NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ADVISORY COUNCIL

MEETING SUMMARY

PUBLIC TELECONFERENCE
WASHINGTON, DC
November 28, 2018


-------
PREFACE

The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) is a federal advisory committee that
was established by charter on September 30,1993, to provide independent advice, consultation,
and recommendations to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on
matters related to environmental justice.

As a federal advisory committee, NEJAC is governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Enacted on October 6,1972, FACA provisions include the following requirements:

•	Members must be selected and appointed by EPA.

•	Members must attend and participate fully in meetings.

•	Meetings must be open to the public, except as specified by the EPA Administrator.

•	All meetings must be announced in the Federal Register.

•	Public participation must be allowed at all public meetings.

•	The public must be provided access to materials distributed during the meeting.

•	Meeting minutes must be kept and made available to the public.

•	A designated federal official (DFO) must be present at all meetings.

•	The advisory committee must provide independent judgment that is not influenced by special
interest groups.

EPA's Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) maintains summary reports of all NEJAC meetings,
which are available on the NEJAC web site at https://www.epa.aov/environmentaliustice/national-
environmental-iustice-advisory-council-meetings. Copies of materials distributed during NEJAC
meetings are also available to the public upon request Comments or questions can be directed via
e-mail to NElACPepa.gov.

NEJAC Executive Council - Members in Attendance

Richard Moore, NEJAC Chair, LosJardines Institute

Jill Witkowski Heaps, Vice-Chair, University at Buffalo School of Law

Sylvia Orduno, Vice-Chair, Michigan Welfare Rights Coalition

April Baptiste, Colgate University

Charles Chase, University of Colorado-Denver

Ellen Drew, Rural Communities Assistance Corporation

Jan Marie Fritz, University of Cincinnati, University of Johannesburg, University of South Florida

Rita Harris, Sierra Club (by telephone)

Cheryl Johnson, People for Community Recovery (PCR)

Virginia King, Marathon Petroleum Company

Rosalyn LaPier, Piegan Institute and Saokio Heritage

Melissa McGee-Collier, Mississippi Department of Environmental Equality

Jeremy Orr, Natural Resources Defense Council

Millicent Piazza, Washington State Department of Ecology

Dennis Randolph, City of Grandview, Missouri

Cynthia Kim Len Rezentes, Mohala I Ka Wai

Jerome Shabazz, JASTECH Development Services and Overbrook Environmental Education Center
Karen Sprayberry, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Michael Tilchin, Jacobs Engineering

2 I F


-------
Hermila "Mily" Trevino-Sauceda, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas
Sandra Whitehead, National Environmental Health Association
Sacoby Wilson, Maryland Institute of Applied Environmental Health
Kelly Wright, Shoshone Bannock Tribes
Dewey Youngerman III, Continental Maritime of San Diego

3 I F


-------
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
Public Teleconference
November 28, 2018

MEETING SUMMARY

The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) convened a public teleconference on
Wednesday, November 28, 2018. This synopsis covers NEJAC members' deliberations during the
teleconference meeting.

1.0 Welcome and Opening Remarks

Matthew Tejada, the NEJAC Designated Federal Officer welcomed everyone to the NEJAC's first
public meeting for FY 2019. Mr. Tejada announced and introduced new NEJAC members, Jan Fritz -
University of Cincinnati, April Baptiste - Colgate University, Virginia King - Marathon Petroleum LP,
and Millicent Piazza - Washington State to the NEJAC. Mr Tejada also announced that Sylvia
Orduno will serve as Vice- Chair on the NEJAC. Mr. Tejada reviewed the agenda for the meeting and
reminded participants that they will be in lecture mode and will be able to hear the meeting
proceedings only. Mr. Tejada announced that the next public meeting would most likely be the end
of February 2019. The Water Infrastructure Report was finalized atthe NEJAC Boston meeting and
we hope to address the suggested changes and get the report published as soon as possible. Mr.
Tejada turned the meeting over to the NEJAC Chair, Richard Moore.

Richard Moore, the NEJAC Chair, introduced himself and welcomed attendees to the public
teleconference. Mr. Moore reminded NEJAC Members to identify themselves when speaking and to
mute your lines when you are not speaking. Reminded folks that will be giving public comment to
be sure to state the problem and offer any solutions and recommendations. He introduced, Vice
Chair Jill Heaps.

Jill Heaps, the NEJAC Vice-Chair, introduced herself, welcomed attendees, the new Vice Chair,

Sylvia Orduno and turned the call over to Sylvia.

Sylvia Orduno, the NEJAC Vice-Chair, introduced herself and mentioned that she is looking
forward to stepping into this new position and turned the call back of to Mr. Tejada.

2.0 U.S. EPA Superfund Task Force Report Recommendation #42 Draft Charge Discussion

Richard Moore, the NEJAC Chair, mentioned that he has received 100s of emails and phone calls
about environmental justice concerns and impacts on communities and the decisions that have
been made in this Administration. He emphasized the importance of the NEJAC and the need for a
stakeholder group like the NEJAC and the opportunity to make recommendations to the EPA. He
also mentioned that many of the recommendations by the NEJAC have been implemented. He
mentioned the importance of the charge that the NEJAC will receive today to help address some of
the issues and concerns raised by communities related to Superfund sites. Mr. Moore turned the
call over to Mr. Tejada to introduce the charge.

4 I F


-------
Matthew Tejada, DFO introduced the new charge to the NEJAC on Superfund Remediation and
Development for Environmental Justice Communities. Mr. Tejada acknowledged the role that
NEJAC has played over the years and that Superfund is one of the areas where NEJAC has had an
impact over the years. He introduced the timeline for the charge and mentioned that a request will
go out asking for NEJAC members to join the workgroup and getting a meeting scheduled before the
holiday break. Mr. Tejada stated that the EPA is committed to continually improving our ability to
achieve clean-ups of Superfund sites more quickly and with better outcomes for local communities
while maintaining our focus on protecting human health and the environment. The overall goal of
this charge is to provide recommendations to the EPA Administrator that will identify barriers,
solutions, and best practices to achieve this above goal in a manner that takes central consideration
of the unique burdens and vulnerabilities of environmental justice populations living in and around
superfund sites. The recommendations produced should not be overly focused on the immediate
activities of the superfund program but instead look out five to ten years into the future and
describe a horizon that the Superfund program can aspire to achieve through the adoption of
NEJAC's recommendations over time. The recommendations should account for the importance of
the intersection between remediation and redevelopment. And the recommendations should also
everywhere include consideration of improving EPA's ability to effectively communicate risk to
local communities and other stakeholders. As outlined in the SFTF Report recommendations, the
EPA reaffirms the Agency's commitment to incorporating advice and recommendations from the
NEJAC to determine best approaches to integrating environmental justice considerations and the
perspectives of multiple stakeholders into cleanup and redevelopment of sites. The EPA intends to
integrate EJ considerations into site cleanup and redevelopment by collaborating with NEJAC to
include a diversity of voices in driving the best outcomes for underserved and vulnerable
communities.

Mr. Tejada mentioned that the charge has been broken into two phases because the current
Administration would like to get some immediate recommendations from the NEAJC while the
Superfund Task Force is still in operation and have time to consider the recommendations for
implementation.

Phase 1: Completed by June 1, 2019

1. What are specific ways in which the NEJAC, EPA, and other relevant stakeholders can

facilitate strong, strategic relationships with stakeholders to facilitate effective cleanups and
site reuse, and equitable decision-making throughout the entire SF process? How can NEJAC
and EPA most effectively and efficiently identify EJ stakeholders and their interests, capacity
and needs (community education, engagement, and capacity building) and ensure that
interests and needs are considered in redevelopment planning and implementation
processes?

a.	Who are the impacted populations?

b.	What are best practices and important considerations to achieve meaningful
engagement and fair treatment when there are different impacted communities and
disparities exist between those communities?

c.	What are methods and innovations for community capacity building?

d.	Are there other essential services and needs providers (e.g. health care, healthy
food, recreation)?

e.	What are specific ways in in which all communities can be encouraged to move from
passive stakeholders to active partners?

f.	Are there additional/unique educational needs related to the technical aspects of
clean up and redevelopment?

g.	What do equitable cleanups of Superfund sites look like to EJ stakeholders?

5 I F


-------
2.	What does NEJAC believe should be done to facilitate effective, efficient, and consistent
decision-making regarding remediation and redevelopment of NPL sites? How can EPA
better ensure that all parts of the community - especially vulnerable, overburdened, and
underserved populations - are able to meaningfully engage in every phase of the Superfund
process and have the information they need to understand the data and issues? How can
EPA more clearly communicate the risks at sites and ensure that concerns and knowledge
from all parts of the community are being heard and considered in remediation and
redevelopment decision-making? Please consider these questions relevant to the following
major items/areas within the Superfund process:

a.	Remediation Approaches, especially Institutional and Engineering Controls:
assumptions, considering cumulative impacts, community awareness of
requirements, etc.;

b.	Long Term Stewardship: notice of ICs, maintenance of ICs over time, adapting
operation and maintenance plans, etc.;

c.	Risk Communication and Community Engagement: cultural and linguistic
differences, learning strategies, access, and availability of current site-related
information, etc.;

d.	Barriers and Opportunities for community participation in the Remedial Process
(Discovery to Deletion), and ensuring that EJ stakeholder interests and needs are
considered in redevelopment planning and implementation; 4

e.	How can EPA be more proactive in avoiding the creation of Superfund sites in the
first place?

Phase 2: Completed by March 30, 2020

3.	Can the NEJAC provide examples of case studies and models - Superfund and non-
Superfund alike - that illustrate best practices and lessons learned (cleanup,
redevelopment, risk communication, federal initiatives) which can inform ways to
elevate equity in Superfund cleanup and redevelopment, to ensure all have a voice
in EPA decisions? How has the EPA Superfund Task Force's plan and
recommendations advanced contaminated site remediation and redevelopment in
vulnerable, overburdened, and underserved communities?

a.	Are there certain practices and tools (e.g. Health Impact Assessments) that
are especially effective in facilitating relationships with all stakeholders?

b.	How can EPA best implement the Superfund Redevelopment Initiative? Are
there certain practices and tools that can be improved as part of this process?

c.	Are there certain practices and tools from other waste media programs (e.g.
wastewater management) that have been effective?

d.	Are there retrospective and/or prospective case studies that best illustrate
the barriers and opportunities?

4.	Which additional resources (e.g. water infrastructure investment, job creation) can
be realized to support reuse and redevelopment of remediated Superfund sites from
other sources? Specifically, resources including but not limited to:

6 I F


-------
a.	Federal, Tribal, state, and local agencies;

b.	Private sector/third party investors.

5. Does the NEJAC propose any additional issues related to the clean-up and

redevelopment of Superfund sites that are not captured in the questions above?

Does the NEJAC identify any issues related to the implementation of the SFTF Plan
and Recommendations?

Mr. Tejada asked the NEJAC for any comments before a vote to accept the charge was called.

Melissa McGee Collier mentioned that there are a lot of lessons from the clean-ups of the oil spills
on the Gulf of Mexico that would be useful as this charge is reviewed.

Charlie Chase asked if the limitations of the type of sites that will part of the charge as in federal
facility sites was still the case and we need to look at Superfund Sites that were not able to succeed
in resolving concerns raised by communities be included as part of the case studies along with the
sites that were successful.

Matthew Tejada responded that there was a statement in a previous version of the charge that
federal facility sites would not be a part of this charge. He said that is was not omitted intentionally,
but it is still the intent to not look at federal facility sites, due to the unique nature and complexities
associated with those sites. He also mentioned that after the recommendations have been
submitted on the charge, the NEJAC can go back and ask to spend additional time to look at federal
sites. He also mentioned that the in one of the charge's questions the EPA wants to hear case studies
from successful sites as well as the ones that were not successful.

Sylvia Orduno asked if there were any discussions held during the development of the charge in
relation to phase two question five about what happens to materials from the cleanup and how it is
disposed, and that the danger has been removed from the community. She also mentioned legacy
contamination as a concern.

Matthew Tejada mentioned that cleaning up a site and not shifting the burden to another
community is at the core of our work. This is something that has to be feathered throughout this
process. In response to the legacy contamination concern, Mr. Tejada mentioned that question five
is in the charge to help address these sorts of concerns that Sylvia Orduno raised. He asked the
NEJAC if they would like to additional detail to question five. Jan Fritz and Sylvia Orduno both
responded with yes.

Rita Harris mentioned that the charge seems to be through, but she is particularly interested in
question two and that in her experience, it has been critical to communicate risk and making sure
we have good fact sheets for communities. She also volunteered to be a part of the workgroup.

Suzi Ruhl mentioned that she believed that question one and two addresses the concerns that have
been raised, but it would not hurt to expand them and in addition to what has been suggested for
question five.

Sylvia Orduno mentioned that to ensure that the information mentioned is covered, it should be
reflected in the language of the charge. She also mentioned to make sure we are using terms that

7 I F


-------
communities are familiar with. She did not understand how legacy sites and disposal of
contaminated materials will be captured under question two as it relates to institutional controls
Jan Fritz asked if we could look at the timeline for phase two and she volunteered to participate on
the workgroup.

Matthew Tejada mentioned that the time line can be addressed by the workgroup and can set the
schedule in collaboration with EPA staff.

Roslyn LaPier wanted to add to question two linguistic differences. Cultural is there and
sometimes they are used interchangeably but they are different. Mr. Tejada said the change will be
made.

Sacoby Wilson mentioned that the charge makes a lot of good points, but he wanted to point out
communicating health risks, cancer clusters and health impacts and that he is not sure where these
concerns fit into the charge. We should have some case studies that focus on these concerns,
defining the role of other federal agencies in this process and engaging with communities that live
around these sites. We should also look to find out the benefits, if any, to these communities, not the
city or local government, but actual citizens that live around these sites.

Karen Sprayberry mentioned that ATSDR use to do community interviews during assessments but
is not sure if that information was shared with communities. EPA should partner with ATSDR and
work to address communicating with communities on risk and how it can be enhanced. It seems to
be that in the north if you want to redevelop a landfill and add solar it seems to work, but when you
try to implement the same type of redevelopment in the south it does not happen. It seems that
there are a lot of opinions involved. She also mentioned that she would like to see site cleanups and
redevelopment consistent across the board. We need to institute more formal processes. She also
mentioned that there are other things in the Task Force Report that she would like to see NEJAC
involvement

Mr. Tejada mentioned that Karen Sprayberry and Sacoby Wilson have raised several concerns that
he thinks the charge will cover and will be explored during workgroup discussions and will be
reflected in the final recommendations.

Mike Tilchin mentioned that in the overall charge we talk a lot about barriers, but he thinks it is
lacking in the opportunities side of the equation and that we should add some language to
questions one after the parenthesis that states and to ensure that interests and needs are
considered in redevelopment planning and implementation processes. In addition, in question two
we should add this text - considered in remediation and redevelopment decision making. Also add
in (d) and ensuring that EJ stakeholder interests and needs are considered in redevelopment
planning and implementation.

Richard Moore mentioned that all the points made are important. He mentioned that communities
are going to need technical resources to balance the table. He says that the Brownfields program
has worked hard to provide resources and he would like to see that continue.

Richard Moore called for a vote on accepting the charge. All members voted to accept the charge.

Mr. Tejada asked for volunteers for the workgroup - Jan Frits, Rita Harris, Mike Tilchin, Dewey
Youngerman, Charlie Chase, Sandra Whitehead, Kelly Wright, Karen Sprayberry and Sacoby Wilson.
Karen L. Martin will send out one more request by email.

8 I F


-------
3.0 Agriculture Worker Protection Standard and Certification of Pesticide Applicators Rule
Discussion

Jill Heaps welcomed new members that joined the call, Millicent Piazza and Virginia King and
provided some context for the letter. She mentioned that Mily Trevion-Sauceda has been a big part
of developing this letter and has the lead the charge on the NEJAC as it relates to farmworker
protection. The NEJAC has weighed in several times on this issue over the years and felt it was
important to submit this letter in response to the EPA's intent to role back parts of this regulation in
January 2019 Jill Heaps also stated that it is very timely that the NEJAC is discussing this issue right
now. Jill Heaps provided an overview of the letter and invited the NEJAC members to provide
comments.

Richard Moore thanked the workgroup for their work on this letter and called for a vote on the
letter. Before the, Jerome Shabazz had a question.

Jerome Shabazz mentioned that the terminology should be revised at the beginning of the letter to
say American farmworker to humanize the farmworkers. Jill Heaps mentioned that the word
American may be misconstrued and associated with citizenship status. Jerome Shabazz mentioned
that he did consider that but thinks that we need to make this language stronger. Cynthia Rezentes
agreed with the comments Jill Heaps shared and offered that the language read farmworkers
working in the United States. She does not want the statement to read as it is only targeted at
Americans. Kelly Wright weighed in on the conversation and mentioned that he disagreed with
using United States, since he is from a sovereign nation. This language only covers persons outside
of the reservation boundaries. Millicent Piazza mentioned to humanize this term we could include
their families or inserting people back into the phrase. It was agreed to change the language to
farmworkers and their families are vulnerable groups of people that need strong EPA rules to
protect them from pesticide exposure.

Richard Moore called for a vote on the letter. The NEJAC voted to move the letter forward.

4.0	Public Comment Period

The public comment period was opened to allow members of the public to discuss environmental
justice concerns in their communities. A total of 17 registered to provided comments and 4 people
submitted comments in writing. Each speaker was allotted three minutes to speak.

4.1	Deyadira Arellano - T.E.X.A.S

Deyadira Arellano started by pointing out the that they would like to share what has worked and
what has not worked in Houston with the Superfund Task Force Workgroup. She mentioned that
her organization is concerned about NEJAC funding, the release of NATA data, preparation and post
disaster concerns and environmental education. She mentioned that they also are having issues
with the Superfund Site Repository. They are also concerned that the EPA will decrease funding to
support the NEJAC members, youth workgroup on climate justice, other workgroups and other
efforts to adequately advise EPA. T.E.X.A.S supports the continuation of NEJAC and all NEJAC
working groups. She would like the NEJAC to continue to provide advice to the EPA and for the EPA
to continue providing funding to the NEJAC. She is also concerned about NATA data not being
updated often enough. After hurricane Harvey EPA officials did not hold public meetings in the
Houston area to address concerns. They are also concerned that environmental education is not
accessible due to the high cost of education. EPA should be able to provide basic training to the

9 I F


-------
community around the clean water act, clean air act and Texas regulations. She mentioned that if
she took a course on the clean water act at University of Texas at Arlington it would cost around
$700 and she believes these types of training should be free and accessible to NEJAC and the
communities the EPA serves.

4.2	Antoinette Stein - Environmental Health Trust

Antoinette Stein provided comments around community composting and the use of Brownfield
materials that is organic in composting. She also stated that she would like to see veteran
representation on sites. She mentioned the site in Fort Ord as a model, where veterans are working.
Sacoby Wilson mentioned that composting is a benefit to communities, but we do need to look at
the potential odor concerns for the host community. This should be discussed as we talk about
equity and benefits with the charge we just received.

4.3	Omega Wilson - West End Revitalization Association

Omega Wilson mentioned the training effort the Charles Lee, Office of Environmental Justice, is
working on pertaining to sites that have not been listed on the national priorities list These sites
are a hazard. Contractors, Superfund officials in the region and at headquarters, and state
government officials have been remised in accessing a Superfund site in his community. It has taken
several years to get the site cleaned up to this point and there needs to be a training where local
communities can educate federal and state government on what is happening in their communities.
Federal and state government has failed this community and failed to provide oversight as it relates
to civil rights, people of color and environmental hazards under NEPA. In order to get traction, they
have filed federal legal complaints to get any redress and that stills falls short There needs to be
some options in your policies for communities that are not satisfied with the outcomes to file
formal legal complaints to look at a process that is not working on the local level.

4.4	Maria Perales - Centro De los Derechos del Migrante, Inc and Alianza Nacional de
Campesinas, Inc

Marie Perales stated that she is speaking on behalf of Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc
(CDM) and as for our affiliate, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, Inc. wanted to thank you for the
opportunity to provide public comment during yesterday's call. As encouraged, attached below are
our comments in writing.

Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. (CDM), is a member of Alianza Nacional de Campesinas.
We are a binational migrant workers' rights center based in Mexico and in the U.S. dedicated to
advancing justice for migrant workers in the United States through legal representation, outreach
and education in migrant worker communities, and policy advocacy. Due to the nature of our work,
we are in constant contact with agricultural workers facing workplace rights violations across the
United States.

CDM is fully aware of the threats that pesticides pose to the health and safety of farmworkers, their
families, and their communities. We receive reports from workers with concerns about pesticide
use in their workplaces and who are suffering from acute and long-term pesticide impact Workers
and family members often suspect pesticide poisoning - in some cases, in connection with
workplace death - but do not know what chemicals were used. Many workers never report

10 I F


-------
exposure to pesticides due to fear of retaliation, lack of information, language barriers, and lack of
resources.

Every minute that the EPA stalls in fully implementing the WPS, the agency puts more workers at
further risk for pesticide exposure, illness, and even death. Workers deserve improved training and
access to materials about the toxic chemicals they handle every day. Over the past couple months,
we had the unfortunate task of responding to pesticide issues in cases of workplace illnesses and
even death.

The Agricultural Worker Protection Standard provides critical protections to millions of
farmworkers around the country. They should be fully implemented. In particular, we want to draw
focus to the following:

•	Farmworkers deserve the right to access non-confidential, non-proprietary information

about pesticides themselves or through a designated representative. Being able to
designate a representative is critical to helping farmworkers overcome language
barriers, fears of retaliation, or other obstacles that currently put them at risk.

•	Farmworkers should never be exposed to pesticides without their knowledge and without

proper protection. The Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ) is a common-sense measure
for reducing workplace accidents and protecting farmworker health.

The WPS contains common sense measures that the EPA should not hesitate to implement in full.
They contain critical measures that align health and safety protections for farmworkers with that of
other industries.

5.0 Adjournment

Richard Moore made several comments before the meeting was adjourned. Mr. Moore mentioned
that he hopes the NEJAC old and new members take very seriously the work that we do as it relates
to the charge that was just received and the comments that were provided on the call today. We
have a great staff that we are working with in the Office of Environmental Justice. With federalism,
sometimes there is a tendency to work with states, business and industry more so than with
grassroot organizations. Grassroot organizations are the most highly impacted but are often the
least represented at the table when it comes to Superfund sites or other issues. We have some
great state agencies on the NEJAC, but not all communities have great relationships with their
states. He wants the NEJAC to pay close attention to state relationships as we begin to work on the
Superfund Task Force Charge. Sometimes things move quick within this Administrations, but often
time things do not move until there is a crisis. The NEJAC wants to be proactive and come with
solutions, recommendations, and sincerity. The Superfund Task Force Workgroup needs to be sure
to look at ATSDR and the role it has played in the Superfund process historically and we need to
look at these health agencies very closely as we work on this charge. He also noted that he
understands the timeframe, but decisions will continue to be made as we work to provide
recommendations. He reminded everyone that NEJAC members are not payed and they all have
other jobs and wanted to thank them for their hard work. He also wanted to make sure that Alaska
has representation on the Superfund Task Force Workgroup. He mentioned that we are all in a
challenging time, but we need to continue to work. We have a lot of work to do and we need to
finish the recommendation letters that we have in process. Mr. Moore adjourned the call.

11 I F


-------
APPENDIX A
AGENDA

12 I F


-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
PUBLIC TELECONFERENCE MEETING
WEDNESDAY, November 28,2018
3:00 PM - 5:00 PM EASTERN TIME
AGENDA

3:00 pm - 3:10 pm WELCOME & OPENING REMARKS

o Matthew Tejada - U.S. EPA Designated Federal Official

o Richard Moore - National Environmental Justice Council Chair

o Jill Wltkowski Heaps - National Environmental Justice Council Vice-Chair

3:10 pm - 4:00 pm U.S. EPA Superfund Task Force Report Recommendation #42 Draft Charge
Discussion

o NEJAC Discussion and Deliberation

4:00 pm - 4:30 pm NEJAC August 14, 2018 Public Meeting Follow-up

o NEJAC Discussion and Deliberation of Issue Letters

4:30 pm - 5:00 pm PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ¦

Members of the public will be given three (3) minutes to present comments on
their issue or concern to the NEJAC. Members of the pubic who pre-reglstered
to give public comment will be given priority.

o Matthew Tejada - U.S. EPA Designated Federal Official

o Richard Moore - National Environmental Justice Council Chair

a Jill Witkowski Heaps - National Environmental Justice Council Vice-Chair

5:00 pm	CLOSING REMARKS & ADJOURN

13 | P a g e


-------
APPENDIX B
MEETING ATTENDEES

14 I P


-------
First Name Last Name

Organization

Allison Acevedo

PA Department of Environmental Protection

Nora Alwine

PA DEP

Jerri Anderson

Community Awareness Services, Inc.

Deyadira Arellano

Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services

Pia Ariano

Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services

April Baptiste

Colgate University

Patrick Barnes

BFA Environmental

John Beard

PA-CAN

Paola Betchart

Worker Justice Center of New York

John Brakeall

PADEP

Sue Briggum

Waste Management

James Burke

JPBurke & Associates

Carla Burns

EWG

Stephanie Caldera

Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality

Sylvia Carignan

Bloomberg Environment

Mary Carnagie

MDEQ

Charlie Chase

NEJAC

Emma Cheuse

Earthjustice

Julia Coburn

Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc.

Julie Congdon

US EPA RIO

Aaron Copado

City of Tacoma

Colin Cox

Lone Star Legal Aid

Hannah Daly

The City Project

Josh Dansdill

NE IA RC&D

Andrea Delgado

Ellen Drew

Rural Community Assistance Corporation

Hailey Duncan

Texas A&M University

Helen DuTeau

EPA

A. Edwards

EPA

David Farrer

Oregon Health Authority

Cynthia Ferguson

UD Dept of Justice / ENRD

Jan Marie Fritz

U. Cincinnati/U. Johannesburg

Mysti Frost

Beyond Toxics

Sandy Germann

US EPA

Claudia Gonzalez

The Farmworker Association of Florida

Running Grass

USEPA RIO

Rita Harris

Sierra Club

Declan Hayes

U.S. EPA

Jill Heaps

Vermont Law School

Stephanie Herron

Delaware Concerned Residents for Environmental Justice

Barry Hersh

NYU SPS Schack Institute of Real Estate

Ernesto Hidalgo

Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance

Adrienne Hollis

Hollis Environmental Consulting Services, LLC

James Holt

Confluence Environmental Center

Chandra Jackson

National Institute of Environmental Health Science

Cheryl Johnson

People for Community Recovery

15 | P a g e


-------
Lena Kim

EPA

First Name

Last Name

Organization

Marva

King

Citizen

Virginia

King

Marathon Petroleum LP

Michele

Knorr

US EPA

Kim

Lambert

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Rosalyn

LaPier

Saokio Heritage

Sarah

Lashley

Centre College

Leslie

Leahy

US EPA

Doreen

Lehner

State of Michigan

Daisy

Letendre

USEPA

Ellen

Manges

US EPA

Amelia

Marchand

Colville Confederated Tribes

Karen

Martin

U.S. EPA

Laurie

Matthews

Morgan Lewis & Bockius

Melissa

McCullough

US EPA/ORD

Melissa

McGee-Collier

MS Department of Environmental Quality

Rosa

Mendez

DEC

Marsha

Minter

US EPA

Richard

Moore

LosJardines Institute

Erin

Murphy

Environmental Defense Fund

Daria

Neal

U.S. Department of Justice

Pamela

Nixon

People Concerned About Chemical Safety

Leanne

Nurse

US EPA

Sylvia

Orduno

Michigan Welfare Rights Organization

Jeremy

Orr

Michigan NAACP

Michele

Paul

City of New Bedford, MA

Maria

Perales

Centro De los Derechos del Migrante, Inc and Alianza
Nacional de Campesinas, Inc

Devina

Phillips



Millie

Piazza

WA State Dept. of Ecology

james

potter

HUD

Thomas

Potter

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Dennis

Randolph

City of Grandview

Myra

Reece

SC DHEC

Brian

Reed

State of Idaho

David

Reynolds

Inside EPA Newsletter

Lovinia

Reynolds

Environmental Law Institute

Cynthia

Rezentes

Mohala 1 Ka Wai

Alexis

Rourk

US EPA

Virginia

Ruiz

Farmworker Justice

Marisol

Saucedo

Alianza Nacional de Campesinas

Oral

Saulters

KSU TAB

Isabel

Segarra

Earthjustice

Jerome

Shabazz

Overbrook Environmental

16 | P a g e


-------
Paul

Shoemaker

Boston Public Health Commission

Elise

Simons

EPA

Rhonda

Smith

EPA

Gevon

Solomon

EPA

Karen

Sprayberry

SC DHEC

17 I P


-------
First Name

Last Name

Organization

Antoinette

Stein

Environmental Health Trust

Elyse

Sutkus

US EPA

Lyndsay

Tarus

The Alliance for Appalachia

Steven

Taylor

Coming Clean

Michael

Tilchin

Jacobs

Tressa

Tillman

US EPA Region 6

jolin

tolos

waterprosper, inc

Gloria

Vaughn

EPA

Clifford

Villa

University of New Mexico School of Law

Brett

Walton

Circle of Blue

Kenneth

Warren

Warren Environmental Counsel LLC

Audrie

Washington

EPA/OP/OEJ

Kimi

Wei

The Wei

Sandra

Whitehead

National Environmental Health Association

Omari

Wilson

Land Loss Prevention Project

Omega

Wilson

West Revitalization Association

Sacoby

Wilson

UMD-College Park

Kelly

Wright

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Dewey

Youngerman

Huntington Ingalls Industries San Diego Shipyard

18 I F


-------
APPENDIX C
WRITTEN COMMENTS

19 I F


-------
Kristin Beatty

I was not able to attend the NEJAC meeting. I would like to point out something though.

NEPA rules are being proposed to be changed, and I can barely keep up with all the changes
proposed but I think they want to get rid of NEPA and interagency work for NEPA.

Right now, I think NEPA means that an environmental review would be required for the
FCC. I would like NEJAC to consider pushing for such a thing. The FCC is ignoring warnings
of scientists about the risks of continuing to allow wireless facilities to increase and use
new frequencies. There is so much information online you can fall on it. Dr. Joel Moskowitz
has a site called SaferEMR.com with some information, for example.

But the FCC has sold off new spectrum, or new frequencies, and is proposing to strip all
rules to prohibit cell towers for any reason. Because the FCC is so crazy, I propose requiring
a NEPA review.

I don't know how much it would help with this administration, but maybe it would serve to
delay.

Clifford Villa

Dear NEJAC:

On the NEJAC conference call today, there was a request from a community member for basic training
on environmental law. Specifically, a woman suggested that a course on fundamentals of the Clean
Water Act would cost $700. In response to this request, I am certain the NEJAC could find professors of
environmental law professors in every major city who would be willing to provide such training for
free. I know, because I'm one of them. I also specifically taught the EPA course on Superfund
fundamentals for many years and would be happy to donate my time if asked in order to provide
community training.

Sincerely,

Cliff Villa

20 I F


-------
Teresa de Lima

Affected Citizen, formerly of Fairbanks, Alaska & successful petitioner to EPA Region X in May of 2011.

Re: investigation of Aurora Energy's coal fired power plant at 1206 First Avenue in Fairbanks, Alaska in
May of 2011. Investigation results, State of Alaska's pitiful response, and lack of follow up and follow
through from state and federal entities direct my request for National Environmental Justice Authority
to address my concerns.

The Aurora Energy Power plant on First Avenue in Fairbanks, Alaska is a source point for coal emissions
and particulate fallout in a residential neighborhood. There are oftentimes fires and explosions at the
power plant. The power plant is owned by Usibelli the same folks who own the coal mine that the
power plant burns. The coal mine sells the coal to the power plant who in turn sells the power to the
electric cooperative. The electric cooperative is made up of former Usibelli people that have absolutely
no regard for the environment nor the people for which are being poisoned. The power plant produces
waste which has to be disposed of and so because nobody is looking at what they do in Alaska, the
power plant fellas hire a sole proprietor to come grab the hot ash and go dump it on property owned by
the fellas at the electric cooperative in order to improve the land by building it up. All the while,
parading hot coal ash through the city to go dump it on unlined permafrost to dispose of it under the
guise of beneficial land use. It is utter insanity. I can show you medical records of my parents who lived
in a house not 450 feet away. It is my firm belief that their lives were dramatically shortened and made
less qualitative due to the actions of the Usibelli Aurora Energy coal fired power plant in Fairbanks,
Alaska. The State of Alaska wrote a 7-page draft letter regards to the lead results that showed up in the
testing which was laughable. I believe the State of Alaska is complicit in this travesty. I believe the EPA
should get their poop in a group and open their eyes and do something that makes sense for the people
of Fairbanks. Implement cutting edge cold weather testing for heat and electric production from other
countries. There is a fantastic opportunity to improve lives and stop polluting both the water table and
the air being breathed in Fairbanks. Thank you for the work that you are doing.

Fairbanks resident Teresa de Lima holds a poster showing where samples were taken
as part of an E.P.A. coal ash investigation,

CREDIT DAN BROSS / KUAC

21 | P a g e


-------
Maria Perales Sanchez

Dear National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Members,

My name is Maria Perales Sanchez, and I'm writing on behalf of Centra de los Derechos del Migrante,
Inc (CDM). The organization, as well as our affiliate, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, Inc. wanted to
thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment during yesterday's call. As encouraged, attached
below are our comments in writing.

Centra de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. (CDM), is a member of Alianza Nacional de
Campesinas. We are a binational migrant workers' rights center based in Mexico and in the U.S.
dedicated to advancing justice for migrant workers in the United States through legal representation,
outreach and education in migrant worker communities, and policy advocacy. Due to the nature of our
work, we are in constant contact with agricultural workers facing workplace rights violations across the
United States.

CDM is fully aware of the threats that pesticides pose to the health and safety of farmworkers,
their families, and their communities. We receive reports from workers with concerns about pesticide use
in their workplaces and who are suffering from acute and long-term pesticide impact. Workers and family
members often suspect pesticide poisoning - in some cases, in connection with workplace death - but do
not know what chemicals were used. Many workers never report exposure to pesticides due to fear of
retaliation, lack of information, language barriers, and lack of resources.

Every minute that the EPA stalls in fully implementing the WPS, the agency puts more workers
at further risk for pesticide exposure, illness, and even death. Workers deserve improved training and
access to materials about the toxic chemicals they handle every day. Over the past couple months, we had
the unfortunate task of responding to pesticide issues in cases of workplace illnesses and even death.

The Agricultural Worker Protection Standard provides critical protections to millions of
farmworkers around the country. They should be fully implemented. In particular, we want to draw focus
to the following:

•	Farmworkers deserve the right to access non-confidential, non-proprietary information about

pesticides themselves or through a designated representative. Being able to designate a
representative is critical to helping farmworkers overcome language barriers, fears of
retaliation, or other obstacles that currently put them at risk.

•	Farmworkers should never be exposed to pesticides without their knowledge and without proper

protection. The Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ) is a common-sense measure for reducing
workplace accidents and protecting farmworker health.

The WPS contains common sense measures that the EPA should not hesitate to implement in full. They
contain critical measures that align health and safety protections for farmworkers with that of other
industries.

Best regards,

Mari Perales Sanchez, Polity Fellow
Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc.

22 I F


-------