr. Carman replied
that he did not have specific examples of such
benefits but that the companies stated that the
project had helped them.
Reverend Adora Lee, United Church of Christ and
memberofthe Health and Research Subcommittee,
expressed herconcern regarding the sustainability of
the project and how the companies would be held
accountable for continuing source reduction. Mr.
Carman pointed out that the companies were
concerned about their ability to continue to focus on
the project when they had to dedicate resources to
meeting the new nitrogen oxide requirements. He
noted that the project might resume in the future but
that he did not expect that it would.
Mr. Richard Gragg, Florida A&M University and
memberofthe Health and Research Subcommittee,
noted that he is glad that companies are attempting
to be successful at source reduction, but he
2-3
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
expressed concern about using the Source
Reduction Project as a model. One of the crucial
aspects of pollution prevention from an
environmental justice perspective is the participation
of local community members affected by the
pollution, he stated, and it is hard to evaluate this
project when only six community members were
involved. Mr. Gragg then asked who appointed Mr.
Carman as the technical advisor for the project. Mr.
Carman responded that the community members
had appointed him as their technical advisor. Mr.
Gragg reiterated that without what he termed
"representative participation" from the entire
community, the project could not be called
successful despite the fact that it had achieved some
source reductions. Mr. Carman pointed out that
many local residents depend on the chemical
industry for jobs and that many may not have been
willing to participate in or be perceived as saying
anything negative about the plants.
Mr. Terry Williams, Tulalip Tribes and member of the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee, asked Mr.
Carman whetherthe community had requested from
the companies additional information, such as soil or
water quality monitoring data, and whetherthere had
been any discussions among the citizen groups in
terms of monitoring health conditions among
residents living in the vicinity of the plant. Mr.
Carman replied that personal health issues were
discussed during several meetings and that the
companies had at one point talked about performing
a health study. However, the project did not focus
on soil or water issues because 99 percent of the
cancer-causing chemicals released by the plants
were emitted into the air, he stated.
Ms. Pamela Kingfisher, Indigenous Women's
Network and member of the Health and Research
Subcommittee, stated that the economic benefits of
pollution prevention over pollution control should be
marketed to other companies. She asked Mr.
Carman whether someone would be developing
guidance about how to adapt the project model for
use at other firms. Mr. Carman replied that several
community members had spoken with various
community advisory panels in Houston, but that a
dedicated group of people was needed to make this
model work.
2.2 Park Heights Environmental Results Project
Mr. Bernard Penner, Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE); Mr. Tom Voltaggio, EPA Region
3; and Mr. Henri Thompson, Park Heights Coalition,
presented a case study about the Park Heights
Environmental Results Project, a project that focused
on auto body and mechanical repair shops in the
largely low-income Southern Park Heights
community in Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. Penner
expressed hope that the project would serve as a
model for improving the working relationship among
regulators, the regulated community, and local
residents.
Mr. Penner pointed out that the project has three
essential components. The first component is
statistical and involves establishing percentage goals
for compliance that "make sense," he said. The
second component aims to improve the
effectiveness of compliance assistance, he
continued. MDE should reach out to educate auto
body shop personnel, he explained, and offer good
advice to the small businesses that typically slide
beneath the regulatory radar. Third, the project aims
to improve the quality of life of local residents by
raising community awareness about which shops are
doing a good job of complying with regulations, he
added.
Mr. Penner stated that the Park Heights auto
body/repair shop sector had been picked specifically
for the project because of the lack of enforcement
presence within that sector. In addition, he
continued, Park Heights has a high concentration of
such shops within a relatively small residential area
where contamination from the shops poses a
multimedia impact.
The methodology implemented forthe project initially
required identifying the universe of local body shops
by identifying where in the neighborhood the shops
were located, Mr. Penner explained. The next step
involved creating a metric or a standard
measurement by which to define how success would
be determined, he said. Using what has been
termed a Environmental Business Performance
Indicators (EBPI) metric would be used to help judge
compliance at the shops, he stated. Baseline
inspections of small businesses were conducted at
the beginning of the project prior to any outreach
efforts, he said. The next step will be to render
compliance assistance to all the shops in the project
universe, he added. Training sessions will be held,
he continued, and resources pooled to help solve
various problems. For instance, the management of
waste oil is a problem for many facilities, he stated,
explaining that waste oil handlers do not like to
remove oil from tanks holding less than 500 gallons
despite the fact that most shops use 55-gallon drums
to store waste oil. One possible solution would be to
accumulate the waste oil at a central location for
pickup, he pointed out. After the compliance
assistance period, final inspections will be
2-4
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
conducted, he said. Mr. Penner pointed out that the
results of the pre-project inspections will be
compared to the results of the inspections conducted
after the compliance assistance measures have
been implemented. Benefits of this methodology
include improving compliance, enhancing
communication between the regulators and the
regulated community, and improving the regulatory
process, he stated.
Mr. Penner stated that baseline inspections have
been completed and that compliance assistance
guidebooks are being developed. However,
because the compliance assistance and followup
inspections have not been completed, it is not known
whether the project would be a success, he
concluded.
Mr. Voltaggio commenced his discussion by pointing
out that the Park Heights community is a largely low-
income and minority community that has long been
in need of redevelopment and revitalization. The
community have expressed concerns that the high
concentration of auto body shops are sources of
environmental pollution that adversely impacts
community health, he said.
Mr. Voltaggio went on to explain that the Park
Heights project represents a cooperative partnership
among EPA Region 3's Office of Enforcement,
Compliance, and Environmental Justice (OECEJ);
the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA); MDE; and the residents of Park
Heights, Maryland. Members of the community
initially had believed that approximately 150 auto
body and repair shops operated in the area, he
stated, but after research, EPA and MDE were able
to identify only approximately 50 auto body and
repairshops currently operating in the neighborhood.
He noted that many of the shops discovered had not
been included in MDE's permitted and regulated
facility databases. Using what he termed "an
integrated strategy,", Mr. Voltaggio reported that
MDE and OECEJ are working with the community to
address the environmental problems that these
shops present.
Mr. Voltaggio pointed out that OECA had provided
$275,000 in funding forthe project. Funded activities
include planning and design of the compliance rate
analysis and distribution of compliance assistance
guidebooks for auto body and repair shop owners,
the development of a multimedia checklist for the
pre-project and post compliance assistance
inspections at the shops, the hiring of community
members to locate and identify the shops in the
community, and the statistical analysis of the two
rounds of inspection data, he explained.
The project was designed to conduct inspections at
a statistically valid number of randomly selected
shops to obtain an initial rate of compliance, Mr.
Voltaggio continued. OECEJ completed over 40
inspections in July 2002, and followup inspections
will be conducted in July 2003, he explained. The
shops will be evaluated using EBPIs to determine
whether the shops would be able to improve their
environmental performance after July 2003, he said.
He stated that MDE plans to provide compliance
assistance and pollution prevention outreach to the
universe of auto body shops in Park Heights
between the two inspections. He pointed out that
compliance assistance efforts will include training
shop personnel to conduct a self-certification
program geared toward environmental compliance.
Mr. Voltaggio stated that the goal of the project is to
measure the results of the compliance assistance
efforts and inspections to see whether information,
education, and technical assistance would promote
a change in the behavior of operators in the auto
body and repair shop sector. Indicators of success
so far include improved communication and
cooperation among EPA Region 3, MDE, and the
Park Heights residential and commercial community,
he noted. In addition, he continued, environmental
indicators of success include a decrease in the
amount of oil and grease found in the influent to the
local municipal wastewater treatment plant.
Following Mr. Voltaggio, Mr. Thompson explained
that the Park Heights Coalition, which had been
incorporated as a nonprofit organization in 1996,
aims to promote community-driven revitalization
planning for a self-sustaining future. Park Heights,
once a propserous community, now has "a lot of
crime and elevated asthma and cancer rates," he
stated. Residents and businesses in the area had
been neglected when it comes to economic, social,
and environmental development, he declared.
The presence of auto body shops have raised
concerns in the community because of their
proximity to daycare facilities, restaurants, and
residential areas, he said, which sparked the
community in 2000 to draft a revitalization plan that
addresses educational, health, and environmental
issues. In 2001, representatives of EPA Region 3
and MDE had visited Park Heights where they had
been able to view firsthand the number of auto body
shops and their proximity to residential areas, he
continued. From that, a dialogue between local
residents, EPA, and MDE had been established, he
said. The coalition has a good relationship with the
2-5
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
local business community, he said, but there had
been initial skepticism about getting involved with
EPA.
Mr. Thompson emphasized that the Park Heights
project provides an opportunity to both regulate and
educate businesses as well as to educate members
of the local community. The businesses are vital to
the community, he pointed out, because they provide
jobs and valuable services. Mr. Thompson stated
that he was very excited to be part of the project and
asked that funding for the project be continued to
ensure its completion.
Following the presentation, Mr. Charles pointed out
that the project's success requires improving the
knowledge and of both the community members and
regulators, as well as their level of comfort with the
process. In addition, he stressed the importance of
walking the "fine line" between economic
development and the protection of human health.
Mr. Charles expressed hope that the project would
help establish standards and principles for the
development of a model of economic growth that
includes addressing pollution prevention principles.
Mr. Kenneth Warren, Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-
Cohen and member of the Enforcement
Subcommittee, pointed out that the government had
made extraordinary efforts to involve the community
and to act as a facilitator. The creative use of the
EBPI metrics by which to examine compliance rates
prior to compliance assistance is a valuable tool, he
asserted. Mr. Warren asked whether "enforcement
flexibility" - the selection of compliance assistance
over a traditional enforcement approach - is
generally applicable at sites for all environmental
justice communities. Mr. Voltaggio replied that the
fundamental purpose of the project is to provide
assistance to facilities that ordinarily would not be
targeted for enforcement. The types of facilities
participating in this project are not large and normally
would not be inspected, he stated. Mr. Penner
added that it is very difficult to get flexible
enforcement approaches such as compliance
assistance to work because if a significant violation
is discovered that potentially impacts human health,
an enforcement action can take place, he noted.
Ms. Kingfisher asked Mr. Penner whetherthe limited
amnesty (an approach that reduces civil penalties
and the threat of criminal liability for companies that
audit, but includes conditions and exceptions to
protect the public and provide a continued incentive
for companies to prevent violations before they
occur) was documented by a signed memorandum
of understanding between EPA, MDE, and the
regulated community. Mr. Penner replied that the
limited penalty amnesty provided underthe project is
similar to that provided under EPA's environmental
audit policy. If a facility discovers a violation during
an environmental audit and completes a compliance
plan, the regulatory agency would forego an
enforcement action, he explained.
Ms. Eileen Gauna, Southwestern University School
of Law, asked how the regulated community
responded to the random, unannounced inspections
and how compliance would be assured overthe long
term once the project is completed. Mr. Penner
stated that by getting the community involved, EPA
Region 3 and MDE hope to ensure future
compliance. Mr. Thompson noted that the regulated
shops did not respond negatively to the inspections
because as part of the project start-up. EPA Region
3 and MDE had "done a good job" of explaining the
project and its benefits. Mr. Thompson added that
money and personnel are needed to hold workshops
and training sessions for citizens so that the future
success of the project can be ensured.
Mr. Goldtooth asked whether any body shops are
owned by individuals who live outside the community
and whether some shops are mobile and shift from
location to location. Mr. Penner responded that MDE
recently had received baseline demographic data
regarding shop owners who live in the community
and those who do not, but that MDE had not had
time to evaluate that data. He added that the project
is limited to auto body shops that have a fixed
address. Mr. Goldtooth noted that he suspected that
some of the shops might be small, home-based
operations. He stated that the owners of that type of
operation need to be educated as well. Mr.
Thompson confirmed that many of the shops are
"backyard operations," and he reiterated the
importance of educating and assisting their owners.
3.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
HELD ON DECEMBER 10, 2002
This section summarizes the comments presented to
the Executive Council during the public comment
period held on December 10, 2002, along with the
questions and observations that those comments
prompted among members ofthe Executive Council.
The comments are summarized below in the order
that they were offered. In addition, written comments
were submitted and read into the record.
3.1 Mr. Don Norwood, Urban Community
Environmental Resource Center, Baltimore,
Maryland
2-6
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
Mr. Don Norwood, Urban Community Environmental
Resource Center (UCERC), Baltimore, Maryland,
presented his comments regarding the Baltimore
Aggregate Recycling Company (BARC), which
performs gravel crushing operations in Baltimore.
Mountains of dust and dirt at the facility extend up to
three stories high, he said. As trucks enter and
leave the facility, they blow dust into the air, and
nearby residents are subjected to particulate
contamination, he explained. According to Mr.
Norwood, the community had taken several
preventive measures, such as forming a community-
based environmental advocate group, circulating
petitions in the community to gather support for the
group, and educating community members about
environmental concerns associated with the facility.
Mr. Norwood suggested several possible scenarios
to improve the situation. Noting that the facility
previously had been removed from the District of
Columbia, he suggested that the facility again move
its operations to another location. He also
suggested that the property could be converted into
a business park because of its proximity to Edison
Highway and the railroad. In addition, he continued,
a community-based monitoring program should be
implemented to help prompt enforcement when
violations occur at the facility.
MDE had been conducting a study of the air quality
around the facility, but the results of the study had
not yet been obtained, he stated. The community
recently had been successful in blocking a permit
application submitted by BARC to expand its
operations and install additional crushers, he pointed
out. BARC had recently changed its name, and in
response to pressure from the community, it had
decreased its crushing operations in August 2002,
he added. In conclusion, Mr. Norwood reiterated
that the facility is an environmental hazard to the
community and that the "pollution needs to be
stopped."
Ms. Mary Nelson, Bethel New Life and member of
the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee, asked
Mr. Norwood whether the community had involved
the regional or state EPA offices in its efforts against
the facility. Mr. Norwood replied that both the
regional and state EPA offices had been contacted.
3.2 Ms. Francis Chin, Maniilaq Association,
Kotzebue, Alaska
Ms. Francis Chin, Maniilaq Association, Kotzebue,
Alaska, emphasized that self-monitoring businesses
are not taking appropriate measures to comply with
environmental regulations. She pointed out that the
Komiko lead and zinc mine, a self-monitoring
company in her community, recently had been fined
for various regulatory infractions and was now self-
monitoring under the terms of a supplemental
environmental program (SEP) agreement. The
company now is being allowed to perform
environmental compliance monitoring itself, she
stated. Tribes should be involved in decision-
making processes, she continued, because they are
the ones affected by the contamination. They also
should have the ability to monitor, she asserted. In
conclusion, she pointed out that the trust ofthe tribes
in the government would be greatly enhanced if they
were involved in decisions about efforts to remedy
environmental problems that directly affect them.
3.3 Mr. Chavel Lopez, Southwest Public Workers
Union, San Antonio, Texas
Noting that communities bear the burden of pollution
and lack of cleanup daily, Mr. Chavel Lopez,
Southwest Public Workers Union, San Antonio,
Texas, stated that many individuals die from cancer
and nervous system disorders in the communities in
which the union's members live. For years, he
explained, San Antonio had been struggling for a
cleanup of contamination caused by Kelly Air Force
Base (KAFB). Communities, which had been
impacted by contamination from the nearby base for
decades, had not been remediated, nor had they
received any assistance for the health problems that
affect residents, he said. Prevention of pollution
needs to start with the involvement of affected
communities in the decision-making process, he
asserted, because those decisions directly affect
them.
The cleanup of KAFB's contaminated sites should be
started with aggressive technologies as fast as
possible, he stated. Passive technologies such as
natural attenuation should not be considered
because these types of technologies continue to
allow damage to neighborhoods, he declared. There
must be no more rollbacks of environmental and
enforcement laws from the Bush administration,
declared Mr. Lopez. The military should be held to
the same laws and standards as private industries
and other polluters, he stated. In addition, he noted
that environmental justice grants should be driven by
grassroots organizations and that such organizations
should be equal decision-makers in grant processes.
2-7
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
3.4 Ms. Hilda Booth, Native Village of Noatak,
Alaska
Stating that the Noatak Village is located in the
northwest region of Alaska, Ms. Hilda Booth, Native
Village of Noatak, Alaska, explained that she wished
to discuss issues related to a local dump in her
community. The dump, along with equipment used
for its maintenance and operation, is contaminating
homes nearby, she asserted. The community is
looking for a solution to the problem, including
closing the dump and moving it elsewhere, she
stated. Seventy-five percent of the community
maintains a subsistence lifestyle, she said, and
people are concerned about the affect of
contamination on the local wildlife they consume. In
addition, she continued, erosion problems are forcing
Native Alaskans to move, and people living
downriver are afraid to fish because gravesites are
being exposed in the area.
Mr. Charles asked who owns the land where the
dump is operated. Ms. Booth responded that the
village owns the property, not a private company.
Mr. Charles then asked whether the village had
asked EPA for assistance in managing the landfill.
Ms. Booth said that her community had asked EPA
for help in maintaining and operating the dump
because the community depends solely on
volunteers, but that EPA had not responded to its
requests. The use of volunteers is proving to not be
sufficient, Ms. Booth said.
Mr. Goldtooth asked what was causing the erosion
in the village. Ms. Booth responded that a river runs
through the village in the spring and erodes
approximately five feet of the land each year. Mr.
Goldtooth then asked whether permafrost occurs in
the area and whether there are global warming
concerns. Ms. Booth replied that permafrost exists
in that region and that there are concerns among
residents about global warming. He pointed out that
several villages in Alaska are experiencing problems
associated with managing waste sanitation. These
villages are isolated and have no revenue base, he
declared. Permafrost limits landfill construction, but
using batch, low temperature incinerators to burn
waste would add to the toxic burden, he said. These
are serious issues that had been brought before the
Executive Council previously, he stated, and the
administration needs to address these issues
because pollution prevention pose unique challenges
in Alaska.
Mr. Williams noted that the tribes receive some
funding from EPA to deal with environmental
problems but that there needs to be a better
understanding of the funding process between states
and tribes. The states have an obligation to be part
of the solution, research the problems, and work with
the tribes to understand how they interpret state
obligations, he stated.
Mr. Gragg stated that action item number nine in the
NEJAC Pollution Prevention Workgroup's draft report
Advancing Environmental Justice Through Pollution
Prevention (draft pollution prevention report) should
be augmented to mention state roles.
3.5 Ms. Susanna Almanza, Southwest Network
for Economic and Environmental Justice
Mr. Ron Sherron, Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, Ponca
City, Oklahoma, read a letter prepared by Ms.
Susanna Almanza, Southwest Network for Economic
and Environmental Justice (SNEEJ), addressed to
Mr. George Bush, President of the United States,
and Ms. Christine Whitman, EPA Administrator. The
letter stated that SNEEJ; Communities for a Better
Environment (CBE); and the Center on Race,
Poverty, and the Environment (CRPE) object to the
proposed changes to the Clean Air Act's (CAA) new
source review (NSR) provisions. During the past
decade, environmental justice had been transformed
from a controversial movement to an established
fact, the letter stated. Rather than developing
strategies to enhance the environment in low-income
communities and communities of color, the Bush
administration had proposed to eliminate some of the
few environmental protections that have benefitted
these communities, Ms. Almanza asserted in her
letter.
Ms. Almanza letter in her letter that on June 13,
2002, the Bush administration had announced the
single largest rollback of the CAA in its 30-year
history. The administration had proposed to
eliminate the NSR provisions and replace them with
voluntary, free-market measures, the letter said.
Such deregulation is certain to have its worst
impacts on low-income communities and
communities of color that do not have the economic
ability to pay for clean air, she pointed out.
When the NSR requirements were developed in the
1970s, old power plants, refineries, and other major
sources of pollution to install the best available
control technology when they undergo major
modifications, the letter noted. Now, rather than
requiring all existing plants to install modern pollution
controls immediately, the letter continued, old
facilities will be allowed to phase-in modern controls
over time when they engage in major modifications.
Communities of color and low-income communities
2-8
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
are home to a disproportionately large number of
these old, highly polluting facilities, the letter pointed
out. Seventy to eighty percent of all power plant
emissions and virtually all refinery pollution comes
from facilities that were built before 1977, she states
in her letter, and communities suffer from being
located near chronically polluting facilities. NSR is
one of the only means to ensure that these polluters
would install modern technology, the letter
emphasized.
The Bush administration's proposed changes would
allow thousands of major polluters to increase their
emissions, Ms. Almanza asserts. Under existing
NSR rules, the letter continued, a facility must install
the best available technology if it was to undergo a
major modification that would result in an increase in
emissions. To determine whether such an increase
would occur, the regulatory agency must determine
the facility's baseline emission, the letter explained.
The Bush administration proposes to allow a facility
to choose any two years over the past ten years for
establishing a baseline, the letter pointed out. This
proposal would allow facilities to avoid NSR by
selecting an anomalous year of high emissions as a
baseline, the letter stated.
In addition, the Bush administration has proposed
plantwide applicability limits, the letter explained,
under which a source could increase its emissions
as long as it had decreased its emissions by an
equal amount in the past ten years. The
administration has also proposed the elimination of
the requirements for non-utilities to obtain
enforceable pollution limits through permits for
pollution increases resulting from modifications, the
letter noted. Ratherthan having enforceable permits
specifying operating conditions that can be
monitored, reported, and examined by government
inspectors or the public, the letter continued, the
administration eliminates these safeguards.
Eliminating the opportunity for the public to access
information undermines the ability of community
members to engage in the process of protecting their
air, the letter declared.
The administration claims that the Clear Skies
Initiative pollution trading program will clean the air
better than NSR, the letter pointed out. However,
the letter explained, pollution trading does not
decrease emissions; it moves pollution around. The
letter pointed out that a facility in a heavily polluted,
low-income community could increase its pollution by
purchasing credits generated by facilities in different
regions that had decreased their pollution. In
conclusion, the letter stated that the Clear Skies
Initiative would only exacerbate the intolerable
conditions of environmental justice.
Mr. Sherron added that with regard to pollution
prevention, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is
one of the mechanisms through which grassroots
organizations can use to seek legal protection of
communities . Mr. Sherron requested that the
NEJAC continue to address Title VI issues.
3.6 Ms. Doris Bradshaw, Defense Depot
Memphis Concerned Citizens Committee,
Memphis, Tennessee
Pointing out that federal facilities are hard to deal
with, Ms. Doris Bradshaw, Defense Depot Memphis
Concerned Citizens Committee, Memphis,
Tennessee, stated that her community is being
exposed to radiation from chemical weapons at a
nearby federal facility. EPA is supposed to provide
enforcement when things are wrong, she declared,
but the agency has limited jurisdiction when it comes
to federal facilities. Some of the contaminated land
in Memphis is being turned over to the city, she
stated, and she wondered whether this would
change EPA's ability to enforce cleanup action at the
site. Noting that she has appeared before the
NEJAC many times previously, Ms. Bradshaw
declared that she did not feel as though she had the
support of the NEJAC.
Ms. Bradshaw reported that there had been a flood
in her community during the previous spring and that
contaminated runoff had inundated the community.
In addition, she continued, there are three ponds on
a golf course on which children play that are
contaminated with radiation from overflow from the
Memphis Defense Depot. Ms. Bradshaw questioned
why EPA Region 4 had not provided assistance to
remedy the problem, and she asked whether EPA
would have the jurisdiction to clean up the land if it is
turned over to the city.
Ms. Bradshaw then pointed out that the Federal
Facilities Working Group of the NEJAC, which had
been formed in response to deep concerns about
federal facilities, had not met in over a year. She
stated that she had worked for more than six years
to "get a platform" from which to talk with federal
facilities, and now she felt as if EPA is not receptive
to her concerns. In conclusion, she stated that there
should be a representative of the U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD) on the working group.
Mr. Gragg pointed out that there is no mention of
federal facilities in the draft pollution prevention
report and that this omission should be addressed in
the next draft.
2-9
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
Ms. Veronica Eady, Tufts University and chair of the
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee, noted that
the Federal Facilities Working Group had been
adopted by that subcommittee. She pointed out that
the previous Designated Federal Official (DFO) for
that working group had left EPA. Ms. Eady invited
Ms. Bradshawto attend the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee's meeting to speak with the new DFO.
Ms. Eady then reiterated that federal facilities should
be mentioned in the draft pollution prevention report.
Mr. Charles expressed his disappointment that
communities turn to the NEJAC as their last resort.
He noted that it is unfair that community members
believe that the NEJAC has the power to change
operational issues within EPA. The NEJAC does not
have the power to address specific issues within
communities, he stated. Mr. Gragg pointed out that
Ms. Bradshaw's comments dealt with her effort to get
involved through the Federal Facilities Working
Group and that the working group had not been
functional. The NEJAC can help communities
address policy issues through community members'
participation in subcommittees, he noted, and the
subcommittees need to be functional. Ms. Eady
added that EPA has agreed to provide financial
support for the Federal Facilities Working Group.
Mr. Goldtooth noted that this was not the first time
that communities had come before the NEJAC to
discuss issues concerning federal facilities. This
issue should receive greater priority, he stated, and
the leadership of the NEJAC and EPA needs to step
forward.
Ms. Nelson reiterated that the NEJAC had been
dealing with federal facilities since she had been
involved with the NEJAC and that community
concerns about the failure of federal facilities to
address their impact on local residents should
receive greater priority among the goals of the
NEJAC. She added that DoD needs to hold open
hearings in communities so that local residents can
be informed of issues.
3.7 Ms. Michele Brown, UCERC, Baltimore,
Maryland
Ms. Michele Brown, UCERC, Baltimore, Maryland,
stated that UCERC's mission is to reduce exposure
to environmental hazards through pollution
prevention in east Baltimore. The organization
targets environmental hazards that affect the
environmental health of neighborhoods, such as
toxic construction materials from demolition activities
and recycling, that pollute the environment, she said.
Ms. Brown pointed out that UCERC's strategy is to
become a resource that is similar to a public library
system, where the public can access information and
services. The goal is to have an environmental
resource center in every community, she said. In
conclusion, she stated that having access to relevant
articles and journals would allow communities to
make concrete and compelling arguments in support
of their positions.
3.8 Ms. Edith Tegoseak, Inupait Community of
Arctic Slope, Barrow, Alaska
Stating that her community includes seven villages,
Ms. Edith Tegoseak, Inupait Community of Arctic
Slope, Barrow, Alaska, explained that there are
numerous pollution issues in Arctic villages. She
noted that her primary concern today was with oil
and fuel permitting processes. Community
interaction should be included as part of the
permitting process, she declared. The permitting
process is often over by the time that her office
learns about a permit being granted, she
complained. Ms. Tegoseak asked for the NEJAC's
help in obtaining funding and a venue from which to
address permitting policies and procedures in
Alaska. Companies applying for permits are
concerned only about monetary issues, she pointed
out, and there is no process for tribal courts to
appeal a permitting decision. In addition, she
explained that tribal courts do not receive adequate
funding to take action against such permits.
Mr. Goldtooth stated that Ms. Tegoseak's concerns
are reflected in the action items of the draft pollution
prevention report, especially the items that discuss
the creation of training initiatives fortribes in Alaskan
villages. Mr. Goldtooth noted that the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act involves the Indian
Reorganization Act and the tribal government system
and that the settlement poses complex challenges.
Mr. Williams added that the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act had left the native tribes of Alaska in
a difficult position because they have no authority
under which to deal with the problems they are
facing.
3.9 Mr. Eugene Smary, Warner Norcross and
Judd LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Noting that he had spent 25 years practicing as an
environmental lawyer, Mr. Eugene Smary, Warner
Norcross and Judd LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
stated that the consensus recommendations in the
draft pollution prevention report are consistent with
official American Bar Association (ABA) policy. It is
important to recognize that ABA supports the
2-10
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
principles outlined in the report, he said. Mr. Smary
informed the Executive Council that he would
provide the members with a copy of an ABA
resolution that had been passed in 1995 addressing
public participation in environmental decision-
making. The collaborative model mentioned in the
draft pollution prevention report emphasizes
involving all important stakeholdergroups, he stated.
Mr. Smary expressed his agreement with the
consensus chapter section of the draft pollution
prevention report that explains that it is ethical to
emphasize pollution prevention in achieving
environmental justice goals. This approach makes
the community one of the stakeholders in the
process of enhancing communities, he noted. The
collaborative model mentioned in the draft pollution
prevention report is good human and community
relations, he continued.
Mr. Smary also mentioned that he would like the
report to recognize the incentives available for
pollution prevention, such as environmental audit
privileges and immunity laws. Environmental audit
privileges are used in 25 of 50 states, he said, and a
great deal of pollution prevention can be achieved by
focusing on small businesses within the urban core.
There is political sensitivity associated with the
incentives, he acknowledged, but audit privileges
had worked successfully in environmental justice
communities.
Mr. Charles asked that Mr. Smary explain
environmental audit privileges in more detail. Mr.
Smary replied that facilities are given specific
confidentiality privileges if they accept an
environmental audit under certain circumstances. In
addition, the privileges provide facilities with
immunity from civil penalties, he said. However, he
noted that the privileges apply only if a facility's
environmental problems are fixed. Mr. Charles then
asked what the incentive would be for a facility
operator to agree to an audit. Mr. Smary pointed out
that the audits give facilities a chance to determine
whether they have environmental problems and to
avoid potential future punishment.
Mr. Yang countered that environmental audit
incentives should not be mentioned in the draft
pollution prevention report. He pointed out that the
incentives are extremely controversial because they
"forgive" companies that have not complied with
environmental laws.
Mr. Warren asked Mr. Smary whether environmental
management systems might be made applicable to
pollution prevention by including source reduction or
other types of reviews in the context of those
systems. Mr. Smary pointed out that environmental
audits can be used to identify ways in which a facility
can eliminate potential violations by means of waste
minimization.
Ms. Eileen Gauna, Southwestern University School
of Law and chair of the Air and Water Subcommittee,
reiterated that audit incentives are an issue that
should be carefully considered. EPA penalty policies
provide certain incentives as well, so nothing is being
lost by not specifically addressing that issue, she
said. Mr. Smary reiterated that the NEJAC should
consider recommending incentives for pollution
prevention and that there was no need to further
discuss environmental management systems
because the draft report already addresses them.
3.10 Mr. Cleo Holmes, Concerned Citizens of
Eastern Avenue, Washingtion, D.C.
Mr. Cleo Holmes, Concerned Citizens of Eastern
Avenue, Washington, D.C., stated that his
community is currently being contaminated by a
leaking underground storage tank (UST) owned by
Chevron Corp. The community had gone through a
year of testing, he explained. During initial testing at
the site, the potentially responsible party (PRP) had
paid for an independent consultant, he said.
However, he continued, the consultant has been
removed during the most critical stage of testing. Mr.
Holmes explained that the consultant had been the
community's "first line of attack" in dealing with the
contamination. The community had requested that
EPA Region 3 allow the community to hire a
technical expert to verify the test results, but instead
EPA Region 3 had asked the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) to do it, he said.
There is an issue of trust, Mr. Holmes emphasized,
and the community is nervous. EPA Region 3
should recognize that the community is a major
stakeholder that should be involved in the process,
he declared. More than one hundred homes are
affected by the UST, he stated, and there are
daycare facilities located within close vicinity of the
leak. Mr. Holmes noted that a consent order was to
be issued on December 11,2002, but the community
had not had a chance to review it. Communities
should have a venue so that they can oversee the
testing process and verify the accuracy of results, he
stated.
Ms. Wlma Subra, Louisiana Environmental Action
Network (LEAN) and member of the Air and Water
Subcommittee, asked Mr. Holmes whether any air
samples had been collected around the homes or
2-11
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
other structures at the site. Mr. Holmes replied that
only soil vapor samples had been collected. He
added that the consent order is based on preliminary
testing and does not rely on information from the
critical downgradient testing that currently is being
performed. Ms. Subra suggested that the
community request air sampling in homes and other
structures to determine whether high levels of
contaminants are present.
Mr. Charles requested that the consensus section of
the draft pollution prevention report be modified to
state that environmental testing in environmental
justice communities should be done in partnership
with the communities. He asked Mr. Holmes whose
decision it had been to dismiss the independent
consultant. Mr. Holmes stated that Chevron had
decided to stop using the consultant and that EPA
had agreed. Mr. Charles then asked whether any
results from USACE's testing are available. Mr.
Holmes replied that there are no results from the
USACE testing and repeated that the consent order
is based on the first stage of testing.
Mr. Charles then noted that EPA is giving funding to
some colleges and universities to provide research
capacity to environmental justice communities.
Morgan State University is one of those institutions,
he said, and he suggested that Mr. Holmes contact
the university to determine whether it could provide
independent verification of the original test results.
Ms. Kaplan asked whether there would be a public
comment period when the consent decree is issued.
Mr. Holmes responded that the community would be
informed of the decree but would not have the
opportunity to submit comments to it.
3.11 Ms. Audrey Hadley, Native Village of
Buckland, Buckland, Alaska
Noting that many villages in rural Alaska do not have
water or sewage facilities, Ms. Audrey Hadley,
Native Village of Buckland, Buckland, Alaska, stated
that residents living in those communities are
concerned about their health. Currently, there is a
hepatitis epidemic in her village, she stated, and the
village need funds and resources to eradicate health
problems and to address environmental issues. She
emphasized her concern about a military facility
located 40 miles south of her village. Contamination
from the facility is impacting subsistence foods in the
area, she stated. She emphasized that her
community has a subsistence lifestyle and that the
contamination is affecting the residents' ability to
survive.
Mr. Goldtooth asked Ms. Hadley what types of
contamination exist at the military facility. Ms.
Hadley responded that asbestos and poly chlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) are the predominant contaminants
at the facility.
Mr. Williams emphasized that tribes in Alaska had
been facing such problems for a long time and that
hepatitis is a big health problem because sewage is
mixing with drinking water. Ms. Eady invited Ms.
Hadley to attend the meeting of the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee so that she could
provide more detailed information about the facility.
In addition, Ms. Eady pointed out that the Federal
Facilities Working Group would be compiling a report
for the Executive Council and that the federal facility
in Alaska with which Ms. Hadley is dealing would be
a good case study to include in the report.
3.12 Mr. John Ridgway, Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia,
Washington
Mr. John Ridgway, Washington State Department of
Ecology, Olympia, Washington, informed the
Executive Council that he would be commenting on
the consensus recommendations presented in the
draft pollution prevention report. Regarding bullet
number six, which discusses product and process
substitution in areas that affect low-income, minority,
and tribal communities, Mr. Ridgway suggested
adding references to integrated pest management.
In response to bullet number eight, which discusses
effortsto promote just and sustainable transportation
projects and initiatives, Mr. Ridgway stated that he
would advise EPA and other federal agencies to
obtain low-emission vehicles for their vehicle fleets.
For bullet number ten, which deals with pollution
prevention in developing countries, he suggested
including a discussion about Hewlett Packard's
recently announced voluntary take-back program for
electronic equipment. In addition, he continued, the
European Union had legislated take-back
requirements for all manufacturers within the Union.
Mr. Ridgway emphasized that businesses in the
United States should be encouraged to "provide
mechanisms" in designing and marketing their
products and in recycling and reducing the amount
of waste created.
Mr. Ridgway noted that baseline measures should
be established for pollution prevention. However, he
noted, it is difficult to quantify the amount of pollution
that is not being generated as a result of pollution
prevention efforts. The best approach is obtain
source use data from facilities to determine what
they are using and therefore how they can reduce
releases, he stated. Mr. Ridgway also stated that
2-12
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
facility inspection and compliance histories should be
made publicly available so that communities know
which facilities are "on the regulatory radar." In
addition, he continued, businesses should be
charged incrementally for the amount of waste that
they produce as a way to encourage less waste
generation. He noted that the state of Washington
has adopted this type of system.
Mr. Ridgway then pointed out that the NEJAC is the
only venue at which many communities can voice
their complaints. Many people do not know where
else to go, he stated. As a result, he continued, the
NEJAC should not wait more than a year to hold its
next meeting.
Ms. Gauna encouraged Mr. Ridgway to submit in
writing his comments to the draft pollution prevention
report and requested that he provide specific
language regarding integrated pest management.
Mr. Ridgway pointed out that there is a large
population of migrant farm workers in Washington,
as well as a serious lack of enforcement of worker
protection laws because the workers are not full-
time. Mr. Goldtooth then stated that Washington is
leading that effort with regard to pollution prevention,
and he commended the state for its efforts.
Ms. Nelson then stated that one useful strategy for
providing more venues for public comment is to hold
regional listening sessions attended by
representatives of EPA regional offices. Local
solutions would be enhanced because those would
have a better understanding of local and regional
issues, she stated.
3.13 Mr. Ron Sherron, Ponca Tribe of
Oklahoma, Ponca City, Oklahoma
Stating that the Ponca tribe has several issues
related to environmental injustice, Mr. Sherron noted
that his comment would focus the tribes concerns
about the Continental Carbon Company facility in
Ponca City, Oklahoma, which produces carbon black
facility, he stated, and which is located on tribal land.
There are contamination issues associated with air,
groundwater, and solid waste resulting from activities
at the facility, he said. A U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing
community lies within 150 feet of the facility, he
stated, and tree growth in the area is retarded from
contamination. EPA had stated that the facility is
creating a product ratherthan fugitive emissions, and
therefore is not violating any regulations, he pointed
out. However, he continued, people in the
community are suffering from asthma and other
respiratory ailments.
Continental Carbon Company had built wastewater
lagoons at the facility, Mr. Sherron reported, stating
that the facility had lied about groundwater depths at
the facility in its permit applications for those
lagoons. Many people in the community derive their
drinking water from shallow wells that can easily be
contaminated by seepage from the lagoons, he
explained. In addition, he continued, several barrels
of solid waste containing hazardous constituents had
rusted through and now are leaking into nearby
streams, he said. EPA had tested the barrels and
found hazardous constituents, but EPA said the
contaminants were not present at action levels, he
stated. A Notice of Violation had been issued, but
the only action that the facility had taken to date was
to build a fence around the property, he said. He
reiterated that EPA had continued to overlook the
problems at the Continental Carbon facility.
Mr. Sherron added that his tribe had recently been
surrounded by state-approved landfills. The landfills
are within 50 feet of a main river, he noted, but the
state had put them there because the land was
cheap.
Ms. Subra asked whether Mr. Sherron had contacted
EPA Region 6 to ask for assistance with the facility.
Mr. Sherron answered that the tribe had set up a
formal meeting with EPA Region 6, which had
assured the tribe that it would look into the issues.
However, because the community had not seen any
action, it had submitted a FOIA request in an attempt
to obtain additional information about the facility, but
that no relevant records had been found for the
facility as a result of the request. Ms. Subra stated
that she would help Mr. Sherron set up a follow-up
meeting with EPA Region 6.
Mr. Wlliams asked Mr. Sherron whether the tribe
had made attempts to contact the EPA's American
Indian Environmental Office. Mr. Sherron stated that
it had but that EPA has difficulty dealing with
regulatory and compliance issues in Oklahoma
because its jurisdiction is unclear. Mr. Wlliams
stated that the situation is similar to Alaska's
because of EPA's lack of jurisdiction. A treaty tribe
has the right to access EPA programs and EPA
funding, he pointed out. Mr. Sherron added that
tribal residents are exposed to the environment in
more ways than atypical U.S. citizen; environmental
standards were set based on the average white male
who do not rely on fish and wildlife for subsistence,
he explained.
Mr. Gragg pointed out that when communities have
existing health problems and then the impacts of
exposure to environmental pollution are added, the
2-13
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
existing health problems make people even more
susceptible to such impacts. Mr. Gragg reiterated
the importance of ensuring that the draft pollution
prevention report emphasize that the need for
pollution prevention involves the integration of the
relationship between environmental pollution and
health impacts.
Ms. Kingfisher stated that Mr. Sherron should
continue to document his community's struggle and
conduct health and community impact surveys
because these activities would make a difference.
She then declared that his situation is an example of
state-supported racism. Mr. Goldtooth added that
the State of Oklahoma has a long history of
practicing racism against tribes. In environmental
justice, it is very important to continue to mention
racism, he said.
3.14 Mr. Robert Gough, Intertribal Council on
Utility Policy
Representing the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Mr. Robert
Gough, Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, stated
that many tribes had been proactive in terms of
pollution prevention. He pointed out that tribes in the
Dakotas and the northern Great Plains live in one of
the richest wind regions in the world. Dams provide
about 25 percent of the tribe's energy needs, he
said, but the building of dams has had a significant
negative impact on tribes because it results in the
loss of land and increased erosion problems. In
addition, he continued, 75 percent of the tribe's
power comes from coal, most of which is young
lignite coal. This coal does not produce a lot of
sulfur, he said, but it does produce a lot of carbon
dioxide.
Tribes are interested in working with the federal
government to build sustainable homeland
economies based on wind and other renewable
energy in the Great Plains, Mr. Gough said. Global
warming predictions become more ominous as new
evidence is made available, he stated. Global
warming leads to a decline in the snow pack in the
mountains, and therefore less hydroelectric energy
will be available, he noted. This situation motivates
the federal government to buy more coal and
increases dependence on coal energy, he explained.
Mr. Gough emphasized his desire to get federal
government assistance to help the tribes build and
develop renewable and sustainable energy sources.
He pointed out that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is
working with environmental justice groups around
the country to model clean energy projects. He
asked that the NEJACconsiderthe opportunities that
communities in the northern Great Plains offer to
develop pollution prevention strategies.
Mr. Gough distributed a document titled
Environmental Justice Revitaiization Project Tribal
Wind Power Demonstration Project Plan to the
members of the Executive Council. The document
stated that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe currently is
engaged in a cooperative project with the U.S.
Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service to demonstrate
tribal ownership and operation of a wind turbine that
is being installed on the Rosebud Sioux Indian
Reservation. Since 1995, both the Rosebud Sioux
Tribe and the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy had
been committed to tribal development of wind
resources, he said. The Tribal Wind Power
Demonstration Project Plan encourages
development of significant wind energy generation
on Indian reservations in the northern Great Plains.
Such development is considered to be a viable
strategy for community revitaiization to (1) address
past and ongoing environmental injustices resulting
from the building of mainstream dams on the
Missouri River that have been detrimental to Indian
culture and (2) provide for future tribal economic,
cultural, and community sustainability.
Ms. Gauna requested that Mr. Gough review and
comment on the draft pollution prevention report.
Mr. Gough pointed out that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe
had started a wind project and would be phasing in
the first utility-scale turbine in January 2003. Ms.
Gauna stated that wind energy would be a wonderful
alternative to the planned expansion of hundreds of
electric power plants over the next several years.
Mr. Williams then pointed out that several tribes in
the State of Washington are working on proposals
for similar wind projects. Mr. Gough stated that the
wind energy potential on the Rosebud Sioux and
Pine Ridge Indian reservations is, if developed,
enough to meet the Kyoto Protocol targets for all of
North America.
Ms. Subra asked about the mercury content of the
lignite coal being burned and whether power plants
are being monitored to ensure that they are using
appropriate mercury scrubbers. Mr. Gough stated
that he believed that a considerable amount of
mercury is present in the coal and that many of the
power plants had begun operation prior to the CAA,
so compliance requirements had been
grandfathered.
Ms. Kingfisher added that there is concern in
Wyoming that the extraction of natural gas would
2-14
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
cause aquifer dewatering in South Dakota. There
are huge energy issues in Indian country, she said.
Mr. Goldtooth stated that the Bush and Cheney
energy plan will have a negative effect on
environmental justice communities. Ms. Nelson then
pointed out that the Congress is expected to
reauthorize the energy bill in 2003 and that some
members of the Executive Council are working to
have pilot demonstrations for alternative energy
sources added to the reauthorized bill.
3.15 Ms. Marylee Orr, LEAN, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana
Mr. David Wise, Shintech, read a statement
prepared by Ms. Marylee Orr, LEAN, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. The statement pointed out that LEAN had
been founded as an umbrella organization for
grassroots environmental groups throughout
Louisiana. The environmental justice members
consist of African-Americans, Hispanics, Native
Americans, and Asian nationalities as well as the
poor, disadvantaged, and disenfranchised, the
statement said.
Ms. Orr noted in her statement that environmental
justice communities in Louisiana are the recipients of
excessive pollutant loading that results in negative
impacts to human health and the environment.
Volatile and semivolatile organics, dioxins, toxic
heavy metals, pesticides, and other pollutants impact
air quality, water quality, sediments, soils, animals,
and crops, the statement continued.
Pollutant loading is a direct result of ongoing facility
operations and inappropriate historical actions, Ms.
Orr pointed out in the statement. Ongoing facility
operations release excess pollutants as a result of
noncompliance with permit conditions, accidental
releases, and bypassing of treatment systems
because of insufficient treatment capacity, the
statement noted. Environmental justice communities
living in close proximity to sources of pollution are
exposed to excessive levels of contamination, the
statement said.
In conclusion, Ms. Orr stated that LEAN supports the
NEJAC's pollution prevention initiative for
environmental justice communities and that LEAN
would be willing to assist EPA and environmental
justice communities in implementation of pilot
programs in Louisiana.
3.16 Ms. Sonia Ivette Dueno, Fellowship of
Reconciliation, Washington Office on
Vieques, Washington, DC
Noting that she would be providing an update on the
current situation of Vieques, Puerto Rico, Ms. Sonia
Ivette Dueno, Fellowship of Reconciliation,
Washington Office on Vieques, Washington, DC,
stated that data from the Puerto Rico Cancer
Registry show that residents of Vieques had a 27
percent higher rate of cancer than residents of the
rest of Puerto Rico from 1985 to 1989. In addition,
she continued, cancer mortality in Vieques is more
than 50 percent higher than in the rest of Puerto
Rico.
Vegetation and soil on Vieques have elevated levels
of heavy metals such as lead and cadmium, she
pointed out. More than two-thirds of the island had
been controlled by the U.S. Navy since 1940, she
continued, and there are no othersignificant sources
of contamination on the island. EPA had found the
Navy to be in violation of the Clean Water Act
because of contamination resulting from fire-
bombing in eastern Vieques waters, she said, and
now EPA is conducting Phase I investigations of 12
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
sites on the island.
During work with impacted communities in Puerto
Rico, communicating key information in the native
languages of those communities is imperative, she
asserted. However, EPA is not utilizing these
language tools to the benefit of impacted
communities, she said. Language access is an
important issue in environmental justice communities
because lack of information in native languages
hinders the ability of communities to exercise their
right to due process and to respond to injustices
affecting their daily lives, she declared. Ms. Dueno
pointed out that Executive Order 12898 addresses
the need to translate crucial public documents for
limited- English-speaking populations.
The NEJAC is a crucial, important player in ensuring
language access for affected communities, she
stated. The NEJAC's role is to provide advice about
how EPA should participate for and cooperate and
communicate with other federal agencies, state and
local governments, federally recognized tribes, and
others, she noted. A strong recommendation by the
NEJAC would bring the language issue to the
forefront and would guarantee that the voices and
needs of the residents for whom English is not their
native language are heard.
In conclusion, Ms. Dueno asked the NEJAC to
request that the EPAAdministratorobtain funding for
creating a department to provide translations of all
draft, preliminary, and final documents that are
relevantto impacted communities in languages other
2-15
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
than English. In addition, she requested that the
NEJAC convene a meeting in Vieques, Puerto Rico.
Ms. Graciela Ramirez-Toro, Interamerican University
of Puerto Rico and chair of the Puerto Rico
Subcommittee, stated that the issues associated with
federal facilities should be discussed by the Puerto
Rico Subcommittee. In addition to the military base
on Vieques, five other military bases are present on
the island, she pointed out.
3.17 Mr. Jerome Baiter, Public Interest Law
Center of Philadelphia, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Stating that he is an attorney specializing in
environmental law and representing minority and
low-income communities, Mr. Jerome Baiter, Public
Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, informed the Executive Council that
he had represented communities in Chester,
Pennsylvania, and Camden, New Jersey, in their
efforts to stop pollution violations at waste and
sewage facilities and to prevent the proliferation of
polluting facilities in those overburdened areas. In
the past year, it had become apparent that existing
civil rights laws and regulations are incapable of
providing relief to environmental justice communities,
he stated. Mr. Baiter pointed out that in the past two
years, the U.S. Supreme Court had declared that
victims of environmental injustice have no right to
enforce EPA's environmental justice policies and that
they have no right or power to prevent state
environmental protection agencies from issuing
operating permits for additional polluting facilities in
their communities. Mr. Baiter added that EPA had
not found a single instance of environmental racism
over the past two years and that EPA had
maintained its policy of refusing to accept an
environmental justice complaint until after a state
had issued an operating permit.
EPA had improved its performance record regarding
completion of civil rights complaint investigations by
issuing three decisions in 2002, he said. However,
he continued, in all these adjudicated cases, EPA
could not find a single civil rights violation. EPA's
failure to find a single case of environmental injustice
in the 130 complaints received by EPA's Office of
Civil Rights overthe past ten years should make one
question environmental justice in the United States,
he declared. If communities such as Chester and
Camden cannot find relief from environmental racism
under existing laws and regulations, new laws and
regulations must be demanded, he stated. Under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, EPA is authorized to
withhold federal funds if potential recipients are
found to have violated civil rights laws, he pointed
out.
Mr. Baiter noted that, in past years, he had urged the
NEJAC to support a change in EPA regulations that
would replace EPA's complex and unworkable
"disparate cumulative analysis" guidance with a
protocol based on comparative public health. A
change in EPA regulations based on Title VI could
not provide relief for victims of environmental
discrimination, he said. Mr. Baiter urged the NEJAC
to recognize that Title VI is not an effective vehicle
through which to achieve environmental justice. The
NEJAC should support legislation that provides for
community enforcement of civil rights regulations
and which incorporates existing community health as
a necessary criterion for granting or denying
operating permits, he stated.
Following Mr. Baiter's presentation, Mr. Yang pointed
out that the status of Title VI has been discussed
extensively by the NEJAC over the past several
years. Mr. Warren asked Mr. Baiter whether
litigation is still an effective means for environmental
justice to be achieved and whether he felt that a
cooperative, multistakeholder model is worth
pursuing. Mr. Baiter emphasized that the legal path
is not meaningful under Title VI because relief is
unattainable via that route. Community action is the
best choice, he asserted. Afterthe courts had turned
down the environmental justice lawsuit in Chester,
not a single operating permit had been granted
because of community action, he stated. When a
community gets involved and demonstrates
opposition, the results are better than those of any
law, he declared.
Ms. Kingfisher pointed out that incorporating existing
community health as a necessary criterion for
granting or denying operating permits should be
explored further by the Health and Research
Subcommittee. Mr. Baiter added that a recent
analysis of the health of residents living in various
census tracks had revealed that of the poorest 20
percent of the population in Philadelphia, 94 percent
of those people are black.
Following up on Mr. Baiter's point that racism
permeates almost every decision-making process in
the country, Mr. Charles pointed out that once the
issue had been redefined as political and his
community had launched a public attack against
local elected officials on the basis of environmental
justice, tremendous progress had been made.
Environmental justice had become a priority, and
people had started trying to find ways to solve the
problems, he added. Legal approaches may not be
2-16
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
the best strategy, and the alternative, political action
by communities, may be the best strategy, he stated.
Ms. Gauna noted that the Air and Water
Subcommittee had also been interested in following
up on progress under Title VI because of its
relationship to the permitting process. In the
beginning, a great deal of attention had been given
to pursuing complaints under Title VI because
industries were interested in the issues and wanted
to know how EPA would resolve those issues, she
stated. The agency is still not clear about how it is
going to resolve these issues, she said, and as a
result, Title VI has "fallen off the radar screen."
Industries are no longer interested because there is
no private right of action as a result of recent
Supreme Court decisions, she pointed out. If EPA
were truly committed to environmental justice, it
would provide some certainty to environmental
justice communities, she asserted.
3.18 Ms. Kathleen Peters Zuray, Tanana Tribal
Council, Tanana, Alaska
Pointing out that her village is located in the interior
of Alaska, Ms. Kathleen Peters Zuray, Tanana Tribal
Council, Tanana, Alaska, stated that her organization
is concerned about the impacts of state and federal
facilities on Alaskan Native communities. The U.S.
Federal Aviation Administration had closed a site
near the village but had made no effort to remediate
the impacts related to the site, she said. In addition,
she continued, DoD had not cleaned up an airport
site once used for its World War II efforts. The tribe
had been working on addressing these
environmental concerns since 1997, she said. The
village has a low-income, minority population of
about 400 people, she explained, and it is easy for
those agencies to ignore their concerns.
The village's main concern is the health impacts
caused by contamination from the abandoned sites,
she stated. The main water well for the village is
contaminated with benzene, she said, and for more
than a year the residents had not been told that they
were drinking contaminated water. There is also a
problem with abandoned, contaminated soil piles.
To address the piles, the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services' Indian Health Service had
wanted to spread the soil between some homes and
a school, but that is unacceptable, she declared.
The village has taken a collaborative approach to
working with the various agencies involved so that
litigation can be avoided, she stated. The village had
recently presented each agency with a memorandum
of understanding outlining the history of the issues in
the village, she said.
Ms. Zuray also noted that the village is concerned
about a waste lagoon located in the middle of
Tanana that is emptied into the Yukon River twice a
year. People downriver are worried about health
problems related to the emptying of the lagoon, she
pointed out, but the discharge is done in accordance
with EPA and Alaska Department of Conservation
regulations.
Ms. Zuray reiterated that the village is being ignored
but that it had been working within exisiting
government processes to be heard. She also noted
that text addressing tribal lands in Alaska should be
added to the draft pollution prevention report.
Ms. Judith Espinosa, The Alliance for Transportation
Research (ATR) Institute and member of the Waste
and Facility Siting Subcommittee, stated that she
would review the draft pollution prevention report so
that she could help incorporate the comments
presented to the Executive Council during the public
comment period.
3.19 Ms. Laura Luster, Luster National Inc.,
Oakland, California
Pointing out that she is a member of the Health and
Research Subcommittee, Ms. Laura Luster, Luster
National Inc., Oakland, California, informed the
Executive Council that she wanted to comment
briefly on the NEJAC's meeting process. The
NEJAC's work is very important, she noted, and she
encouraged the NEJAC to look for ways to improve
the meeting process. The council members should
ask themselves why they are present, and how they
can effectively accomplish their goals, she stated.
The council should be creative, she said, and find
innovative ways to share information and reach out
to the public. She added that the skills of a facilitator
could be used to support the process when public
comments are heard. In conclusion, Ms. Luster
reiterated that the council should work with liaisons
to make the meeting process better.
Mr. Charles Lee, EPA Office of Environmental
Justice (OEJ) and DFO for the Executive Council,
stated that from OEJ's perspective, the NEJAC is an
advisory committee to EPA on matters related to
environmental justice, he stated. The NEJAC needs
to be strategic in terms of what advice would make
the most difference at a given point, he explained.
There needs to be patience regarding the issues
raised, he said, but that does not mean that they are
not all important. Mr. Lee added that he would talk
to Mr. Barry Hill, Director, EPA OEJ, about issuing
an update about Title VI.
2-17
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
Ms. Gauna pointed out that many people have put a
lot of time into Title VI and that EPA should at least
provide some response before the meeting adjourns.
Mr. Warren added that the NEJAC strategic plan
calls for development of a communication plan
involving the flow of information within NEJAC and
noted that the communication plan had not yet been
developed. There is no ongoing protocol for
information to be submitted to the Executive Council,
he stated. Ms. Shepard pointed out that OEJ is
supposed to publish a newsletter as a
communication vehicle. Ms. Nelson added that a
subcommittee group should be formed to develop
the communication plan. Ms. Espinosa then stated
that the Council should create a schedule so that the
public can see what the NEJAC plans to do between
meetings. This schedule would facilitate public
involvement, she pointed out.
3.20 Ms. Beverly Wright, Xavier University,
New Orleans, Louisiana
Ms. Beverly Wright, Xavier University, New Orleans,
Louisiana, submitted a letter written by the Deep
South Center for Environmental Justice at Xavier
University. The letter was written on behalf of the
Mississippi River Community Advisory Board (CAB)
to Mr. Gregg Cooke, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 6.
The text of CAB's letter stated that the letter was
written on behalf of the citizens living along the
Mississippi River chemical corridor whose lives are
impacted by emissions from approximately 136
petrochemical plants and six refineries. The letter
pointed out that TRI emissions from plants along the
corridor total nearly 186 million pounds of air, water,
and soil pollution. During a CAB meeting, several
challenges and possible solutions had been
identified, the letter stated. One main issue
expressed at the meeting concerned terrorism and
the increased risk for people living in the corridor in
close proximity to one of the nation's largest ports,
the letter said. The letter identified the following
questions related to terrorism:
1. What are the possible threats of terrorism?
2. What precautions, if any, have been taken to
increase security in order to reduce the risk of
terrorism for corridor residents?
3. Is there an evacuation plan?
4. If so, when and how will the community be
informed?
5. What, if any, plans of action have been
developed for facilities in the corridor?
6. How many meetings or listening sessions has
EPA had with corridor facilities since September
11,2001?
7. Have any threats been made to any of the plants
in the corridor?
In conclusion, CAB requested that the EPA Region
6 Regional Administrator meet with CAB to develop
better communication and to discuss the questions
of residents living along the corridor with regard to
their safety. Ms. Wright also requested that the
NEJAC facilitate a meeting with EPA Region 6 and
the EPA Administrator.
3.21 Ms. Shirley Brown, UCERC, Baltimore,
Maryland
Ms. Shirley Brown, UCERC, Baltimore, Maryland,
submitted a written statement to the Executive
Council concerning BARC. In the statement, Ms.
Brown noted that she had observed dust and gravel
coming from the facility. She pointed out that she
had seen more than 28 loaded dump trucks leave
the facility in one two-hour period. Dust and gravel
fell from such trucks, she continued in her statement,
and other vehicles disperse the dust for miles
around. In addition, machinery on the mountains of
gravel creates large clouds of dust, she said in the
statement.
Ms. Brown explained in her statement that
preventive actions taken by the community include
having a meeting with residents to discuss the issue,
writing to local elected officials, petitioning the
residents of the community to support the issue,
contacting MDE, and staging demonstrations at the
facility on six occasions.
3.22 Ms. Laurie Weahkee, Sacred Alliance for
Grassroots Equality Council,
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Ms. Laurie Weahkee, Sacred Alliance forGrassroots
Equality Council, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
submitted a written statement concerning protection
of the Petroglyph National Monument, located near
Albuquerque. The monument is a Native American
place of prayer that contains more than 25,000
petroglyphs, the statement said. The City of
Albuquerque had allowed the construction of a
private road that connects an older park road
through the Boca Negra Canyon, the statement
pointed out. Because the road was a private project,
the statement explained, the city claims that it did not
need to notify anyone of its construction even though
thousands of cars will be using it. The Sacred
Alliance for Grassroots Equity Council believes that
the road was deliberately constructed in such a way
as to avoid any public notification because of the
2-18
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Case Studies and Public Comment Period
controversial nature of roads through the national
park, the statement asserted.
In the statement, Ms. Weahkee requested that the
NEJAC document the issue as a violation of
environmental justice because it is a deliberate effort
to undermine Native American religion. In addition,
she requested that the NEJAC study and evaluate
the role that private property road construction
projects have on transportation policies, including
policies for public involvement, technical forecasting,
and regional plans.
2-19
Baltimore, Maryland, December 9 and 10, 2002
------- |