MEETING SUMMARY
of the
AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
May 25, 2000
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Alice Walker
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Co-Designated Federal Official
Wil Wilson Michel Gelobter
Office of Air and Radiation Chair
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Co-Designated Federal Official
-------
CHAPTER THREE
SUMMARY OF THE
AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Air and Water Subcommittee of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
conducted a one-day meeting on Thursday, May 25,
2000, during a four-day meeting of the NEJAC in
Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Michel Gelobter, Graduate
Department of Public Administration, Rutgers
University, continues to serve as chair of the
subcommittee. Ms. Alice Walker, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of
Water (OW), and Dr. Wil Wilson EPA Office of Air
and Radiation (OAR), continue to serve jointly as the
Designated Federal Officials (DFO) for the
subcommittee. Exhibit 3-1 presents a list of the
members who attended the meeting and identifies
those members who were unable to attend.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Air and Water Subcommittee, is
organized into five sections, including this
Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks, summarizes the
opening remarks of the chair of the subcommittee.
Section 3.0, Review of the December 1999 Meeting
Summary, summarizes the comments made by
members of the subcommittee on the preliminary
draft of the summary of the subcommittee's meeting
in December 1999. Section 4.0, Presentations and
Reports, presents an overview of each presentation
and report delivered during the subcommittee
meeting, as well as a summary of the questions
asked and comments offered by members of the
subcommittee. Section 5.0, Resolution and
Significant Action Items, summarizes the resolution
forwarded to the Executive Council of the NEJAC for
consideration and the significant action items
adopted by the subcommittee.
2.0 REMARKS
Dr. Gelobter began the subcommittee meeting by
welcoming the members present and Ms. Walker
and Dr. Wilson to the third meeting of the Air and
Water Subcommittee. He introduced Ms. Annabelle
Jaramillo, Citizens' Representative, Oregon Office of
the Governor, as the new vice-chair of the
subcommitee. He announced that Ms. Jaramillo
would serve as subcommittee chair should it be
necessary for him to leave the meeting during the
day. Dr. Gelobter then asked the members of the
subcommittee and speakers at the meeting table
and the representatives of EPA in the audience to
Exhibit 3-1
AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
Members
Who Attended the Meeting
May 25, 2000
Dr. Michel Gelobter, Chair
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo, Vice Chair
Ms. Alice Walker, co-DFO
Dr. Wil Wilson, co-DFO
Dr. Bunyan Bryant
Ms. Daisy Carter
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos
Mr. Leonard Robinson
Mr. George Smalley*
Mr. Damon Whitehead
Ms. Marianne Yamaguchi
Members
Who Were Unable to Attend
Dr. Elaine Barron
Ms. Clydia Cuykendall
Dr. Daniel Greenbaum
*Mr. George Smalley served as a proxy for Ms.
Clydia Cukendall
introduce themselves. Mr. George Smalley,
Manager, Constituency and Community Relations,
Equiva Services LLC, served as a proxy for Ms.
Clydia Cukendall, JC Penney. Dr. Carlos Padin,
School of Environmental Affairs, The Metropolitan
University and chair of the Puerto Rico
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, a new member of the
NEJAC, was observing the various subcommittees.
Dr. Gelobter concluded his opening remarks by
stating that, although meetings of the subcommittee
are not fully open to audience participation,
members of the audience would be given the
opportunity to ask questions if time permitted and if
an issue was pressing.
Atlanta, Georgia, May 25, 2000
3-1
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
3.0 REVIEW OF THE DECEMBER 1999
MEETING SUMMARY
Members of the subcommittee began by reviewing
the preliminary draft of the summary of the
December 1999 meeting of the subcommittee.
To clarify a point of information, Ms. Dana Minerva,
De puty Ass ista nt Ad m i n istrator, EPA O W, stated th at
Mr. Will Hall, EPA OW, had made a presentation on
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO)
during the December 1999 meeting of the
subcommittee.
Ms. Daisy Carter, Director, Project Awake, asked
about the status of EPA's response to her request,
cited at the bottom of page 3-8 of the preliminary
draft, that called for EPA to develop a time frame for
accomplishing its goals under its economic incentive
program (EIP), programs state agencies can
implement under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to improve
air quality. EPA did not provide a response. Ms.
Jaramillo asked that Ms. Carter's request be added
to the list of action items for the present meeting of
the subcommittee.
Dr. Gelobter moved that revisions discussed be
incorporated into the draft summary. Ms. Marianne
Yamaguchi, Director, Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Project, seconded the motion, and the motion
passed.
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and reports submitted to the Air and Water
Subcommittee, including discussions that took place
during a joint session with the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC on reducing toxic
loadings.
4.1 Public Utilities
Members of the subcommittee continued
discussions initiated during the December 1999
meeting of the subcommittee about the effects and
regulation of public utilities, as related to
environmental justice.
Dr. Gelobter stated that Dr. Daniel Greenbaum,
Health Effects Institute, is the chair of the
subcommittee's Public Utilities Work Group. On
behalf of Dr. Greenbaum, Dr. Gelobter then
presented an update on the progress of the work
group. He summarized the discussion of public
utilities that took place during the December 1999
meeting of the subcommittee. He reported that
nationwide, 80 percent of the harmful effects on air
quality result from energy use. Dr. Gelobter stated
that the primary focus of the workgroup is to involve
the NEJAC in policy decisions associated with the
regulation of air emissions from public utilities. He
added that a secondary goal of the work group is to
examine the local, regional, and national
environmental effects of the energy industry on
environmental justice communities. Dr. Gelobter
reported that Dr. Greenbaum and the Public Utilities
Work Group are committed to an aggressive
agenda.
Dr. Gelobter then introduced two presentations
related to public utilities.
4.1.1 Coal-Fired Power Plants in Georgia
Ms. Felicia Davis Gilmore, Director, Georgia
AirKeepers Campaign Director, Ozone Action, and
Ms. Connie Tucker, Executive Director, Southern
Organizing Committee for Economic and Social
Justice and former member of the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC,
presented concerns about the health and
environmental effects of coal-fired power plants in
Georgia.
Ms. Tucker stated that the Southern Organizing
Committee for Economic and Social Justice
represents communities that have environmental
justice concerns in Georgia that are affected by dirty
power plants. She said that the organization felt
compelled to become involved in the national clean
aircampaign because asthma is an epidemicamong
African Americans and Latino Americans. She
reported that Atlanta is in noncompliance with the
requirements of the CAA. She stated that, on certain
days, local citizens actually can smell the ozone in
the air. She then introduced Ms. Gilmore, a long-
time community-based activist, to make a
presentation on the effects of public utilities on the
health of environmental justice communities in
Georgia.
Ms. Gilmore stated that the right to breathe clean air
is among the fundamental rights of humans. She
stated that the citizens of Georgia are primarily
concerned about cars and their contributions to air
pollution; there is little concern about the effects of
power plants on air pollution, she pointed out. She
reported that coal-burning power plants in Georgia
play a significant role in the state's "smog crisis."
Ms. Gilmore discussed the current levels and health
effects of pollution from coal-fired power plants,
citing the following statistics: 23 percent of nitrogen
oxides that form smog, 82 percent of sulfur dioxide
that form particulate pollution and acid rain, 42
3-2
Atlanta, Georgia, May 25, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
percent of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, and
approximately one-third of toxic mercury emissions
in Georgia are generated by coal-fired power plants.
She reported that Georgia derives 64 percent of its
electricity from 11 coal-fired power plants in the
state. Nuclear power (30 percent), hydroelectric
power (5 percent), natural gas (0.4 percent), and oil
(0.3 percent) make up the remaining power sources
in Georgia.
Ms. Gilmore said that coal-fired power plants pollute
at rates up to nine times higher than the CAA allows
for new power plants. She explained that, when the
CAA was being revised, industry lobbyists convinced
members of Congress that power plants in existence
before 1980 were to be phased out soon and
replaced with more efficient systems. She stated
that the industry lobbied for exemption from
requirements forthe installation of the best available
technology, which consisted of selective catalytic
reduction systems for nitrogen oxides and scrubbers
for sulfur dioxide. However, she reported, all 11
coal-fired power plants in Georgia are still in
operation more than 20 years later. She estimated
that, if Georgia's existing coal-fired power plants
were to meet the same standards imposed upon
new coal-fired power plants, emissions of nitrogen
oxide and sulfur dioxide would be reduced by 68
percent and 78 percent, respectively. She stated
that those reductions in emissions were equivalent to
the reductions that would be achieved by removing
4.8 million cars from the road.
Ms. Gilmore then discussed a comparison of the
cost of cleaning up the existing coal-fired power
plants in Georgia with the cost associated with
maintenance of the status quo. Acknowledging that
the way a company chooses to spend its money is
rooted in its priorities, she described Southern
Company, owner or co-owner of the 11 coal-fired
power plants in Georgia. The company, she said,
has spent over $3.4 billion dollars on investment
outside its traditional southeast service area and
asked the Public Service Commission to raise its
rates so that the company could spend up to $4
billion more. Ms. Gilmore explained that the Public
Service Commission regulates the rates that
customers pay for utilities. She stated that the
money could have been invested in statewide
cleanup. Ms. Gilmore then reported that clean air
specialists had estimated a conservative cost for
bringing Georgia's 11 coal-fired power plants up to
modern-daystandardsofapproximately$156 million
per year for 15 years for nitrogen oxide controls and
$222 million per year for 15 years for sulfur dioxide
controls. She added that, in 1999, Southern
Company reported a revenue of $11.4 billion and a
net income of $977 million.
Ms. Gilmore then reported on the estimated cost to
society if the existing coal-fired power plants are not
cleaned up. According to Research Atlanta, an
independent public policy group, the cost of
nonattainment of Federal air quality standards for
ozone and particulates in the Atlanta area will be
higher than the cost of cleanup. She then cited
several reasons to support that finding, such as poor
air quality makes Georgia less attractive to new
businesses and limits the state's prospects for
economic development. The economy also suffers
when the benefits of new technology, such as
renewable energy are ignored, she continued. She
stated that the decrease in agricultural productivity
as a result of high levels of ozone in Georgia is
estimated to be draining $250 million from Georgia's
economy each year, adding that health costs also
are high. It is estimated, she pointed out, that
billions of dollars included in the nation's annual
health costs are associated with outdoor air pollution.
Ms. Gilmore added that other health costs
associated with air pollution include increases in
health-care insurance premiums because of the
increasing number of visits to emergency rooms and
doctors' offices and more widespread use of asthma
medications.
Ms. Gilmore stated that the solution to such
problems must be arrived at on the Federal level.
She reported that the proposed Clean Smokestacks
Act of 1999 is the most comprehensive bill so far
that addresses the air emissions problems related to
coal-fired power plants. She explained that the act
mandates that 30-year-old power plants meet the
standards under the CAA that govern new power
plants. It also sets standards for mercury and
carbon dioxide, which currently are unregulated
under the CAA, she said. She stated that
Representatives John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Cynthia
McKinney (D-Ga.) are co-sponsors of the bill. She
asked that members of the subcommittee and the
audience also urge their representatives to support
the legislation.
Ms. Gilmore also discussed the need for a public
education campaign to inform lower-income and
minority communities about the effects of coal-fired
power plants in Georgia. She urged the
subcommittee to pass a resolution to support such
a campaign. She explained that many families are
unaware of the health effects because they cannot
actually see the pollution.
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos, Community Leader,
Community of Catano Against Pollution, asked
whether the proposed Clean Smokestacks Act
applies to oil-fired power plants. Ms. Gilmore
Atlanta, Georgia, May25, 2000
3-3
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
explained that the bill pertains exclusively to coal-
fired power plants.
Ms. Eileen Gauna, Professor of Law, Southwestern
University of Law, asked how many of the 11 coal-
fired power plants in Georgia are located in or near
low-income communities of color. She also asked
which kind of air pollution - including nitrogen oxide,
sulfur oxide, and carbon dioxide pollution - have
localized effects. Third, Ms. Gauna asked whether
power plants continue operating by identifying
process changes as maintenance and repair, rather
than modifications.
In response to Ms. Gauna's first question, Ms.
Gilmore stated that her organization had been
examining the demographics of communities in the
vicinity of the power plants. She stated that, to date,
the results of the examination had shown no
disparate effect of air pollution from the coal-fired
power plants on environmental justice communities.
She said that the entire population seems to be
affected equally by the pollution. That fact, she
noted, is a "wonderful twist to the environmental
justice opportunity" because it brings together
traditional environmental groups and environmental
justice groups. Ms. Gilmore did acknowledge a
disparity in rates of asthma in minority communities
because such groups generally experience a higher
incidence of respiratory problems than higher-
income groups.
Mr. John Seitz, Director, EPA OAR at Research
Triangle Park, explained that the existing power
plants have grandfathered rights and therefore are
not required to meet many current standards under
the CAA. He pointed out that EPA does not have the
authority to shut down power plants. However, he
noted, EPA can mandate the use of best available
technologies to mitigate air pollution.
Ms. Yamaguchi stated that, in Los Angeles, smog
reports are issued like weather reports. She asked
Ms. Gilmore about the reporting of air pollution in
Atlanta. Ms. Gilmore said that similar advisories are
issued in Atlanta, but that knowledge in the lower-
income communities about the health problems
associated with those advisories is insufficient. She
added that more affluent residents relocate away
from the city or are sufficiently aware of the problem
to stay indoors when such advisories are issued.
Families in lower-income communities, on the other
hand, often are not able to relocate to an area where
the air is cleaner or are unaware of the health
problems air pollution causes, she said. Ms. Gilmore
reemphasized her organization's position that lower-
income communities must be educated about the
health problems associated with air pollution.
Dr. Gelobter suggested to Ms. Gilmore that Georgia
Air Keepers participate in the subcommittee's Public
Utilities Work Group. Ms. Gilmore agreed. Dr.
Gelobter then stated that a public education
campaign on coal-fired power plants should be on
the work group's agenda. Mr. Damon Whitehead,
Earth Conservation Corps, referred to a mercury
study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
that Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental
Network and chair of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommitee of the NEJAC, had discussed during
the meeting of the Executive Council of the NEJAC
on the previous day. Mr. Whitehead requested that
the Public Utilities Work Group obtain a report on
that study. Dr. Bunyan Bryant, Professor, School of
Natural Resources and Environment, University of
Michigan, requested a copy of the Clean
Smokestacks Act of 1999 that Ms. Gilmore had
discussed.
4.1.2 Regulation of Mercury Emissions from
Coal-Fired Power Plants
Ms. Ellen Brown, EPA OAR, asked the members of
the subcommittee for their views on whether EPA
should regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants. She reported that EPA is required to
make a finding no later than December 15,2000, on
whether it is appropriate and necessary to regulate
hazardous air pollutants (HAP), including mercury,
from coal-fired power plants. She stated that, if EPA
decides to regulate, the Agency faces a deadline
under law to propose a regulation by December
2003. She added that a final regulation would be
issued in December 2004 and implemented fully by
the end of 2007.
Ms. Brown presented some background information
about the issue of whether mercury emissions from
coal-fired power plants should be regulated. In
February 1998, she reported, EPA published a report
to Congress on HAPs generated by electric power
plants. In the report, EPA identified mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants as the HAP
of greatest concern as a public health issue.
Continuing, Ms. Brown stated that coal-fired power
plants are the largest source category of mercury
emissions in the United States, accounting for one
third of anthropogenic emissions to the air. Mercury
emissions are transported through the air and
deposited to water and land, she explained. Once
mercury enters the water, either through air
deposition, run-off from the land, or directly, it can
bioaccumulate in fish and animal tissue as methyl
mercury, a highly toxic form of mercury, she said.
Ms. Brown reported that human exposure to mercury
occurs primarily through consumption of
contaminated fish. Exposure to high levels of
3-4
Atlanta, Georgia, May 25, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
mercury has been associated with serious
neurological and developmental effects in humans,
she pointed out, noting that EPA disseminates
information about mercury to the public primarily
through fish consumption advisories.
Ms. Brown stated that, beginning in 2000, EPA is
requiring electric utilities to report their mercury
emissions to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
She explained that, in the past, few such facilities
have reported mercury releases to the TRI because
the reporting threshold was too high to capture
releases from many facilities.
Ms. Brown stated that, because the decision that
EPA must make this year will not require a
regulation, there was to be no public comment
period. However, she asked that the subcommittee
provide comments to assist EPA in making the
decision. In clarification, Dr. Gelobter stated that
EPA merely wants a simple "yes" or "no"
recommendation from the subcommittee. Mr. Seitz
added that the members of the subcommittee have
an opportunity to share their knowledge about
mercury and share their views with EPA as part of
the Agency's data collection process. Dr. Bryant
observed that EPA already has the data it needs,
stating that he did not understand why EPA needs
help in making the decision.
Ms. Carter asked why, if mercury emissions are not
a problem, EPA is alarming citizens about mercury.
She added that, if mercury does pose a threat of
detrimental effects on the health of citizens, EPA
should not require a commitment on the part of the
subcommittee for the need to regulate mercury
emissions. Mr. Seitz responded that EPA must
consider science and listen to all views. He
emphasized that there are numerous stakeholders
who have different views about whether mercury
emissions are a problem. Ms. Carter added that, at
one time, dioxin was not regarded as a problem, but
now it is regarded as highly toxic. She expressed
anticipation that a similar change in views will occur
in relation to the issue of mercury emissions.
Ms. Jaramillo stated her understanding that the
impetus for EPA is not to determine whether mercury
is a problem. Instead, she said, EPA wants to hear
about the health effects of mercury on people around
the country. Ms. Jaramillo noted that the mercury
issue is "already on the table."
Ms. Minerva stated that the effects of mercury
emissions are disproportionate because certain
populations eat more fish than other groups. Dr.
Gelobter agreed. He then stated that, while the
locations of mercury emission sources do not cause
disproportionate effects, the health effects are
disproportionate as a result of higher fish
consumption levels among certain groups.
Mr. Whitehead moved that the subcommittee adopt
a resolution to support EPA's regulation of mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants, adding that
the decision whether to regulate mercury was "a no-
brainer." Dr. Gelobter agreed that the subcommittee
should adopt Mr. Whitehead's suggestion. Ms.
Yamaguchi also stated that she hoped the
subcommittee would adopt a strong resolution
supporting EPA's regulation of mercury emissions.
She asked that EPA report to the subcommittee on
its decision on the matter at the next meeting of the
NEJAC.
Mr. Whitehead agreed to draft the resolution to urge
EPA to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants. Dr. Gelobter told the representatives
of EPA that the subcommittee also would like to be
involved actively in the process after the
determination has been made, including involvement
in rulemaking. Mr. Whitehead added that, in addition
to urging EPA to make a positive decision to regulate
mercury emissions and becoming involved in
subsequent rulemaking, the subcommittee would
like some assurance that the science (for example,
the results of NAS research on mercury) will
consider environmental justice issues.
4.1.3 Power Plants in Puerto Rico
Dr. Gelobter reminded the members of the
subcommittee about the resolution concerning EPA's
regulation of power plants in Puerto Rico that was
approved by the Executive Council at the December
1999 meeting. Ms. Ramos said that states and
territories have the alternative to choose which
strategy to use in dealing with air pollution in
nonattainment areas. She reported that Puerto Rico
had chosen a sulfur-free fuel strategy that requires
the use of 1.5 percent sulfur fuel. She stated that
Puerto Rico had eliminated limitations on emissions
that are set forth in the CAA. In the resolution, she
reminded the members of the subcommittee, the
NEJAC had recommended that EPA review Puerto
Rico's strategy to reduce toxic air emissions. Ms.
Ramos expressed her dissatisfaction with the
response of EPA Region 2, stating that the Agency
had made false statements about the issue. She
asked that the NEJAC arrange an urgent meeting
with Mr. Seitz; Mr. Robert Brenner, Acting Deputy
Assistant Administrator, EPA OAR; and
representatives of EPA Region 2, observing that the
issue easily could prompt a lawsuit. Ms. Ramos
asserted that she and her fellow Puerto Ricans were
Atlanta, Georgia, May25, 2000
3-5
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
ready to file suit but would prefer to resolve the
conflict otherwise. She added that she has evidence
that EPA Region 2 had misled the citizens of Puerto
Rico on the issue. Dr. Gelobter asked that the
subcommittee's Public Utilities Work Group help
organize the dialogue.
4.2 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
The subcommittee heard presentations on the
environmental and health effects of CAFOs. The
subcommittee submitted to the Executive Council for
consideration a proposed resolution, developed
jointly with the Enforcement Subcommittee of the
NEJAC, that recommends that EPA commit
additional resources to the regulation of CAFOs.
4.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Regulation of Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations
Mr. Louis Eby, Attorney-Advisor, Permits Division,
EPA Office of Wastewater Management, provided
information about CAFOs, the proposed National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting guidance on the regulation of CAFOs, and
the joint EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) unified national strategy for animal feeding
operations (AFO).
He explained that under 40 Code of Federal
Regulation (CFR) 122.23 and Appendix B, CAFOs
include all AFOs having more than 1,000 animal
units, as well as all AFOs having more than 300
animal units, if such a facility has an artificial
conveyance or discharges directly into water bodies
that cross the property. In addition, Mr. Eby stated
that a CAFO is exempted if the discharge occurs
only during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Mr. Eby
then explained that the primary problems associated
with CAFOs are overenrichment of a water body,
pathogens, and contamination of drinking water
sources. He reported that some 80 percent of
CAFOs are located in just 16 states: Alabama,
Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana,
Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas,
and Virginia. He added that, of the more than
375,000 AFO facilities in the United States, almost
13,000 are classified as CAFOs.
Mr. Eby described EPA's NPDES permitting
guidance proposed in August 1999, noting that the
guidance is expected to be made final by late spring
2000. The guidance states that CAFOs that have a
potential to discharge must apply for an NPDES
permit that addresses land application of waste at
the facility. The guidance also specifies that CAFOs
are to develop comprehensive nutrient management
plans (CNMP) that ensure compliance with the
requirement for no discharge, except in a 25-year,
24-hour storm.
Mr. Eby also described the EPA-USDA unified
national strategy for AFOs, which focuses on
protection of water quality. The strategy includes
USDA technical guidance on developing CNMPs and
revises NPDES permitting rules and effluent
limitation guidelines to address CAFOs. Mr. Eby
stated that the proposed revised regulations are
expected to be made final by December 2000, with
final regulations to be issued two years thereafter.
Mr. Eby stated that, to support EPA OW in issuing
the NDPES guidance and implementing the EPA-
USDA strategy, it is important to identify where
CAFOs are located. He referred to the proposed
NEJAC resolution that was to be discussed further
and presented some preliminary comments on
several provisions of the proposed resolution, as
follows:
With regard to the suggestion of a moratorium
on all animal waste lagoons and land application
fields, Mr. Eby stated that EPA has no regulatory
authority to declare such a moratorium. While
EPA is revising its regulations to include more
protective standards, it cannot restrict all land
applications. He emphasized the distinction
between good agricultural practices and
discharge practices, stating that it is possible to
operate animal waste lagoons in an acceptable
manner that incorporates good farming
practices.
In response to the concern expressed that EPA
is issuing permits to facilities that are not
applying manure properly, Mr. Eby stated that
EPA is focusing on facilities that have the
potential to discharge.
With regard to regulation of poultry litter, Mr. Eby
said that EPA will include such provisions in its
guidance, specifically related to the application
of dry poultry litter on land.
With regard to siting requirements to protect
waterways, he explained that EPA generally
does not dictate where facilities can be located.
However, he said, in its guidance, the Agency
will attempt to relate the location of facilities to
environmental effects.
With regard to the expansion of public notice
and public comment opportunities in the permit
3-6
Atlanta, Georgia, May 25, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
application process for CAFOs, he stated
that EPA included such expanded efforts
into the guidance at specific points in the
application process.
Referring to the call for unannounced
inspections, Mr. Eby stated that EPA already
conducts such inspections.
With regard to the use of new technologies, he
stated that revised regulations to be proposed in
December 2000 will encourage the use of new
technologies to mitigate the effects on the
environment of discharges from CAFOs.
With regard to new regulations to address new
land uses for areas that are phased out of CAFO
use, he stated that EPA is examining options to
rededicate those lands.
With regard to the suggestion that new
regulations impose stringent penalties for
noncompliance, Mr. Eby explained that the
current regulations allow states to impose a
$25,000-per-day fine.
4.2.2 Joint Resolution on Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations
Ms. Nan Freeland, Natural Resources Leadership
Institute and a proxy member of the Enforcement
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, made a presentation
on CAFOs located in North Carolina. She also
described the latest proposed draft resolution jointly
developed by the Enforcement and Air and Water
subcommittees, which urges EPA to commit more
resources to the regulation of CAFOs.
Ms. Freeland stated that she had noticed a parallel
between energy and utility companies and large
agricultural companies in North Carolina. She said
that those large businesses are wealthy and have
easy access to members of Congress. They have a
strong voice in Congress, while smaller community
groups only have forums like the NEJAC to express
their concerns, she noted.
Ms. Freeland referred to the proposed joint
resolution on CAFOs prepared by the Air and Water
and Enforcement subcommittees. She said that the
resolution addresses most of the problems
associated with CAFOs. Specifically, she reported,
North Carolina has an unprecedented history of large
swine operations. She said that those facilities pose
the threat of a variety of adverse health effects,
ranging from bad odor to groundwater
contamination. She stated that most people in North
Carolina depend on well water. Therefore, she
pointed out, any amount of contamination in the
groundwater would compromise the quality of their
drinking water. Ms. Freeland added that most of the
CAFOs in North Carolina are located in the eastern
part of the state, where the water table is generally
high and the wells therefore are not very deep. She
explained that any seepage or leaching from the
waste lagoons likely would easily enter the
groundwater.
Ms. Freeland then introduced Dr. Steve Wing,
Department of Epidemiology, University of North
Carolina-Chapel Hill, who conducted a study which
found that CAFOs generally are located near African
American churches and schools. Ms. Freeland
explained that, in the south, having a CAFO near a
church is tantamount to having one in a backyard,
since churches play a significant role in people's
lives. The church, she said, is a community center
for people who live in rural areas.
Dr. Wing then described the animal waste lagoons
and how they are used. The animal waste is flushed
into open pits surrounded by dams. Because the
pits will overflow during heavy rainfall, farmers must
empty the pit when rain is forecast, he continued. In
such cases, the raw, untreated waste is applied
directly to the fields. The fields usually are not lined
because, in North Carolina, many fields were once
wetlands that were drained by subsurface pipes, he
explained. As a result, moisture from the fields
literally is piped to surface water bodies, he said.
Dr. Wing then reported that, in Fall 1999, the North
Carolina Department of the Environment and the
Department of Natural Resources allowed farmers to
apply significant quantities of waste to their fields
because of the series of hurricanes that had
occurred at the time. Environmental groups brought
lawsuits against the state, he continued, but the state
allowed the North Carolina Pork Council to mount a
defense on its behalf. Dr. Gelobter commented that
the situation described by Dr. Wing appeared to be
a case of complete negligence on the part of the
state. He asked that the CAFO resolution reflect two
levels of enforcement, specifically enforcement
against negligence by states and enforcement by
Federal authorities.
Ms. Freeland commended EPA for its efforts to
address the issue, but stated that the guidance
should be strengthened. She expressed her opinion
that EPA's revised permitting regulations fail to meet
the objectives of curbing the water pollution
problems associated with CAFOs. She urged EPA
to pass permitting guidance that at least requires
regular testing of groundwater and surface water.
She also urged that monitoring of odor and use of
Atlanta, Georgia, May25, 2000
3-7
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
buffer strips around land application fields to protect
the neighboring communities be included in
regulations.
Ms. Minerva responded that EPA's enforcement
program had been rigorous in meeting its
responsibilities. She referred to the efforts of Mr.
Samuel Coleman, Director, Compliance Assurance
and Enforcement Division, EPA Region 6, in
Oklahoma. Mr. Coleman then reported that, two
weeks earlier, EPA had performed inspections at five
CAFO facilities and one rendering plant in
Oklahoma. At all the facilities, he continued, EPA
Region 6 had identified various violations, including
lagoons that had been built in areas that may have
been filled wetlands, exceedences in the amount of
liquid waste applied to the land, and animal
carcasses that had been disposed of improperly.
Mr. Coleman stated that his staff was preparing a
cease-and-desist order for the confirmed violations,
and that corrective actions would be taken. Mr.
Coleman added that many of the facilities inspected
were operated by the same owner.
Ms. Minerva stressed that the proposed newNPDES
permitting guidance is as strong as current
regulations and that EPA is taking as aggressive a
position as the law allows. She emphasized that
EPA has expanded its view. She reinforced Mr.
Eby's statement that EPA does not have the
authority to impose a moratorium on animal waste
lagoons and land applications, also adding that EPA
does not have clear authority to address emissions
of odors by CAFOs.
Ms. Yamaguchi asked whether the odor problem
associated with CAFOs could be addressed under
the CAA. Mr. Seitz stated that EPA does not have
authority under the CAA to address the odor problem
cited in the proposed resolution. He explained that
it generally has been the responsibility of state and
local governments to deal with odor issues.
However, he stated, EPA's involvement can be
triggered if certain constituents in the air, such as
ammonia or sulfur, contribute to the odor. He added
that EPA also would become involved if particulates
in the air are a problem.
Ms. Carter asked whether it is possible to require
farmers to locate their farms at least 25 to 50 miles
from the nearest residence or neighborhood. She
recommended that a statement related to proximity
be incorporated into the proposed resolution to
protect neighboring communities. Ms. Minerva
responded that EPA does not have legal authority to
impose a distance requirement. Mr. Gary Grant,
Concerned Citizens of Tillery, commented that, in his
opinion, it seemed that "justice is just for
corporations." He stressed that, if EPA does not
have jurisdiction over siting, people in other parts of
the country will suffer as the citizens of North
Carolina have. Mr. Grant then stated that siting is an
environmental justice issue.
Mr. Whitehead asked that an analysis be performed
of EPA OW's legal authority under the Clean Water
Act (CWA). He commented that EPA is very
conservative about its authority, perhaps rightly so,
he noted. He asked, however, whether the
subcommittee could receive a simple and broad
description of the authority of EPA OW.
Dr. Bryant suggested that EPA develop a geographic
information system (GIS) data base of CAFOs to
facilitate monitoring. Ms. Minerva stated that, since
the facilities obtain permits under the new NPDES
permitting guidance, their locations will be known
and they can be mapped. Mr. Eby noted that data
on the exact locations of CAFOs currently are
limited. Dr. Gelobter asked that EPA consider
providing the subcommittee with some maps based
on the approximate locations of the known CAFOs.
He asked that such maps be made available to the
subcommittee at the next meeting of the NEJAC.
Ms. Freeland recommended that EPA solicit from
residents of rural areas information about the
locations of CAFOs; those people will know where
the facilities are, she observed. Mr. Whitehead
asked that demographic information about
communities located in the vicinity of CAFOs also be
included in the GIS data base. Dr. Padin stated that
most states have GIS maps of their jurisdiction that
include information about land use. He added that
the USDA funds agricultural activities and therefore
should have information about the locations of
CAFOs. He commented that, since USDA provides
funding for such activities, that agency may be a
source of financing for the adoption of alternative
technologies for use by the facilities to mitigate
discharges.
Ms. Freeland and Dr. Gelobter made final revisions
in the proposed CAFO resolution after receiving
comments from both subcommittees.
4.3 Guidance for Reducing Toxic Loadings
The Air and Water Subcommittee held a joint
session with the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee to discuss EPA's draft guidance for
the efforts of local areas to reduce the levels of
toxics.
Mr. Timothy Fields, Jr., Assistant Administrator,
EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER), acknowledged the efforts of
3-8
Atlanta, Georgia, May 25, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
Ms. Minerva and Mr. Brenner to reduce toxic
loadings in overburdened areas. He introduced a
draft guidance proposed by EPA that is intended to
provide ideas and incentives to help states and
localities reduce the levels of toxics in their
communities. He explained that the guidance
describes a priority process for approval of state
implementation plans (SIP) that include toxic
reduction plans, financial support for programs under
which environmental justice issues are addressed,
and Federal recognition of state and local programs
intended to reduce levels of toxic pollutants. He
added that the guidance also includes an appendix
that describes ways in which state and local
governments can work together to reduce pollution
in their communities.
Mr. Fields asked members of the two
subcommittees for their comments. He asked that
they provide their opinions about whether the
guidance is adequate and complete and whetherthe
administrative benefits are sufficient to encourage
state, local, and tribal governments to participate in
achieving reductions in levels of toxics. He also
asked for additional incentives that may encourage
various sectors to participate. He asked that the
subcommittee review the guidance and provide
comments to Ms. Jenny Craig, EPA OAR, by June
30, 2000. Mr. Fields added that EPA would then
revise the guidance in response to comments
received and present the revised version to the
subcommittee for the next meeting of the NEJAC.
Ms. Mary Nelson, Bethel New Life, Inc., and member
of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the
NEJAC, commented that the incentives currently
listed in the draft guidance "sound wonderful," but
stated that she would expect that many governments
will not participate. She asked whether there were
any regulatory mechanisms that could be used to
encourage participation. Mr. Fields responded that
the effort must be voluntary, since there currently is
no regulatory mandate to participate. He added that
EPA therefore must provide good incentives.
Ms. Ramos asked why the guidance covers only
hazardous ortoxic substances. Ms. Craig explained
that each EPA program uses a different definition of
hazardous and toxic substances. She stated that, in
the guidance, those terms have a general meaning.
Ms. Craig added that the definitions of those terms
would be stated in the guidance.
Mr. Mervyn Tano, President, International Institute
for Indigenous Resource Management and member
of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the
NEJAC, stated that, as EPA reviews risk factors
associated with toxicsubstances, the successes and
failures of reduction efforts can be measured.
Mr. Smalley asked what sources of funding are
available to local municipalities for the replacement
of diesel buses with buses that run on alternative
fuels, an action recommended in the guidance. Ms.
Craig responded that EPA currently does not have
grant money available for that or other activities
described in the guidance. She emphasized that
good incentives are the key to making the voluntary
program work. Ms. Yamaguchi added that
resources are the greatest incentive. She suggested
that pilot studies be used to "kickstart" the program,
technical assistance training be provided to
governments on implementing the program, and that
efforts be made in direct outreach to specific
communities that are interested in the program. Ms.
Nelson asked that EPA consider encouraging the
pooling of the resources of various government
programs, for example, through Agency
partnerships. Mr. Fields agreed thatthe suggestions
made by the members of the subcommittees were
valuable.
Ms. Ramos commented that most of the pollution in
affected communities likely originates in industries
that probably would not participate in such programs.
Mr. Seitz responded that he is encouraged by the
positive outcome of the 3350 program, which was
the precursoroftheTRI voluntary reporting program.
Mr. Leonard Robinson, TAMCO, expressed
agreement with Mr. Seitz.
Referring to local efforts to develop goals and
measure progress, Ms. Gauna asked that additional
guidance be provided to overburdened areas that
may need more aggressive strategies for reducing
levels of toxics than other communities. Mr. Fields
agreed that areas that are overburdened may require
more aggressive plans.
Ms. Patricia Wood, Senior Manager, Federal
Regulatory Affairs, Georgia-Pacific Corporation and
member of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, stated that she
understood the objective of examining existing
statutes and enforcing environmental justice
elements in those statutes. However, she
questioned the applicability of the guidance to any
particular region; it would be "in the eye of the
beholder" or the resident who lives in an area, she
said, whether his or her community is overburdened.
Ms. Wood added that perhaps EPA should focus the
guidance on assessing the relative burden of
pollution in the communities.
Atlanta, Georgia, May25, 2000
3-9
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Ms. Vernice Miller-Travis, Executive Director,
Partnership for Sustainable Brownfields
Redevelopment and chair of the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC, commented on
the retrofitting of diesel engines in New York City.
She reported that she had worked with EPA Region
2 and the state of New York to encourage use of
alternative fuels by making public funding available.
However, she explained, the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) had blocked their
progress. She said that she would like to use
regulatory tools to bring representatives of MTA to
the table, but does not wish to create incentives to
help the agency take an action it had failed in the
past to take to comply with the law. Referring to the
pilot studies as suggested by Ms. Yamaguchi, Ms.
Miller-Travis also acknowledged that it is difficult to
find a source of funding, but financial help should not
be provided to MTA to take an action that should be
required of it. The money should be directed toward
implementation of innovative technologies, she
suggested.
To clarify the issue, Ms. Craig stated that the
guidance and financial support are not intended to
help industry comply with existing laws. She said
that they are meant to encourage voluntary efforts to
"go above and beyond" existing regulations, adding
that compliance with existing laws is assumed.
Ms. Veronica Eady, Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and member of the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC, said that
her state had used provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to prompt the
transit authority to use alternative fuels.
Ms. Minerva addressed the issue of voluntary rather
than regulatory programs. She presented the
example of EPA OW's total maximum daily loads
(TMDL) program, which asks states to identify water
bodies that do not meet water quality standards.
Exhibit 3-2 defines TMDLs. She explained that EPA
OW envisioned that, as states identified their
impaired water bodies, they would take regulatory
steps to ensure that the water bodies meet water
quality standards and take additional voluntary steps
to manage future growth in neighboring
communities. She stated that regulatory compliance
and voluntary efforts should work together.
Mr. Johnny Wilson, Clark Atlanta University and
member of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, reported that while
EPA laboratory reports may indicate that water
quality in an area meets the maximum contaminant
level (MCL), he had noticed during his inspections of
Exhibit 3-2
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD
A total maximum daily load (TMDL) is a calculation
of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a
waterbody can receive and still meet water quality
standards, accompanied by an allocation of that
amount to the sources of the pollutant.
A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a
single pollutant from all contributing point and
nonpoint sources. The calculation must include a
margin of safety to ensure that the waterbody can be
used for the purposes the state, tribe, or territory has
designated. The calculation also must account for
seasonable variation in water quality.
Section 303 of the Clean Water Act establishes
water quality standards and TMDL programs.
drinking-water supplies in various Georgia counties
that the results are contradictory. He said that he
had been told by a technician for a drinking water
unit that the water was contaminated, but the
concentrations of the contaminants were not high
enough to be considered a problem. Yet, an African
American woman in that same community drew
water from the faucet that bubbled in her glass. Ms.
Minerva responded that MCLs and TMDLs fall under
different EPA OW programs. She and Mr. Wilson
agreed to discuss the issue further after the
subcommittee meeting.
Ms. Minerva stated the EPA OW would be interested
in helping communities conduct a pilot study.
However, she acknowledged that funding is an
issue. She added that her office's incentives
primarily would encourage early response to issues.
Dr. Gelobter asked about financial help through the
NPDES program or state revolving funds. Ms.
Minerva responded that EPA had not given
extensive consideration to the possible use of those
sources.
Mr. Tano noted that there are similarities between
the goals of the guidance and those of national and
international standard-setting organizations, such as
the International Standards Organization (ISO). He
suggested that there should be links between the
programs of such organizations and Federal
procurement policies, through which a local
government can become eligible for Federal
procurement if it receives a form of "certification."
3-10
Atlanta, Georgia, May 25, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
4.4 Fish Contamination
Ms. Jaramillo, chair of the subcommittee's Work
Group on Fish Consumption, presented the following
questions to be addressed by the work group.
What are the health risks of consuming non
commercial fish, that is, the risks of engaging in
subsistence fishing?
Are fish advisories working?
Are communities responding to fish advisories?
If not, why?
Is there consistency in the responses of state,
local, and tribal governments to advisories? If
not, why?
Is EPA using the process of the Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice to
collaborate with other Federal agencies - for
example, the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), USDA, the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), and the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) - in addressing
issues related to subsistence fishing?
Are EPA OAR and OW integrating their civil
rights responsibilities in mitigating the adverse
effects of consumption of contaminated fish?
What and where are the "teeth" in the CWA that
can support the effort to address fish
consumption?
Ms. Jaramillo presented the work group's plan of
action, which included requesting of EPA a
presentation on fish consumption focused on effects
on public health; soliciting the perspective of the
environmental justice community on subsistence
fishing; and developing recommendations and
resolutions for consideration by the Executive
Council of the NEJAC. The work group also was to
develop a work plan for the remainder of 2000 and
for 2001, she noted.
To achieve the work group's first goal of obtaining
information from EPA about fish consumption, Ms.
Jaramillo introduced Mr. Thomas Armitage,
Standards and Applied Science Division, EPA OW,
to discuss EPA's National Fish and Wildlife
Contamination Program. Mr. Armitage explained
that the program provides technical assistance to
state, Federal, and tribal agencies on matters related
to health risks associated with exposure to chemical
contaminants in fish and wildlife. Activities
conducted under the program include the
preparation of national guidance documents and the
conduct of outreach; the maintenance of national
data bases; sponsorship of national conferences and
workshops; provision of grants for sampling and
analysis; the conduct of special studies on fish
consumption; and the provision of assistance in
issuing advisories.
Mr. Armitage described two examples of national
guidance documents developed underthe program.
The Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contamination Data for Use in Fish Advisories
consists of four volumes that are updated every two
years, he said. The guidance takes a risk-based
approach, provides advice on population-specific
advisories, and presents new default fish
consumption rates, he pointed out. The Guidance
for Conducting Fish and Wildlife Consumption
Surveys presents methods of identifying populations
that consume large amounts of fish and presents
recommendations for determination of the need for
advisories on the basis of data on "high-end
consumers," he continued.
Mr. Armitage described three examples of EPA
OW's outreach efforts. In a letter to health-care
providers targeted through a national mailing to
pediatricians, obstetricians and gynecologists, family
physicians, and staff of state and tribal health
agencies, EPA sought to increase awareness of
contaminants in sport and subsistence-caught fish.
EPA also has produced brochures in English,
Spanish, and Vietnamese on reducing health risks
from fish consumption, he continued. The brochures
are distributed nationally to health care providers and
state and tribal health agencies, among other
recipients, he noted. EPA also has designed a tool
kit for health-care providers that is intended to
increase awareness among nurses, nurse
practitioners, and midwives of health issues related
to fish consumption. The tool kit was featured at a
meeting of the American College of Nurse-Midwives
in May 2000.
Mr. Armitage introduced to the subcommittee a data
base that provides a national-level list of fish and
wildlife advisories that is updated annually. The data
base is available on the Internet at
and includes all state, tribal,
and Federal advisories in the U.S. and Canada.
EPA also has developed a national mercury tissue
data base, said Mr. Armitage.
Continuing, Mr. Armitage reported that EPA has
hosted several national conferences and work
groups on fish consumption. The National Forum on
Contaminants in Fish, sponsored by EPA through
the American Fisheries Society, is an annual
Atlanta, Georgia, May25, 2000
3-11
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
meeting conducted to discuss national issues related
to contaminants in fish. The forum includes
participants representing all 50 states and as many
as 35 tribes, he said. In 1997 and 1999, EPA hosted
work groups on the development of advisories for 35
tribal representatives. A 2000 work group is
planned, he added. EPA also has hosted national
technical conferences on polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB), mercury, and bioaccumulation, Mr. Armitage
said.
Mr. Armitage described several special studies
related to the issue, including a subsistence study
conducted in Cook Inlet, Alaska; a study conducted
along the Columbia River; a national study of
chemical residues in fish; a comparative dietary risk
project; and an evaluation of the effectiveness and
awareness of advisories, specifically focusing on
mercury.
In terms of grants for sampling and analysis to
support advisories, EPA has solicited proposals to
support state and tribal advisory programs. The
selection criteria included areas of suspected
subsistence activities. Mr. Armitage stated that EPA
had issued four grants, to California, Delaware,
Virginia, and Texas. Three grants are planned for
fiscal year 2000.
Mr. Armitage requested that members of the
subcommittee provide their views on the following
areas: (1) identifying organizations that represent
high-risk groups and individuals to help conduct a
National Risk Communication Workshop; (2)
reviewing the National Report on State Consistency
as it is pertinent to fish consumption issues; and (3)
making recommendations about how EPA can work
with states to achieve consistent protection of high-
risk groups.
Ms. Jaramillo commented that, in sampling efforts to
support fish advisories, random sampling generally
is used. She expressed her concern that random
sampling may miss clusters of affected populations,
including environmental justice communities. She
suggested that EPA consider incorporating targeted
sampling or subsampling into its methodology.
Dr. Bryant commended Mr. Armitage on a very
thorough presentation. He stated that it was obvious
that much research was being undertaken. He
asked how EPA evaluates whether communities are
complying with the advisories. Mr. Armitage stated
that the data available was insufficient to provide an
answer to that question. He referred to a special
study that specifically targeted the issue noting that
the study should be completed in 2001. The results
of the study will be available to all the states, he said.
He added that the National Risk Communication
Workshop can serve as a means of reaching out to
various affected groups. Dr. Bryant stated that, while
advisories may be successful in reaching
communities, affected groups may not respond
adequately. He urged EPA to do the best research
possible to determine whether citizens are
responding; if not, a new strategy must be
developed, he said. Dr. Bryant also urged that EPA
focus on the people and the effectiveness of the
message.
Ms. Yamaguchi stated that, in the Los Angeles area,
her organization had been working closely with the
American Petroleum Institute on the fish
consumption issue, primarily on contamination
resulting from Superfund activities. She reported
that state fish consumption advisories issued since
1990 have worked well in English-speaking
communities, but not as well in English-as-a-second
language (ESL) communities such as Cambodian,
Vietnamese, and Chinese communities. Ms.
Yamaguchi noted that reaching out to those specific
communities and communicating with them in their
own language had proven beneficial. Ms.
Yamaguchi stated that providing funding for
communities to educate themselves also has proven
successful, since it is the community itself that
determines the best form of outreach.
Ms. Ramos stated that, through discussions with
community members in Oakland, California, she
received the recommendation that such universal
languages as signs be used when fish consumption
advisories are posted. She asked that EPA explore
that form of outreach. Ms. Ramos then stated that
she recently had learned that contaminated fish have
been found in some areas in Puerto Rico. Mr.
Armitage said that Puerto Rico had not been
included in the studies he had discussed. Ms.
Jaramillo asked that it be noted that EPA may find it
necessary to consider doing so.
4.5 Urban Air Initiatives
The subcommittee heard presentations and provided
comment on urban air initiatives around the country.
4.5.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Diesel Retrofit Program
Mr. Gregory Green, Director of the Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, EPA OAR, described
EPA's voluntary diesel retrofit program, which is
being implemented to boost the efforts of existing
regulatory air programs. He explained that diesel
engines are high emitters of air pollution, especially
in urban areas. He reported that diesel emissions
3-12
Atlanta, Georgia, May 25, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
constitute 49 percent and 24 percent of the nation's
nitrogen oxide and particulate matter inventories,
respectively. Mr. Green added that a study
conducted by the South Coast Air Quality
Management Division in California attributes 70
percent of all cancer deaths in the area from
exposure to air toxics of diesel particulate matter
emissions.
Mr. Green stated that a voluntary program to retrofit
diesel engines will provide immediate reductions in
air pollution. He said that the program will address
emissions from existing fleets, establish a process
for new technology verification, and provide
incentives to obtain credits for SIPs under EPA's
Voluntary Measures Program. He presented several
examples of retrofitting a diesel engine, including
using a catalyst or filter; conducting an engine
upgrade; early replacement of the engine; using a
cleaner fuel or additive; or implementing a
combination of the above-mentioned examples.
According to Mr. Green, EPA's goalforthis year is to
retrofit 10,000 diesel engines. He clarified that
success will be measured by obtaining at least
commitments to retrofit, not necessarily actual
retrofits. Mr. Green stressed that the voluntary
program will establish strong, positive partnerships
between EPA, state and local agencies, industry
(including engine manufacturers and users),
environmental organizations, and the members of
the public.
Mr. Green directed the subcommittee to the following
web site for additional information on EPA's
voluntary measures program at
< h ttp://epa. go v/oms/transp/traqvolm. h tm>
Mr. Whitehead asked about the emissions trading
component of the voluntary measures program.
Mr. Green responded that EPA has not yet decided
on how exactly to implement that component. Mr.
Smalley recommended that for short-term results,
public transportation should be well-maintained so
that diesel emissions are minimized and Mr. Green
agreed.
Dr. Gelobter asked how much of the diesel
emissions in New York City result from trucks and
construction vehicles. He also asked if EPA is taking
steps to phase out diesel gasoline. Mr. Green
reported that about 60 to 65 percent and about 40
percent of diesel emissions in New York City come
from trucks and construction vehicles, respectively.
He stated that until a replacement fuel for diesel is
developed or found, it would be difficult to phase out
the fuel. He explained that about 10 million pieces of
equipment in the United States currently require
diesel. He reported that EPA is working with a forum
on diesel fuel to develop a much cleaner fuel.
4.5.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Tier 2 Strategy
Mr. William Harnett, Acting Director, EPA OAR,
provided an update on EPA's Tier 2 strategy and a
status report on two issues that the subcommittee
had requested EPA investigate at the December
1999 meeting, (1) measurement of disparate effects
and (2) analysis of the locations of all facilities that
pollute the air.
Mr. Harnett reported that under the Tier 2 strategy,
EPA has begun compiling the locations of every
refinery in the United States and their emissions
(including nitrogen andsulfuroxides). He stated that
a national emissions inventory is being developed
and soon will be available. He said that EPA also is
developing a brochure forthe general public on each
refinery (about 115) that will describe the Tier 2
program and the changes that will be made to
refineries to meet EPA's regulations. Mr. Harnett
ensured the members of the subcommittee that he
will solicit their comments on the first drafts of each
brochure.
Mr. Harnett stated that EPA also is preparing a
document that will identify steps that a refinery can
take to reduce its nitrogen and sulfur oxide
emissions. He acknowledged that while EPA does
not have the authority to enforce those steps, the
Agency can strongly encourage each refinery to
cooperate. He stated that the likelihood of a faster
and smoother permitting process can be an effective
incentive.
Ms. Gauna commented that to assess disparate
effects, it would be helpful to examine the proximity
of the refineries to environmental justice
communities. She asked if it might be possible for
multiple facilities to collectively increase emissions in
an area to harmful levels, but not enough of an
increase to prompt a new source review of the
individual facilities. Mr. Harnett responded that while
EPA is compiling many pieces of information, the
Agency currently is not conducting a comprehensive
analysis to make that determination. He stated that
EPA is examining regions on a county level with a
focus on the southern region and other areas where
refineries are concentrated.
Mr. Smalley asked for a clarification on whether the
public is being involved in the regulation of sulfur
dioxide under the Tier 2 strategy. Mr. Harnett
responded that because sulfur currently is being
removed from fuels, permits involving sulfur
Atlanta, Georgia, May25, 2000
3-13
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
emissions go through the public comment period.
He added that two public comment periods may be
necessary if the permit is reviewed under the Tier 2
strategy and for sulfur dioxide provisions separately.
4.5.3 Environmental Justice Concerns in
Southern California Related to Air
Pollution
Ms. Rachel Morello-Frosch, Post-Doctoral
Researcher, School of Public Health, University of
California at Berkeley, presented information on the
distribution of air toxics and associated cancer risks
among various communities in southern California.
She reviewed traditional approaches that have been
used in environmental justice research on air
pollution, including (1) evaluating the location of
emission sources relative to environmental justice
communities; (2) assessing emissions loadings from
those sources (for example, by examining data from
the TRI); and (3) evaluating the distribution of
ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants,
including nitrogen and sulfur oxides; particulate
matter; ozone; carbon monoxide; and lead. She
stated that there has been little research conducted
on the 188 air toxics listed under the CAA because
of the lack of consistent monitoring.
Ms. Morello-Frosch discussed new opportunities to
assess environmental justice concerns through
examination of data collected under EPA's
Cumulative Exposure Project (CEP). She said that
the data can allow modeling of long-term ambient
concentrations of the 148 HAPs, which are
estimated for all 2,600 census tracts in southern
California. She added that the data includes mobile
and non-mobile emission sources. She explained
that the CEP focuses on southern California
because that region constitutes some of the most
challenging air pollution problems in the country,
including adverse health effects.
Ms. Morello-Frosch reviewed how cancer risk
estimates based on inhalation unit risk for individual
pollutants are calculated. She reported that the
estimated lifetime cancer risk in southern California
ranges from 6.9 to 591 per 100,000 people and has
a mean of 59 per 100,000. She added that nearly
8,000 excess cancer cases are estimated in the
region, with the following five pollutants accounting
for about 80 percent of the excess, polycyclic organic
matter; 1,3-butadiene; formaldehyde; benzene; and
chromium.
Ms. Morello-Frosch then reported that 25 percent
(3.5 million) of the population resides in census
tracts with the highest risk of cancer. She stated that
68 percent of the population are people of color,
while 32 percent of the population are Anglos. She
added that the probability of a person of color living
in the high risk tract is one in three rather than one in
seven for an Anglo resident.
Ms. Morello-Frosch stated that race and ethnicity
play a persistent explanatory role in the distribution
of estimated cancer risks associated with outdoor
HAPs while controlling for economics, land use, and
other factors. She said that the bulk of cancer risks
in the region are attributable to transportation and
small area source emissions. She added that
cancer risks from HAPs overall exceed the CAA goal
of one in a million by at least one to three orders of
magnitude. Ms. Morello-Frosch ended by presenting
several policy implications of the findings. She said
that emission source allocation results raises
challenges for developing effective emission
reduction strategies. She stated that area sources
are smaller and widely dispersed with diverse
production characteristics, making uniform
approaches difficult. She reported that proliferation
of mobile sources continues to steadily erode the
gains made from emission reduction efforts. She
recommended that future environmental justice
research approaches emphasize how changing land
use patterns, suburbanization, and transportation
development affect pollution streams and the
distribution of risks among diverse communities and
the poor.
Ms. Gauna noted that formaldehyde was one of the
five chemicals that Ms. Morello-Frosch had identified
as a pollutant of concern. She asked whether
formaldehyde has a strong synergistic effect with the
other chemicals. Ms. Laura McKelvey, EPA OAR,
responded that formaldehyde is one of the pollutants
that EPA is examining that may transform into other
harmful products. She stated that the transformation
and synergy among chemicals is an area identified
by EPA as requiring additional research to
understand the cumulative effects of multiple
pollutants.
4.5.4 Partnership for Clean Air Communities
Mr. T.J. Roskelley, Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use Management (NESCAUM), presented
information on NESCAUM's Partnerships for Clean
Air Communities project, which is exploring the use
of emissions trading to curb air pollution in urban
communities. He reported that emissions trading
has saved billions of dollars in environmental
compliance costs. However, he stated that major
policy issues must be addressed if emissions trading
is to remain a viable policy tool. Specifically, he
explained that (1) EPA must close loopholes by
regulating every polluter; (2) cost-savings must result
3-14
Atlanta, Georgia, May 25, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
in environmental benefits either through more
stringent regulation or through mechanisms that
redirect the savings into environmental investments;
and (3) environmental equity concerns must be
adequately addressed through policies and initiatives
that focus on discrete communities instead of the
aggregate pollution.
Mr. Roskelley explained that the Partnerships for
Clean Air Communities project focuses on the third
point, which explores whether emissions trading can
be used to the advantage of urban communities. He
presented the following key objectives of the project:
Build a diverse coalition to reduce urban air
pollution with a focus on participation by local
community groups.
Implementdiscrete clean airstrategiesto reduce
local urban air pollution.
Develop a framework for using emissions
trading to enhance urban air quality.
Develop long-term, sustainable models for
funding clean air initiatives.
Create a policy model that will be easily
transferable to any urban area.
Mr. Roskelley reported that ConEd will provide the
initial funding for the project, which will focus on
maximizing the environmental health benefits in the
New York City area. Upcoming activities for the
product include public outreach and an initial press
announcement in May 2000 through mid-summer;
development of criteria and a process for selecting
projects by late Summer 2000; and announcement
of a request for proposal (RFP) and the full launch of
the program in Fall 2000.
Mr. Roskelley called upon the subcommittee to help
in developing criteria for the project. He stated that
NESCAUM's ultimate goal is to apply the project
nationally. He announced a meeting in New York
City this summerforthose interested in collaborating
on the project.
Dr. Gelobter stated that he is on the steering
committee for the project. He observed that one of
the problems that environmental justice communities
face is a lack of resources to purchase credits. He
stated that the RFP process will involve creating a
two-step process to purchase credits and
coordinating with various parties to secure funding
sources. He stated that he would like the NEJAC,
particularly the Air and Water Subcommittee, to
consider how communities of color can purchase
credits and what kinds of credits they could
purchase.
4.5.5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Urban Air Toxics Strategy
Ms. McKelvey provided an update on EPA's urban
air toxics strategy and the national air toxics
assessment. She reviewed the purpose of an EPA
OAR working group on urban air toxics that has
been formed to determine how state, local, and tribal
governments can reduce health risks from urban
pollution in their jurisdictions. She mentioned that
Dr. Bryant, Dr. Ellen Barron, Paso Del Norte Air
Quality Task Force, and Dr. Greenbaum have
attended and participated in previous meetings of
the working group. She stated that the next working
group meeting will be held June 14 and 15, 2000 in
Washington, D.C., followed by another meeting in
August 2000 to finalize the group's plan of action.
Ms. McKelvey reported that, as part of EPA's
National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) program,
additional data will be collected on loadings of
specific pollutants in local areas. Exhibit 3-3
describes the NATA program. She explained that
the assessment aims to lay out a more effective
approach to monitoring air toxics, based on results
of four pilot cities around the country. She stated
Exhibit 3-3
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S NATIONAL AIR TOXICS
ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
The National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
program, one of four components identified in the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy to reduce air toxics. The NATA
program will help EPA identify areas of concern,
characterize risks, and track progress in achieving
the Agency's overall goals for the air toxics
programs. Activities under NATA include
expanding of air toxics monitoring, improving and
periodically updating emissions inventories,
national- and local-scale air quality, multi-media and
exposure modeling, continued research on health
effects and exposures to both ambient exposure and
assessment tools. The activities will provide EPA
with improved characterizations of risk posed by air
toxics and risk reductions that result from the
imposition of emissions control standards and the
adoption of initiatives for stationary and mobile
source programs.
Atlanta, Georgia, May25, 2000
3-15
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
that the pilot projects are helping EPA to understand
the spatial distributions of air pollution sources in
urban areas. She reported that EPA hopes to have
ambient concentrations collected and available for
public review by late June 2000. She stated that in
addition to ambient air modeling, EPA is expanding
the project by plugging data into an exposure model
and conducting a risk characterization. Ms.
McKelvey projected that the results of the modeling
and risk characterization will be available for peer
review in late August, with finalization of the report
targeted for December 2000.
Ms. Yamaguchi commented that there appears to be
opportunities for community-based monitoring
activities as part of the national air toxics
assessment. She stated that a good incentive to
encourage communities to attend public meetings on
the issue is to promise training on how to conduct air
monitoring. Dr. Bryant emphasized the importance
of developing a manual on public participation and
research.
5.0 RESOLUTION AND SIGNIFICANT
ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the resolution forwarded to
the Executive Council of the NEJAC for
consideration and the significant action items
adopted by the Air and Water Subcommittee.
The members discussed a resolution in which the
NEJAC requests that EPA regulate mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants.
The members also adopted the following significant
action items:
/ Recommend that the NEJAC establish under
joint sponsorship of the Air and Water and
Waste and Facility Siting subcommittees a work
group to (1) review and comment by June 30,
2000, on the Draft Guidance to Reduce Toxic
Levels issued by EPA OSWER (2) to continue
dialogue on reductions in levels of toxics.
/ Recommend that the Executive Council of the
NEJAC establish under joint sponsorship of the
Air and Water and Indigenous subcommittees a
work group to examine issues related to fish
consumption.
/ Recommend that the Executive Council of the
NEJAC organize an urgent meeting between
representatives of EPA OAR and EPA Region 2
to discuss air pollution from power plants in
Puerto Rico to follow up the resolution on the
issue approved at the December 1999 meeting
of the NEJAC.
/ Agree to review EPA OW's National Report on
State Consistency, which addresses issues
related to fish consumption.
3-16
Atlanta, Georgia, May 25, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
CONTENTS
Section Page
CHAPTER THREE SUMMARY OF THE AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE 3-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 3-1
2.0 REMARKS 3-1
3.0 REVIEW OF THE DECEMBER 1999 MEETING SUMMARY 3-2
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS 3-2
4.1 Public Utilities 3-2
4.1.1 Coal-Fired Power Plants in Georgia 3-2
4.1.2 Regulation of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants 3-4
4.1.3 Power Plants in Puerto Rico 3-5
4.2 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 3-6
4.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Regulation of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 3-6
4.2.2 Joint Resolution on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 3-7
4.3 Guidance for Reducing Toxic Loadings 3-8
4.4 Fish Contamination 3-11
4.5 Urban Air Initiatives 3-12
4.5.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Diesel Retrofit Program 3-12
4.5.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier 2 Strategy 3-13
4.5.3 Environmental Justice Concerns in Southern California Related to Air Pollution 3-14
4.5.4 Partnership for Clean Air Communities 3-14
4.5.5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Urban Air Toxics Strategy 3-15
5.0 RESOLUTION AND SIGNIFICANT
ACTION ITEMS 3-16
Atlanta, Georgia, May25, 2000 3-i
------- |