Please note that this compilation of public comments only contains comments relevant to EJ 2020. Emails that were sent in
to ejstrategy@epa.gov that did not pertain to the EJ 2020 framework were not included in this document. Due to size
considerations, this document does not included background information or other attachments that were attached to the
original submissions. It does not contain each individual submission when multiple comments were submitted that
contained the same language from different people or organizations. Personal information has been redacted from
submissions that are from individuals not representing larger organizations.
-------
e of Contents:
About this Document 1
Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework 2
Public Comments Received
Air Alliance Houston 7
Alexander Kidd 15
Alliance for Metropolitan Stability 17
Amanda St. Martin 19
American Rivers 20
Arnold Wendroff 22
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 24
BFA Environmental 26
Bob Wenzlau 27
Business Network for Environmental Justice 29
Carlton Ginny 34
City of Baltimore, Department of Public Works 35
City of Grandview, Public Works Department 37
City of Phoenix, Office of Environmental Programs 44
The City Project 45
Corporate Environmental Enforcement Council, Inc. 58
Detroit Sierra Club 62
David Konisky (Georgetown University) & Cristopher Reenock (Florida State University) 63
District of Columbia Department of the Environment 66
Earth Justice & Other Organizations 68
Elizabeth Mooney 111
The Environmental Council of the States 113
Environmental Defense Fund 118
Environmental Health Watch 122
Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change 123
Environmental Law & Policy Clinic, Duke University 129
-------
The Farmworker Association of Florida 136
Farmworker Justice 145
Faulkner County Citizens Advisory Group 152
First Peoples Conservation Council of Louisiana 154
Gage Blasi 155
Guillermo Leon 157
Hilary Kramer 158
Housing Land Advocates 159
Human Rights Defense Center & Other Organizations 161
Joe James 176
Joe Salata 177
John Ray 178
Labadie Environmental Organization 180
Lylianna Allala 181
Marvin Robinson 182
Maryland, Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities 183
Maryland - Group Comments 184
Melvin Lusterio 198
Midwest Environmental Advocates 199
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 202
Moving Forward Network 203
Multiple Stakeholders - Email on Prisons 211
National Association of County & City Health Officials 212
National Association of Clean Water Agencies 214
National Tribal Air Association 217
Neighbors for Clean Air 223
New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance 225
New Mexico Environmental Law Center 233
New Partners for Community Revitalization 241
New York City, Law Department 243
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 246
-------
North Carolina Environmental Justice Network 248
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 251
Palm Beach Quakers 254
Pender Watch & Conservancy 255
Public Employee for Environmental Responsibility 259
Public Laboratory for Open Technology and Science 266
Rebecca Gallogly 268
Robert Collin 272
San Juan Bay Estuary Program 274
Sierra Club 278
Sierra Club - Group Comments 323
South Texas Colonia Initiative, Inc. 325
Southeastern North Carolina Environmental Justice Coalition 327
Spectra Energy Corp 331
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 335
Tennessee Interfaith Power & Light 338
Terrence Gilchrist 339
Texas Pipeline Association 345
Tony Arnold (University of Louisville Law School) 349
Union of Concerned Scientist 352
U.S. Representative Kathy Castor 356
University of California, Berkeley (Amy Kyle) 361
UCLA, Luskin Center for Innovation 364
Vannessa Frazier 366
Washington State Department of Ecology 368
West End Revitalization Association 370
William Geary 373
-------
About this Document
EPA is pleased to release the public comments we received on the draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda
framework. This draft framework is intended to be EPA's next overarching strategic plan for
environmental justice. The work that will be done under this Action Agenda will help EPA
advance environmental justice through our programs, policies and activities, and will support
our cross-agency strategy on making a visible difference in environmentally overburdened,
underserved, and economically distressed communities.
EPA received over 600 comments that addressed a wide range of important issues in
communities. We are reviewing the comments and working with colleagues from across our
programs and regional offices to evaluate and consider them as we develop the detailed action
plan.
We will be developing a specific and detailed EJ 2020 Action Agenda based on the public
comments and other input. Two clarifying points about our next steps:
1. The draft EJ 2020 framework is an outline of the topics that we plan to include in the
Action Agenda, comparable to a table of contents. The details and specifics of these
topics within the framework will be developed in the coming months. Several
commenters noted that the action agenda itself will need to include details and
specifics; we agree. The draft framework was intended to seek comment on the outline,
understanding that much more work will be done to focus attention and assure that we
can be held accountable for progress. The EJ 2020 Action Agenda will include this
important information.
2. The EJ 2020 Action Agenda will set priorities and focus high level attention on a
limited number of important work areas that are vital to the communities we serve.
The EJ 2020 Action Agenda is not a comprehensive list of all of EPA's environmental
justice activities. The agency will continue to address environmental justice
implementation in all of EPA's national programs, regional work, and other efforts, in
addition to the priority areas for attention under EJ 2020 Action Agenda.
Engaging the public is a critical way EPA uses its limited public resources to tackle the issues
that matter most to communities. Through the comments, we're learning about important
areas that require our additional attention in the EJ 2020 Action Agenda, and others that need
to be strengthened. The robust public comments we received will help inform EPA's work in
environmental justice in the coming months and years.
We look forward to a continued dialogue with the public to ensure that the EJ 2020 Action
Agenda results in meaningful and measurable improvements in American communities.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
1
-------
Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
June 15, 2015
Introduction
EPA is seeking input on the draft framework for the EJ 2020 Action Agenda (EJ 2020). EJ 2020 will help
EPA advance environmental justice through its programs, policies and activities, and will support our
cross-agency strategy on making a visible difference in environmentally overburdened, underserved,
and economically distressed communities. Strengthening our collaborations with the communities we
serve, our governmental partners and all other interested stakeholders will be key to achieving
meaningful outcomes in these communities.
EJ 2020 will build on the foundation established by EPA's Plan EJ 2014, as well as decades of robust
environmental justice practice by the agency, communities and our partners, and expand that work
through commitments that will continue over the next five years. As we work to get input and finalize EJ
2020, we will continue to implement environmental justice priorities across our programs. Our priorities
for 2015 are also described in this document.
Under Plan EJ 2014, EPA laid a foundation for integrating environmental justice in all its programs,
including rulewriting, permitting, enforcement, science and law. Over the last four years, we have
passed many significant milestones of building environmental justice into the agency's regulatory
practice, including guidance for rulewriters, enhanced public participation for EPA-issued permits,
building environmental justice into our enforcement targeting and resolution of enforcement cases,
EJSCREEN, EJ Legal Tools, and many others. We have also revitalized environmental justice across the
federal family, assembled promising practices from our rich history of working with communities, and
initiated the development of a cross-cutting Environmental Justice Research Roadmap. For more
details, see: www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/plan-ei/.
We have made progress on environmental justice, but there is much more to do. Having completed
much of the foundational work that we committed to in Plan EJ 2014, we need to define a new set of
ambitious goals for environmental justice for the coming years. This draft framework for EJ 2020
delineates our thinking about the current efforts that require continued and focused attention, and
what additional challenges we should undertake. We hope to have a robust dialogue with the
communities we serve, our governmental partners and all other interested stakeholders on whether this
framework addresses the most important work. This is just a draft; all comments and suggestions to
inform and shape EPA's environmental justice action agenda are invited and encouraged.
The EJ 2020 Open Public Comment Period began on April 15, 2015 and has been extended to July 14,
2015. We will be reaching out to many groups and communities for input during that time. If you wish
more information about or desire to participate in information and dialogue sessions with EPA, please
contact Charles Lee, Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice,
lee.charlesgepa.gov (202-564-2597), or your Regional or Program Point of Contact (see list on Page 5).
For more information, please see: www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/ei2020/. Written comments are
welcome. Please submit them electronically to: eistrategygepa.gov, or hard copy to:
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEPA, Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EJ 2020 Public Comments
2
-------
Draft EJ 2020 Framework
EPA's environmental justice efforts seek to protect the health and environment of overburdened
communities, support them to take action to improve their own health and environment, and build
partnerships to achieve community health and sustainability.
Through EJ 2020, we will emphasize, over the next five years, making a visible difference in
overburdened communities. Our goals are to:
I. Deepen environmental justice practice within EPA programs to improve the health and environment
of overburdened communities;
II. Collaborate with partners to expand our impact within overburdened communities; and
III. Demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened communities.
I. Deepen environmental justice practice within EPA programs to improve the health and
environment of overburdened communities
A. Incorporate environmental justice in rulemaking
• Finalize guidance on considering environmental justice in rulemaking
• Promote EPA's effective use of guidance, through robust implementation, outreach and
tracking
B. Consider environmental justice in EPA permitting
• Continue to implement regional plans for enhanced public participation
• Test and evaluate framework and analytic tools for building environmental justice into EPA
permitting, and make this part of our engagement with states and other co-regulators
C. Advance environmental justice through compliance and enforcement
• Continue to advance environmental justice goals comprehensively through targeting, case
development, and resolution of compliance and enforcement actions in overburdened
communities
• Consider impacts on overburdened communities in developing injunctive relief, mitigation,
and Supplemental Environmental Project options in enforcement settlements
• Enhance communication and transparency with affected communities and the public
regarding environmental justice concerns related to compliance and enforcement actions
D. Enhance science tools for considering environmental justice in decision-making
• Develop and implement cross-cutting Environmental Justice Research Roadmap, engaging
communities, states and other stakeholders in the process
• Advance research on cumulative risks and impacts
• Foster Next Generation environmental monitoring, community-based participatory research
and citizen science
EPA will incorporate EJ Legal Tools, EJSCREEN, promising community-based practices and other
environmental justice tools as part of new and ongoing program work.
II. Collaborate with partners to expand our impact within overburdened communities
A. Collaborate with states, tribes, local governments and other co-regulators to share and develop
environmental justice tools and practices
• Collaborate on tools and mechanisms, such as EJSCREEN and E-Enterprise, we can use
together to advance environmental justice
EJ 2020 Public Comments
3
-------
• Mutually identify opportunities for public participation, training and collaborative problem-
solving
• Engage in joint learning and sharing with states, tribes and stakeholders on environmental
justice and permitting tools and approaches, including work with permit applicants
• Foster sharing of promising practices among states, tribes and local governments
• Work with states, tribes, local governments and other co-regulators to promote
consideration of environmental justice in our collective decision-making
B. Work with other federal agencies to advance environmental justice through the Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice
• Promote collaboration across federal agencies to support community-based efforts
• Foster use of tools such as EJSCREEN and continued progress in areas such as the National
Environmental Policy Act
• Leverage federal resources to support community-based efforts, in collaboration with
community organizations and other partners such as local business and industry
C. Support transformative efforts in communities to advance environmental justice through EPA's
Community Resources Network
• Support community-driven efforts to identify and address environmental challenges with
comprehensive roadmap approaches for development and capacity-building
• Promote holistic strategies that meet communities where they are and help them to achieve
health, sustainability, economic opportunity, revitalization and resilience
• Foster multi-stakeholder, community-based, public-private partnerships (including local
government, business and industry, academia, faith groups, youth, and others) for general
and location specific engagement
• Utilize community-based efforts to engage business and industry to promote sustainable
practices beneficial to both business and communities
III. Demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened communities
A. Continue to use measures that ensure EPA accountability and demonstrate outcomes in
communities as a central part of EJ 2020, and incorporate such measures throughout the action
plan
B. Show positive impacts of our work through community-level results, such as revitalization and
sustainability, partnerships and collaborative problem-solving, and grassroots capacity-building
C. In addition to measuring outcomes in particular communities, invite comment on whether there
are a few critical nationwide program areas that matter to overburdened communities on which
we should focus national attention (e.g., drinking water, lead paint)
D. Develop indicators of progress through collaborative processes with communities, states, tribes
and other stakeholder partners
IV. Related efforts
A. Promoting climate adaptation and resilience and greenhouse gas reduction co-benefits will be
an important part of the EJ 2020 Action Agenda
B. EPA will advance its program relative to the implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
through a comprehensive, long-term Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Strategic Plan, which OCR is
currently developing
EJ 2020 Public Comments
4
-------
Plan EJ 2014 Commitments/Accomplishments (June 2015)
Element Major Commitments/Accomplishments Status
Incorporate EJ in
Finalize Guidance on Considering EJ During the Development of a
Complete
Rulemaking
Regulatory Action
Issue Draft EJ Technical Guidance for Assessing EJ in Regulatory Analysis for
Complete
Public Comment/Science Advisory Board Review
Finalize Technical Guidance for Assessing EJ in Regulatory Analysis
2015
Develop EJ and Rulemaking Cross-Agency Team work products
Complete
Consider EJ in Permitting
Institute Regional Implementation Plans for enhanced community
engagement
Complete
Implement Regional Implementation Plans
Ongoing
Issue recommended practices on community engagement for EPA permit
Complete
applicants
Develop draft framework and tools for EJ analysis for EPA permits for
Complete
internal review
Test, finalize and implement guidelines for EJ analysis for EPA permits
2015-17
Advance EJ through
Issue multiple guidances and policies on considering EJ in enforcement life-
Complete
Compliance and
cycle
Enforcement
Issue guidance requiring EJ review for all initiated enforcement cases,
tracking cases in 1 CIS database and transitioning to EJSCREEN
Complete
Incorporate ACS measure for EJ in OECA FY 2014 NPM Guidance
Complete
Achieve and communicate results benefiting overburdened communities
Ongoing
Support Community-
Implement Community KPI; lessons inform current priority on communities
Complete
Based Programs
Identify promising community-based practices
Complete
Develop land use and equitable development resources
Complete
Foster Administration-
Reconvene Interagency Working Group on EJ (IWG) at cabinet level
Complete
Wide Action
Conduct White House Forum and community listening sessions
Complete
Issue Memorandum of Understanding on EO 12898 and IWG codifying
Complete
structured and focus areas, signed by IWG secretaries
Develop draft NEPA analytic methodologies
Complete
Science Tools
Develop assessment and mapping tools, including C-FERST/T-FERST
2015
Implement community cumulative assessment grants and Centers of
Complete
Excellence in Health Disparities
Convene NEJAC research workgroup; respond to recommendations by
Complete/
initiating development of cross-cutting EJ Research Roadmap
Ongoing
Legal Tools
Issue EJ Legal Tools document
Complete
Information Tools
Develop EJSCREEN VI.0 for internal use
Complete
Issue public version of EJSCREEN
Complete
Resources Tools
Establish one-stop "Resources for Communities" web portal
Complete
Develop technical assistance contract (TASC) and training enhancements
Complete
Tribal Policy
Issue EPA Policy on EJ for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and
Indigenous Peoples
Complete
Training
Complete mandatory EJ training for all employees
Complete
EJ 2020 Public Comments
5
-------
Priorities in 2015
• Continue to implement environmental justice in rulemaking - finalize guidance and continue to
implement
Continue to advance environmental justice in permitting
Continue to implement environmental justice in enforcement - consider environmental justice in all
our cases, including consideration of impacts on communities in developing injunctive relief,
mitigation and Supplemental Environmental Project options in enforcement settlements
Robustly advance environmental justice through the Agency's priority on Making a Visible Difference
in Communities
Complete public release of EJSCREEN and begin stakeholder engagement around potential uses and
future development
Implement Environmental Justice Small Grants and Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-
Solving Cooperative Agreement programs
Continue to lead the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice; hold cabinet-level
meeting
Implement Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and
Indigenous Peoples
Further efforts to make equitable development an integral part of EPA's Smart Growth, Brownfields,
and climate adaption and resilience efforts
Conduct community resources and training workshop
Include measurable activities to advance environmental justice in National Program Managers
guidance being developed for the next two years
EPA Points of Contact for EJ 2020
ce of Environmental Just Minter, minter.marsha@epa.gov
EJ 2020 Public Comments
6
-------
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice USEPA,
Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Via email to ejstrategy@epa.gov.
Re: Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, Comments by Air Alliance Houston
Dear Mr. Lee:
Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework and
for EPA's engagement with Air Alliance Houston and others over the last few months. We appreciate the
effort and the opportunity.
In addition to these comments, Air Alliance Houston endorses comments made by Earthjustice and
assented to by many of our peer organizations across the nation. These comments are the result of
superior work by our colleagues and are deserving of significant weight and attention.
I. Deepening environmental justice practice within EPA
A. Rulemaking
There are several barriers to community participation in rulemaking. These include:
Inadequate notice
Limited opportunities and routes for public participation
Lack of technical knowledge
Limited access to experts
Cost of travel, lost work time, etc.
Public participation in the recent Refinery Rule, with its thousands of comments and hearings in Galena
Park, TX and Wilmington, CA, is the EPA's best and most recent example of strong public participation in
rulemaking.
The public hearings in particular were very useful. They were held in prominent EJ communities and
garnered significant attention from the public, the media, and EPA rule writers. Face to face
communication with fenceline community residents provides the best and most immediate opportunity
EJ > 3914 Leeia-'ic! Street. Houston. Texas 77003 > > www.airaliiancehousto«7
-------
for public participation. This is particularly true of citizens who do not have the luxury of participating for
months or years in every step of a protracted rulemaking process.
Success in public participation should be measured not by number of comments, written or oral, but by
changes made to a proposed rule in response to public comment. Although the Refinery Rule was the
subject of a robust public participation process, we will wait to see the final rule to decide whether it
was an effective process.
EPA should endeavor to engage communities in every step of the rulemaking process. Public
participation should begin even before a draft rule is proposed. In the Refinery Rule, the proposed rule
was taken as a starting point for public participation, and success will be measured on changes—positive
or negative—to the proposed rule. If public involvement had begun sooner, we might have started with
a proposal that was more responsive to community concerns.
It should be said that one of the reasons the refinery rule hearings were a success was that the rule is a
major one that will have a big impact on air pollution and public health. National organizations such as
Earthjustice were deeply involved in the public participation process, assisting local organizations like Air
Alliance Houston and Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services by organizing planning calls,
producing fact sheets, and arranging travel. We were fortunate to have the assistance of these groups
for this rule, but not every rulemaking will be as significant and garner as much national attention.
B. Permitting
Texas likely presents EPA's biggest challenge in ensuring compliance with federal permitting
requirements. Texas has more permitted facilities than almost any other state. Texas has also openly
defied EPA on many rules, from the greenhouse gas permitting to the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule.
The sheer number of facilities in Texas means that EPA is likely missing many facilities that are skirting
federal law. Flexible permits are also being used in Texas to conduct major modifications without federal
permit review. One way for EPA to promote environmental justice in Texas is to ensure that all facilities
are obtaining federally required permits and conducting appropriate Title V reviews before undertaking
modifications.
The Contested Case Hearing (CCH) process in Texas has historically provided citizens with a useful
mechanism to challenge state permits. The few permits that go through a CCH each year are improved
and receive more public support. But this process is being systematically weakened by state lawmakers.
As Texas erodes opportunities for public participation in permitting, EPA must compensate.
As with rulemaking, lack of public notice and limited resources limit opportunities for meaningful public
participation in the permitting process. EPA should provide resources to aid EJ communities in
participation, by for example providing free access to experts such as lawyers, modelers, and
toxicologists. Finally, EPA has an incredible resource in the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC). EPA should give strong consideration to the NEJAC's recommendations on
incorporating EJ in permitting.1 We concur with their recommendations, particularly as follows:
1 Available at http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/publications/nejac/2013-ej-in-permitting.pdf
Clean A>', Healthy f-utire > 3914 Leeland Sl'eet. Houston. lexas 77003 > 713.528.3779 »
EJ 2020 Public Comments
-------
• EPA should provide guidance to permit applicants as to what the applicant should do to support
full community engagement in review procedures.
• EPA needs to educate community members and organization leaders on the effect of EPA policy
on local decisions, and help community members develop the capacity to engage the federal
environmental policy effort.
• EPA regions should take the initiative to schedule public meetings with the community to
enhance their knowledge of the proposed activity.
• EPA should clarify specific roles for states and tribes relative to EPA's permitting.
• EPA, in collaboration with the permit applicant, should actively listen to and learn from the
community about past pollution, rather than insisting past pollution is out of the new permit's
scope.
• EPA should provide inducements and/or incentives to states to adopt any program which
enhances the ability of communities to be involved with permit actions in their communities.
C. Compliance and Enforcement
Again, because of the sheer size of Texas and its industry, compliance and enforcement presents a
greater challenge to EPA here than perhaps any other state.
Very few polluting facilities in Texas receive any penalty for their violations. State enforcement actions
often resolve years of violations with "sweetheart deals" that provide no incentive for future
compliance. In a recent example, the Sierra Club and Environment Texas calculated a potential penalty
of $641 million for eight years of Clean Air Act violations at the ExxonMobil facility in Baytown. The
district court judge in that case found that TCEQ penalties of only a few tens of thousands of dollars had
resolved these violations. When billion dollar companies receive fines in the tens or hundreds of
thousands of dollars for years of violations, there is no economic incentive not to pollute. Enforcement
should be used to create that incentive.
Texas has a sophisticated system of electronic reporting of violations known as STEERS, the State of
Texas Environmental Electronic Reporting System.2 Anyone can search STEERS and find unenforced
violations from just about any facility in the state. This is a powerful tool that enables such things as
Clean Air Act citizen suits. Other states should follow Texas' model to make emissions information
publicly accessible in a timely manner.
In Texas, STEERS serves as a stark reminder of how often violations of the law go unenforced. No one
wants the federal government to step in and become the chief regulatory authority in Texas, but it is
hard to see how local authorities are ever going to provide enforcement that is adequate to deter
companies from making an economic decision to pollute. These decisions are easier to make in
environmental justice communities that put up little to no resistance to illegal activity by industry.
D. Enhance science tools
2 Available at http://wwwll.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/index.cfm.
Clean A>', Healthy f-utire > 3914 Leeland Sl'eet. Houston. lexas 77003 > 713.528.3779 »
EJ 2020 Public Comments
-------
For years EPA has vocally promoted community based participatory research (CBPR) and citizen science.
But EPA has not provided a clear path for consideration of citizen-gathered data. Quite the opposite:
EPA has ignored citizen data on many occasions.
Air Alliance Houston has conducted a number of citizen science projects in the last few years. We
completed a two-year CBPR project in Galena Park, Texas that included collection of 29 samples of fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) using a MiniVol Tactical Air Sampler. One aim of the project was to
determine whether the Clinton Drive PM2.5 regulatory monitoring site was representative of PM2.5
levels throughout the community. Data collected showed an average PM2.5 concentration over 15
Hg/m3, well over the design value of 12.0 ng/m3.3 In comments to the PM2.5 designation request, we
objected to the use to exceptional events to keep Clinton Drive below the design value and raised a
serious question whether the Clinton Drive monitor was representative of community exposure, using
our CBPR data as evidence.4 The response from EPA was as curt as it was dismissive:
With regard to whether the data collected by Air Alliance Houston indicates a violation, Region 6
evaluated the monitoring data submitted by the commenter. Approximately 29 discrete samples
were collected in the Galena Park community over a 16-month period from May 2012 through
September 2013, thus the data is limited in scope compared to the data collected by regulatory
monitors over a 3-year period and subject to data completion criteria. Additionally, these data
were also not monitored and collected according to the requirements of the federal reference
method for PM2.5 found in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix L. Our designations must be based on valid
3-year design values, and even if the monitoring data submitted by the commenters fully
complied with the siting and data quality criteria, there are not sufficient data on which to
derive a valid, 3-year design value.
Therefore, these data do not affect our decision to designate the area as
Unclassifiable/Attainment.5
This comment suggests that only federal reference method data will be considered by EPA in the
designation process. However, there are many steps EPA could have taken short of designating the area
based on Air Alliance Houston data. EPA could have added a regulatory monitor in Galena Park, or
moved the Clinton Drive monitor to a new location. EPA's failure to react to this data at all is truly
discouraging for an organization committed to community based participatory research.
Air Alliance Houston is also exploring technologies such as new data visualizations,6 personal air
monitors, and next generation monitoring technology. These technologies are moving quickly, and
regulators are not keeping pace. There is no clear route to submit data to federal regulators. A tiered
system of data submission should be created to accept all data and give it the weight it deserves. This
tiered system would align with the EPA's goal of integrating EJ into the EPA's Research Enterprise and
potentially the EPA Office of Research and Development's Health Disparity investigation.
At the most recent Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) meeting, we were told that EPA would
essentially like to rate all of the available monitoring equipment and create a library of techniques that
3 See http://airalliancehouston.Org//wp-content/uploads/Galena-Park-Monitoring-Report-FINAL.pdf, pdf p. 17.
4 Comments by Air Alliance Houston, et al., EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0918-0295 (Sept. 29, 2014), p. 4.
5 Response to Comments, EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0918-0337 (Dec. 17, 2014), p. 56-57.
6 See houstoncleanairnetwork.com.
Clean A>', Healthy f-utire > 3914 Leeland Sl'eet. Houston. lexas 77003 > 713.528.3779 »
EJ 2020 Public Comments
org
10
-------
citizens can use. This will be a good step, but a rating system or library created through a formal process
will always lag behind the technology by several years. From our perspective, we need a standardized
submission process that accepts data of any kind, evaluates it, and affords it the weight it deserves. The
CBPR process would be more empowering for communities if there were a clear endpoint such as a
formal submission to and response from EPA.
The data we collect with tedlar bags and AirBeams will never be given equal footing with FRM data, nor
should it. Most communities would be satisfied if their research was considered as a factor in decisions
about where resources are needed. Data could influence decisions about which facilities to monitor for
enforcement and compliance, where to give community grants, and where to apply federal monitoring
resources. There are already examples of this happening organically. In Louisiana, for example, the
iWitness pollution map7 is reviewed weekly by state regulatory officials. Pollution reports made by
citizens via the iWitness map are factored into decisions about compliance and enforcement efforts.
There is a great deal of anxiety from the regulated community about how citizens will make use of
better tools and more data. The discussion about EJSCREEN at the most recent CAAAC meeting was an
example of this. CAAAC representatives from industry were very concerned that citizens would misuse
data from EJSCREEN. Other examples come from Texas. Our state agency the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality does not agree that citizens deserve unfettered access to information about air
pollution. This is why the TCEQ refused to participate in the Village Green monitoring program, and it is
why they have refused to publicly acknowledge the existence of houstoncleanairnetwork.com.
We simply cannot understand this fear. The idea that citizens would deliberately misuse data is, frankly,
offensive to us. There is an absurd asymmetry of resource and data access between industry and
citizens. In Houston, the industry group Houston Regional Monitoring maintains its own robust private
monitoring network that is not accessible to the public. Citizens who complain about lack of access to
information are brushed aside. Citizens who present data they have gathered themselves are dismissed
or derided for their efforts. That data exists and is not accessible to the public is a huge environmental
injustice. This is the information age, and every attempt should be made to provide as much information
as possible to anyone who can make use of it. This is the direction the world is moving, and it is
important that regulators move with it.
II. Collaborate with Partners
A. Collaborate with states, tribes, local governments
Texas has sued the EPA 21 times since President Obama took office. This adversarial relationship is likely
to continue, and the best example we have of the state/federal relationship bearing fruit in Texas comes
from the recent spat over greenhouse gas permitting.
After our previous governor declared that Texas would never issue greenhouse gas permits, EPA
implemented a FIP and started issuing the permits itself. Neither EPA nor Texas wanted to promulgate a
FIP, but EPA was forced by Texas' inaction. Once EPA started issuing GHG permits, state lawmakers
passed a law compelling the TCEQ to create a GHG permitting process. This shows that Texas will step
forward if the alternative is regulation by EPA. Although we would prefer that Texas not act only under
the threat of EPA action, if that threat is effective, it should be used when necessary.
7 Avilable at http://map.labucketbrigade.org/.
Clean A>', Healthy f-utire > 3914 Leeland Sl'eet. Houston. lexas 77003 > 713.528.3779 »
EJ 2020 Public Comments
org
11
-------
Most states do not have dedicated environmental justice staff people. TCEQ dedicates one quarter of
one full time employee to environmental justice (which it calls "environmental equity"). Personally, we
have not seen that employee at any environmental justice event hosted by EPA. Our research indicates
that many states do not have a dedicated EJ representative or staff, including Arkansas, Kansas,
Louisiana, and Oklahoma. Some other states including California, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, and
New York do have EJ staff and offices. EPA should encourage states that do not have EJ offices and staff
to create them.
In Region 6, the EJ training sessions held in each state have proven incredibly valuable. Air Alliance
Houston staff has attended all of the Region 6 EJ training sessions held under Regional Administrator
Ron Curry, including in Albuquerque, NM; New Orleans, LA; Houston, TX; and Little Rock, AR. The impact
of these trainings cannot be overstated. They provide EJ activists and EJ community members with the
opportunity to engage EPA officials in person. (Most trainings have not included state-level
representatives, with the exception of Arkansas DEQ, likely for the reason cited above—lack of EJ staff.)
These sessions allow the EJ community to better understand the agency's inner processes,
requirements, and limitations. In addition, grassroots organizations and EJ community leaders from all
over the region are able to share insights, resources, and collaborate on a greater scale and scope. This
adds substantial leverage to the Region 6 EPA office when addressing region-wide priorities. Air Alliance
Houston strongly recommends that these EJ trainings continue and that the other Regions have them as
well.
It is our understanding that Region 6 intends to develop a state EJ plan for each state. We support this
goal and urge EPA to engage community members early in the process.
B. Work with other federal agencies
It is important that the principles of environmental justice are followed by all federal agencies, not just
the EPA. Last year, we experienced a successful interagency action in the Chemical Safety and Security
Working Group. That group held listening sessions in Texas City, TX and Houston that included
representatives from EPA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, the Coast Guard, and others.
Chemical safety and security, like EJ, is an issue whose breadth and depth demand cross-agency
cooperation. Although we have not seen the recommendations of the working group or any follow up
action, we are eager to see what the group produces. Other agencies that we would expect to be
involved in EJ work include the Department of Justice, the Department of Transportation, the Federal
Railroad Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security.
EJ communities also need assistance with finding and taking advantage of federal resources. We are
aware of a few programs within EPA, including the EJ Small Grant, the Collaborative Problem Solving
grant, and the Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities program. Most EJ community members
probably do not know about these opportunities or have any idea where to begin to take advantage of
them. There are also probably many other potential resources within other federal agencies that we do
not know about. EPA should create a single resource for communities to learn about all available
opportunities and provide assistance with application and administration.
Clean A>', Healthy f-utire > 3914 Leeland Sl'eet. Houston. lexas 77003 > 713.528.3779 »
EJ 2020 Public Comments
org
12
-------
There is a perception on the Texas Gulf Coast that our communities are underrepresented in federal
resource allocation. Whether or not this is true, it is a perception that discourages communities on the
third coast from pursuing federal funding. In Region 6, regional conferences or calls always include
participants who know little or nothing about EPA or other federal grants or assistance programs.
Federal authorities and EJ leaders should work together to apply federal resources where they are
needed and provide equal opportunity for all communities. If EJ leaders know about these opportunities
and bring them to their communities, then regional EJ discussions would be more productive.
III. Outcomes that matter to overburdened communities
Similar to rulemaking and permitting, there are barriers to enlisting overburdened communities in
identifying "outcomes that matter." Communities lack the resources and expertise to evaluate all
potential risks and prioritize certain outcomes. EPA should not decide for communities what "matters,"
but EPA should equip citizens with the tools that they need to adequately assess various outcomes and
make an informed decision about which ones really matter. Our hope is that tools like EJSCREEN will
take us in this direction.
Public involvement early and often in this process will be important. Once certain priority outcomes are
identified, measuring impacts and holding EPA accountable to its commitments will go a long way
toward legitimizing EPA's role in EJ communities. But again, the years that such commitments take to
see through will limit the involvement of many community members.
The goal of identifying "a few critical nationwide program areas that matter to overburdened
communities" may be problematic if it is taken as an invitation to score only a few high-profile victories.
There certainly are a few issues that are shared concerns across the nation, including chemical safety
and security, hazardous chemicals used in industrial processes and found in consumer products, and
goods movement. Issues like these are clearly of nationwide importance, as they are all already the
subject of ongoing nationwide advocacy campaigns
IV. Related efforts
Environmental justice is a civil rights issue and should be addressed as such. There have been attempts
by citizens to address environmental justice through lawsuits brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act. They have not been successful to date. We would like to see EPA further the goal of addressing
environmental justice as the civil rights issue that it is.
V. Conclusion
As is typical for Air Alliance Houston, we encourage EPA to think about the impact, or lack thereof, of
these policies and proposals in Texas. The EPA's proposed EJ framework is ambitious, but we have
serious concerns about how much of it will proceed in Texas. Texas is "Open for business" and the TCEQ,
the Texas legislature, and the governor consistently place business interests above public health. Our
state has bought in to the false choice between environment and the economy and has enthusiastically
chosen the economy.
We believe the viability, sustainability, and ultimate success of the proposed framework must clarify the
roles of EPA national leadership, EPA regional offices, and state environmental agencies. The sooner the
Clean A>', Healthy f-utire > 3914 Leeland Sl'eet. Houston. lexas 77003 > 713.528.3779 »
EJ 2020 Public Comments
org
13
-------
EPA establishes the guidance, tools, and executive-level support, the sooner states will be able to
observe, learn, support, coordinate, follow, and integrate EJ in their daily activities.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit comments. If you have questions or wish to discuss
anything further, please don't hesitate to contact Adrian Shelley at 713-528-3779 x2,
adrian(a)airalliancehouston.org or Brian Butler at 713-528-3779 xl, brianffiairalliancehouston.org.
Sincerely,
Adrian Shelley
Executive Director
Air Alliance Houston
Clean A>', Healthy f-utire > 3914 Leeland Sl'eet. Houston. lexas 77003 > 713.528.3779 »
EJ 2020 Public Comments
org
14
-------
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:
Alexander Kidd (RIT Student)
Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:26 F
>
Subject:
omments
Dear EPA,
I am glad to hear that a new action framework for implementation by 2020 is being drafted. There are a few
suggestions I'd like to offer for consideration.
I noticed that in researching distressed environmental communities a significant problem is contaminated and
barren landscapes. Part of the initiative could serve to plant more greenery, especially trees, in areas that may
have been destroyed under construction projects. This would prove helpful in replacing old infrastructure with
restored woodlands or at least planting on unused land (I am thinking of the quarries and dirty streams in the
background of Cynthia Giles' video).
As for contaminated land and water, either direct funding of cleanup or an incentive for the community to help
clean them would allow the ecosystem to revive itself and it would benefit everyone there. I am from Syracuse,
where I would often run on the Onondaga Lakefront for sports training. While the lake is not completely clean,
Superfund cleanup of over $1 billion, with the help of Syracuse University and ESF technologies, has brought
fishing and possibly swimming back to "America's Most Polluted Lake". So either another round of Superfund
treatments could help the most distressed ecosystems, or perhaps finding ways for local industry to owe up to
their dumping and help restore the local environment would also provide financial backing of the most
overburdened toxic sites.
As environmental history dating back as far as the 1970s shows, local environmental policy can make just as
big an impact on the community as Federal oversight. I would encourage you to bring to justice perhaps on a
regional level those industries, especially non-renewable energy, if they have in any way disrupted the
surrounding ecosystem. The citizens of America will help by being educated on the effects of such
development as natural gas on the environment (fortunately, New York has a moratorium placed on this
practice so far). If they can stand unwavering with your help, then prevention of further environmental damage
may be possible and can become a standard for generations to come. As for local phenomenon like the
Californian drought, alternative solutions must be assessed quickly. William Shatner has proposed funding for
piping water from elsewhere, and while desalinization plants are expensive, perhaps a new contest to find the
most creative ways of supplying water to the parched valleys will help. Not even the most creative, but any
new developments could be considered in a world that has an iota of precious fresh water. Google and IEEE
has hosted over the past few years a contest to design a smaller electrical inverter for homes. Crowdfunding
and crowdsourcing may be the answer to some dire problems with climate change.
To prevent going on forever in detail about environmental policy, I will conclude that EJ Tools and EJSCREEN
should be continued, as well as perhaps a mobile app or online service to better feed environmental issue
updates to the public. Relevant environmental information for current hot topics (such as the California
drought, Keystone Pipeline XL, etc.) will help keep the public informed on topics that they may be directly
influenced by. I would hope technology can serve the country, and even the globe, to be a more cohesive
community in sustainability and preservation. Keeping science away from political bias may be a constant
fight, but the EPA has faced this adversity before and can be a major player in environmental balance,
environmental justice.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
15
-------
Thank you for taking the time to get public feedback about EJ 2020: it truly makes a government by the people,
for the people.
Sincerely,
Alexander C. Kidd
Software Engineering '18 @ RIT
EJ 2020 Public Comments
2
16
-------
To: Charles Lee, Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
From: Joan Vanhala, Coalition Organizer
Alliance for Metropolitan Stability
Re: AMS comments on EPA Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
July 14, 2015
The Alliance for Metropolitan Stability (AMS) is a coalition of grassroots organizations that advances racial,
economic and environmental justice in growth and development patterns in the Twin Cities region. Our 31
member groups represent communities of color, low-income communities, housing advocates, faith-based
organizations, research and policy organizations, economic developers and environmental, transit and land-use
policy advocates. See http://www.metrostabilitv.org/about us/member list.php
Thank you for your efforts to strengthen enforcement of Environmental Justice policies and practices at the
federal level. We are seeing the results within our local jurisdictions and your efforts have provided our local
environmental justice communities with additional leverage to protect their community members from further
harm and begin to address the unjust overburden their communities bear for the sake of our economy and
industry.
Here are our comments on the EPA Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework:
1. Referencing page 2: II. Collaborate with partners to expand our impact within overburdened communities.
1. Collaborate with states, tribes, local governments and other co-regulators to share and develop
environmental justice tools and practices:
A. EPA funded local state agencies should be required to report on the information gathered on their
identified overburdened communities (such as EJ community assessments) to the public via their
websites and in addition send these reports to local planning jurisdictions such as metropolitan planning
organizations, counties, and cities to be used as land use planning tools to ensure that land use planning
does not contribute to additional environmental burdens.
B. In addition EPA funded local state agencies should be required to submit any reports generated on their
identified overburdened communities (such as EJ community assessments) to their state Department of
Health and other health departments at county and city levels to ensure a comprehensive approach to
reducing Environmental Justice health disparities.
2. Referencing page 3: C. Support transformative efforts in communities to advance environmental justice
through EPA's Community Resources Network:
A. Promote EPA locally funded jurisdictions to contract directly with Environmental Justice grassroots
communities for engagement and outreach to increase their capacity to apply their expertise on
community engagement practices on addressing environmental challenges. Example: Metropolitan
Council Corridors of Opportunity Sustainable Communities Planning Grant
http://www.corridorsofopportunitv.org/partners/communitv-engagement-team and
http://engagetc.org/grants/
1
EJ 2020 Public Comments
17
-------
B. Require each EPA funded local state agency to form Environmental Justice Advisory Committees to
oversee local state agency environmental justice outreach and engagement; priority setting; regulatory
programs; monitoring, assessment and consideration of cumulative impacts; equity in rulemaking, policy
development, and program implementation; and environmental justice assessments.
3. Referencing page 3: III. Demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened communities. C. In
addition to measuring outcomes in particular communities, invite comment on whether there are a few
critical nationwide program areas that matter to overburdened communities on which we should focus
national attention (e.g., drinking water, lead paint):
A. Consider assessment of environmental justice communities within land use planning as a nationwide
program area.
4. Final Comment: Successful outcomes of a healthy and prosperous community require effective and
authentic community engagement. EJ communities have a long history of disregard, disrespect, and
disinvestment by government that has resulted in harmful and destructive public practices. The unfortunate
outcome of these public practices are the health disparities within all EJ communities. Another unfortunate
result is the lasting distrust EJ communities hold for their local government.
To overcome this distrust will take time and will require successful outcomes for EJ communities. Here in the
Twin Cities, EJ communities partnered with the Metropolitan Council to establish regional standards in
community engagement. The result was this draft document: Metropolitan Council Public Engagement Plan
http://metrostability.org/efiles/PEP-DraftforOutreach (3j.pdf. This document is an excellent example of
how community principles can be integrated into a public policy document.
It is our best hope that during this time of political receptivity to EJ communities, we can embed best
practices into public agencies' culture and policies that will sustain through time and provide an open door
to future generations to come.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
18
2
-------
St.Martin
Sent: Monday, JuneTs^m^u^PIv^^
To: ejstrategy
Subject: Prisoners and EJ 2020
Mr.Lee,
My name is Amanda. I am a concerned citizen and a residential counselor for adjudicated youth.
I agree with the Human Rights Defense Center position that prisoner populations should be seriously considered
in the EJ 2020 process. It is time to stop treating prisoners like second-class citizens.
As I see every day in my work, those most likely to be imprisoned are people of color and people from low-
income families. The environmental injustice in working class neighborhoods that already exists is inexcusable.
In order to truly examine potential impacts, you must consider who the people in prison are and what risks they
have already faced.
Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters have clearly shown the prison system's lack of preparedness for
such emergencies. Any and all proposed projects involving or in the vicinity of prisons should have
contemporary and dynamic safety and evacuation plans.
Prisoner populations should be seriously considered in the EJ 2020 process. Inmates are human beings that
deserve a healthy environment.
Thank you for reading. Please do what is right.
Amanda St.Martin
EJ 2020 Public Comments
1
19
-------
American Rivers
Rivers Connect Us®
July 14, 2015
Mr. Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEPA, Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
lee.charles@epa.gov
Dear Mr. Lee,
On behalf of American Rivers' 200,000 members and supporters across the nation, I am writing
to express our support and gratitude for EPA's leadership in pursuing and implementing a
strong environmental justice agenda as described in both your EJ2014 and EJ2020 plans. We
agree with EPA's strategy of addressing environmental justice through both national policies
and local practices within overburdened communities.
Historically, economically disadvantaged communities, particularly those with minority
populations (referred to hereafter as environmental justice communities), have shouldered a
disproportionate amount of society's environmental liabilities such as highways, power plants,
and combined sewer overflows. The concentration of these burdens in these environmental
justice communities negatively impacts residents and their quality of life. These same
environmental threats degrade communities' rivers and streams, often transforming them from
community assets - fishing and swimming destinations - into dangerous, polluted hazards.
Climate change is already dramatically impacting our nation's freshwater resources.
Projections forecast more extremes in weather, both floods and droughts, which are predicted
to have a disproportionate impact on environmental justice communities. American Rivers
works in these communities which already are experiencing more frequent and extreme
weather, resulting in combined sewer overflows, localized flooding, and associated quality of
life impacts. These communities would benefit from more resources to support restoration of
natural, more resilient hydrology.
In the EJ2020 framework, green infrastructure should be included as a tool not only to improve
the quality of rivers by reducing stormwater runoff, sewer overflows, and local flooding but also
to improve the overall quality of life in the community. Green infrastructure adds green space
to otherwise gray, impervious areas, beautifies neighborhoods, reduces noise pollution,
reduces the urban heat island effect, provides space for recreation, and helps bring the
110114th Street, NW | Suite 1400 | Washington, DC 20005-5637 | phone 202.347.7550 | fax 202.347.9240 | AmericanRivers.org
EJ 2020 Public Comments 20
-------
community together. The plants in the greenspace are able to uptake nitrogen dioxide, ozone,
sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter, which improves the surrounding air quality. The
implementation and maintenance of green infrastructure in communities can also improve the
local economy by providing jobs for residents (as opposed to big infrastructure projects that
usually go to specialized companies and workers outside of the community).
The EJ2020 framework should allocate funding for clean water infrastructure in order to reduce
sewer overflows and local flooding, particularly in environmental justice communities.
Additionally, funding for this work should be provided in a way that does not cause water rates
to rise significantly in communities that can least afford it.
We encourage EPA to consider actively engaging in furthering work to restore and protect
environmental justice communities as part of climate change adaptation efforts. We also
encourage EPA to provide resources to environmental justice community groups to support the
work of restoring and protecting neighborhood waterways.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above comments. I thank you in
advance for EPA's consideration of these important matters.
Wm. Robert Irvin
President and CEO
Cc: Mike Shapiro, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Water
110114tfE5l30il,FtilliclC(5wftt8nMOO I Washington, DC 20005-5637 I phone 202.347.7550 I fax 202.347.9240 I AiriericiaiRivers.org
Sincerely,
-------
From: Arnold P. Wendroff, PhD
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 4:49 PM
To: ejstrategy
Cc: Lee, Charles; Ash, Christine; Poliwka, Annette; Giles-AA, Cynthia;
mercurywendroff@mindspring.com
Subject: SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDRESSING RITUALISTIC MERCURY VAPOR EXPOSURES
WITHIN EPA's Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Attachments: ATSDR TOX PROFILE EXCERPTS + APW COMMENTS.docx; EPA RARE GRANT
PROPOSAL 2010.pdf; LUMEX MERCURY VAPOR FILTER.docx; WENDROFF LETTER TO
JEM RE GEER ET AL 06 12.pdf; JSI LAWRENCE EAG EPA REPORT 03 15 07.doc
From: Arnold P. Wendroff, PhD. Mercury Poisoning Project www.mercurvpoisoninqproiect.org 718 499
8336 mercurywendroff@mindspring.com Key Words < mercury Santeria >
To: EPA Environmental Justice
cc: Charles Lee, Christine Ash, Annette Poliwka, Cynthia Giles, EPA EJ
mputto EPA's Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
A LONG-STANDING ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE: MAGICO-RELIGIOUS MERCURY CONTAMINATION OF
CARIBBEAN & LATINO HOUSING AND THE FAILURE OF EPA TO SUBSTANTIVELY ASSESS AND ADDRESS
IT:
SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENABLE EPA TO PROTECT VULNERABLE MINORITY COMMUNITIES.
Introduction
The EPA (as well as manifold local, state and federal agencies) has been aware of the environmental health hazard
posed by magico-religious uses of elemental mercury in some Caribbean
and Latino communities in the US mainland and in Puerto Rico for well over two decades, yet EPA has done nothing of a
substantive nature to assess these exposures, and hence has failed
to protect mercury-impacted communities from ongoing exposure to developmental^ neurotoxic levels of mercury vapor
in their homes.
The vast majority of these exposures are from mercury vapor emanating from prior ritualistic mercury spills on floors, spills
which continue to evolve developmental^ neurotoxic levels of mercury
vapor for several decades; hence most exposures to ritualistic mercury vapor are at second-hand. The occupants of
mercury-contaminated dwellings are unaware of their exposure, as are
their health care providers.
Unlike 'classical' EJ exposures, the source of this extremely neurotoxic contaminant is not some commercial or
governmental entity exogenous to the impacted communities, but rather from
members of the minority communities themselves. These tend to be relatively poor communities, with no ability to pay for
mandated decontamination, and in any event, there is no way to
legally identify the person or persons who ritualistically contaminated the dwelling/s, and hence no way to make the
polluter pay.
1
EJ 2020 Public Comments
22
-------
As stated in 'my' two successful EPA R2 Environmental Justice-Pollution Prevention grant applications of 1996 and 1998,
the environmental injustice was (and remains) the failure of government
agencies with oversight of such contamination, and specifically the EPA, to assess, address, and prevent these
environmental exposures to mercury vapor in housing, resulting from its magico-
religious use.
Proposed steps to address the problem
The key to addressing the issue is to demonstrate (or disprove) that housing in Caribbean-Latino
communities is contaminated with mercury as a result of its magico-religious use.
(Please see attached March 1999 ATSDR excerpts.) This is simple and cheap to do using a portable mercury-vapor
analyzer to non-invasively measure mercury levels in the public hallways of a representative sample
of heavily Caribbean-Latino apartment buildings (especially public housing) in communities (Bronx, NY; Union City, &
West New York, NJ; Lawrence, MA) where ritualistic mercury was known to have been sold and used.
Occupants of apartments emitting high levels of vapor would be notified, and requested to allow measurements of the
vapor levels inside their homes. Occupants of contaminated apartments would be tested for
elevated mercury levels and diagnosed for symptoms and signs of mercury poisoning. EPA has a mandate to perform
such research, but to date has refrained from doing so. (Please see the attached 2010 letter and
associated RARE FY 2011 Grant Proposal from EPA R2.) It has long been apparent to all familiar with the problem, that
should this research be carried out, it would almost certainly result in demonstrating that very
large numbers of homes are contaminated, and so would require their evacuation and decontamination, as well as
demonstrating the failure of the environmental health system.
The utility of mercury vapor filters needs to be assessed, which if placed in mercury-contaminated homes,
would allow their occupants to remain in them until the dwellings could be decontaminated.
(Please see attached mercury vapor filter prospectus.)
Health education programs must be implemented, and based on informing the mercury-exposed communities of
the reality of their mercury exposure and of its effects. The majority are exposed at
second-hand, and are not ritualistic mercury users, and in many cases not of Caribbean or Latino ethnicity. (Please see
attached 2012 JEM Letter.)
Health care providers serving mercury-contaminated communities need to be informed of these
exposures and their clinical picture. This will raise their clinical suspicion and enable
them to diagnose exposures which they are currently missing. Two examples of such attempts
are www.state.ni.us:80/health/eoh/cehsweb/hcp culturalmercurv.html from New Jersey, and
www.mercurvpoisoninqproiect.org/pdf/metallic99.pdf ; www.mercurypoisoninqproiect.org/pdf/booklet99.pdf from New
York City. EPA should issue requests for proposals from the environmental
medical community to work collaboratively with community organizations to collect data on mercury vapor levels in
housing, mercury levels in occupants of mercury-contaminated housing, and health
effects of these domestic mercury vapor exposures. (Please see attached 2007 JSI EPA report.)
EJ 2020 Public Comments
2
23
-------
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
Comments on Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
June 12, 2015
We believe the general principles described in the Framework are laudable. Further, we agree
with the three overarching goals. Most of the bulleted items below the three goals are either
directly applicable, or by extension applicable, to the national drinking water program.
However, there are some important distinctions that we believe need to be drawn between EJ
considerations as they apply to drinking water programs as contrasted with their applicability to
other environmental/public health programs. Our overarching and specific comments are as
follows:
Overarching Comments:
National Drinking Water Program Ethic: We believe that drinking water programs with their
"serve and protect everyone" ethic are quite different from other environmental/public health
programs that may have much more localized issues to address, such as RCRA clean-ups,
wastewater or air pollution emissions, etc. We collectively (EPA, states, and local water
systems) strive to achieve the goal of ensuring that all citizens using public water systems have
access to safe drinking water that meets all health-based requirements all of the time - regardless
of where they work or live. That entails ensuring that public water systems maintain high
compliance rates with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and any more stringent
state regulations. While some Americans live in areas that are more remote and not yet served
by public water, the vast majority of our citizens drink water from public water systems; and,
even those served by private wells often drink water from public systems at school or at work.
We would suggest that there be some acknowledgement in the Framework of these differences.
Specific Comments:
• Please Qualify "Rulemaking" and "Permitting" (as used in Section I. A & B): We
believe that, when the Framework uses the term "rulemaking", it's actually referring to
rules regarding wastewater, hazardous waste, and air pollutant discharges, not public
health protection rules. We suggest that the Framework draw that distinction clearly.
• Aggregate Weight of Environmental & Public Health Costs/Balancing Compliance
Costs of Environmental/Public Health Requirements: It may be useful for the
Framework to acknowledge that certain communities may be overburdened by the
combined weight of environmental and public health regulations. In some instances,
costs imposed by environmental regulations to resolve one environmental issue (such as
CSOs) may well leave a community without sufficient resources to address other issues
such as drinking water infrastructure. Perhaps the 2nd bullet under Section II. A could be
broadened to encompass this point. Many rural communities with aging, low-income
populations have tremendous challenges maintaining existing infrastructure, much less
taking actions needed to address new regulatory mandates. Many states have
EJ 2020 Public Comments
24
-------
2
implemented state initiatives to try to address this quandary (e.g., no interest loans or
grants for aging infrastructure, targeted technical assistance/training, etc.) - and, states
welcome federal partnerships in addressing these challenges. However, state drinking
water programs do not believe that the protection "bar" should be lowered for
disadvantaged communities - i.e., subjected to less stringent, less protective
requirements.
• Collaborative Work Among Federal, State, and Local Government. The last bullet
in Section II. A indicates that the Agency will: "Work with states, tribes, local
governments and other co-regulators to promote consideration of environmental justice in
our collective decision-making." We agree with the thrust of this bullet. However, we
wonder whether, under this approach, there would be an expectation for EPA Regions to
have a metric/goal for this interaction and, in turn, an expectation placed back on states to
report back to EPA. If so, we would be concerned about the possible burden of such a
metric on state programs.
• Priorities in 2015 ~ Lead in Drinking Water: The ongoing existence of lead service
lines and partial lead service lines and issues related to poor maintenance in extensive
distribution systems could be considered a drinking water EJ issue that collectively needs
to be addressed - in 2015 and beyond — by a combination of Federal, state, and local
efforts.
• Priorities in 2015 ~ Available Funds: We wish to learn more about the context for the
6th bullet on page 5: "Implement Environmental Justice Small Grants and Environmental
Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement programs." If there are
funds available for disadvantaged communities beyond what we typically provide
through the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds, we'd like to know about and
share that information.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
25
-------
Subject:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:
Patrick Barnes
Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:27 PM
Smith, Karen; ejstrategy
Peurifoy, Cynthia; Tennessee, Denise; Lee, Charles; Ali, Mustafa
Re: Last Chance to Provide Comments on EPA's Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Karen,
Thanks for reminding me. The Draft 2020 Action Agenda Framework looks great. I'm particularly jazzed about the Items I.D.-
Enhancing Science tools...and II.C - Support transformative efforts... These are very much needed and has come up in the NAS
GRP AB meetings. Because EJ crosses, so many technical areas and increasingly there is a body of information that goes
untapped regarding potential best practices, I would considering adding the following as a bullet:
• Develop methods targeted at capturing and synthesizing existing environmental, health and community impact data
Under item M.C., the last three bullets are very comprehensive, which is great. It does leave me wondering how? Will this be
achieved through internal policy or external grant funding opportunities to local NGOs and the like? I would considering
adding more prescriptive language, if possible, to those bullets. For example the second bullet could begin with "Develop and
implement new funding opportunities to promote holistic strategies that meet communities"... Also, if possible it would be
great if a bullet similar to this was added:
• Establish a direct linkage through Request for Proposal language between existing EPA funded workforce
development and job training programs and the various contracting opportunities, which fall under the purview of
From my perspective we won't have environmental justice, until we have economic justice, which means more jobs
opportunities in effected communities.
Thanks again for reminding me to provide comments.
Regards,
Pat
Patrick A. Barnes, P.G.
President/CEO
BFA Environmental
(Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc)
1230 Hillcrest St
Orlando, Florida 32803
Cell 407-353-4200
Direct 321-332-1089
Office 407-896-8608
www.bfaenvironmental.com
www.limitlessvistas.org
EPA.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
"The greatest opportunity coincides with the greatest need"
l
26
-------
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bob Wenzlau
Thursday, May 14, 2015 7:47 PM
ejstrategy
Comments on 2020 EJ Strategy
To whom it may concern,
This provides commentary to the EJ 2020 Action Framework.
• The framework does not appear to engage state government to coordinate with their EJ efforts if
any. For example, collaborative processes with ITRC, ECOS or ASTSWMO should be contemplated.
• The framework does not coordinate with corporate responsibility. Corporations are often potentially
responsible parties, and many hold a common ethic. The agency should seek to build common purpose
in EJ matters with the business community.
• An area of focus that I participate in is long term stewardship of contaminated land. This would
affect RCRA and Superfund facilities. We implement an objective to be "protective" presuming the
remediation is complete. The ingredients we work with are institutional and engineering
controls. There is an EJ interest that these controls be just in their selection, effective in use, and
maintain their integrity. Often there are groundwater plumes that are left after remedies are complete
that are unprotected by institutional or engineering controls. The ability to discover and apply
information about institutional and engineering controls adversely impacts overburdened
communities. Legal descriptions used are not accessible, the restrictions on use are hidden in complex
legal language or orders. EJ efforts should encourage making IC and EC information understandable
and discoverable.
• Often impacted communities do the construction jobs that would cause them to contact residuals, or
perhaps have occupancies that are unsafe. EJ efforts should embrace technologies that can monitor land
activity and use in impacted communities, and provide active notice when a construction worker or
tenant is going to contact residuals. For example, the excavation clearance systems can provide notice
to an excavator of contact with residuals in multiple languages. Or, daycare licensing can be tracked
against areas of known contamination. The embedded theory is to "push" information to members of
overburdened communities, rather than to expect the community member to "pull" information from an
agency website. The strategy does not appear to embrace "push" information flow, and this can
provide a extra safety net in these communities. The fees and scales of these technologies are very
reasonable, and they generate metrics that can provide information for effectiveness of EJ efforts.
• The strategy should embrace the role of the private sector to develop communication tools. The
USEPA should carry a focus on quality of data, enhancing the metadata, and allow the private sector to
make innovative tools to serve the EJ mission. Too often the agency inadvertently hinders innovation
by making portals that make access to information difficult for the application community or preempt
the role of the innovator.
• The agency has multiple initiatives, and from the outside it is difficult to see if there is any connection
or master plan. For example, how does EJ 2020 connect to Next Generation compliance or Corrective
Action 2020.
Thank you for allowing the chance to provide input. Please allow me to clarify any remarks if they seem
unclear. I also apologize for any grammar errors in these remarks.
As background. I am a civil engineer with 35 years practice. I was chair person of ASTM Continuing
Obligations standard. I have generated several environmental applications including Land Watch. WhatsDown
and DigClean. Now I am generating a standard for depiction of groundwater plume maps to facilitate local
EJ 2020 Public Comments
27
-------
government and others to be able to see the breadth of groundwater quality impact. I serve on an ITRC task
group for long term stewardship, generated data standards for IC XML.
May I receive confirmation of receipt?
Yours,
Bob Wenzlau
Bob Wenzlau
Terradex, Inc.
bob@terradex. com
650-227-3251
Terradex | WhatsDown | Bloq | YouTube | Shop
EJ 2020 Public Comments
2
28
-------
Manufacturers
IONAL ASSOCIATION OF
Ross E. Eisenberg
Vice President
Energy & Resources Policy
July 14, 2015
Submitted Via E-Mail to: ejstrategy@epa.gov
Re: BNEJ Comments on EPA's Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
The Business Network for Environmental Justice ("BNEJ") appreciates the opportunity to
submit these comments on EPA's April 15, 2015 Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework (the
"Draft Framework"), which also includes a list of the Environmental Protection Agency's
("EPA's") environmental justice ("EJ") priorities for 2015. We provide these comments from the
perspective of a broad cross-section of industry with a vital interest in the Agency's effective
pursuit of EJ.
Background on the BNEJ
The BNEJ, based at the National Association of Manufacturers, was formed in 1995. It is
a voluntary organization of businesses, corporations, industry trade associations, industry
service providers and business groups interested in environmental justice issues. The BNEJ
believes that all people should be treated fairly under all laws, including environmental laws,
without discrimination based on race, color or national origin.
The BNEJ supports open and informed dialogue with citizens about environmental
decisions that affect local communities. The BNEJ also supports continued systematic, objective
scientific research into factors affecting human health and the environment, and the use of
scientifically sound risk assessments in evaluating and prioritizing health and environmental
risks.
Overall, the BNEJ views the Draft Framework as a useful exercise in priority-setting. In
particular, the BNEJ shares the Agency's goal of making "a visible difference in environmentally
overburdened, underserved, and economically distressed communities." The BNEJ suggests
below, in the body of these comments, several ways in which EPA can strengthen the Draft
Framework and enhance its implementation. These comments discuss the Draft Framework
section-by-section, addressing issues in the order in which they appear.
I. "Deepen environmental justice practice within EPA programs
With regard to Section I of the Draft Framework, the BNEJ's comments focus primarily
on EPA's stated goal of "[f]inaliz[ing] guidance on considering environmental justice in
Overview
EJ 2020 Public Comments
29
-------
rulemaking." The BNEJ shares EPA's goal of taking EJ issues into account when analyzing
potential regulatory actions.
However, BNEJ believes that the specific "guidance" document that EPA is referring to
here-the May 2013 Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in
Regulatory Analysis (the "Draft EJTG") - is not yet ready for issuance in final form. In fact, the
Draft EJTG is unlikely to help achieve EPA's goal.
A similar conclusion on the Draft EJTG was made by the Science Advisory Board (SAB)
panel charged with reviewing the document. On April 30, the SAB review panel released its own
lengthy and detailed critique of the Draft EJTG, urging a major overhaul and extensive rewriting.
That review is available online.1
In recommending EPA rewrite the Draft EJTG, SAB made the following comment:
The SAB recommends that further guidance be included in the Draft EJTG to assist
analysts with understanding how to conduct an EJ analysis. By doing so, the SAB does
not mean to make the Draft EJTG an all-encompassing document; rather by limiting its
scope and not repeating existing guidance, the Draft EJTG can reduce redundancy and
the risk of providing conflicting instructions. To increase the guidance document's clarity,
the Draft EJTG needs to include better definitions for the terms that are used (e.g.,
cumulative risk, co-factors, susceptibility, vulnerability, EJ populations and communities).
In addition, the SAB strongly recommends the use of detailed examples to guide the
analyst through conducting the EJ analysis for regulatory action. The Draft EJTG should
provide specific, clear options and examples of best practices for consideration by
analysts. The Draft EJTG should emphasize the role of the analyst while devoting only a
minimum amount of text to explaining the role of the decision/policy-makers in the same
context. The SAB also notes that guidance for EJ methodologies should encourage the
use of state, local, and community level data and assistance that are essential for an
accurate national EJ analysis.
Without repeating each of the issues raised by the SAB review panel, the section below
summarizes what the BNEJ views as the four major recommendations that should be
addressed prior to "finalizing" the Draft EJTG:
1. The final EJTG should acknowledge the protective and conservative regulatory
framework that is already in place. The Draft EJTG does not adequately account for
EPA's work and regulations issued over the last 40 years. Specifically, most of the risks
being addressed have already been the subject of EPA regulation for several decades.
Most of those regulations were established based on conservative assumptions and
safety factors. Thus, these prior EPA rules were designed to protect not only typical
individuals, but also sensitive sub-groups within the larger populations. EJ analysts will
need to evaluate whether modifications are warranted to an existing EPA regulatory
framework that is already highly protective. The Draft EJTG does not recognize this key
fact.
2. The final EJTG should be clear regarding what EJ reguires in the context of
environmental benefits. The Draft EJTG asserts that EJ must consider "not only the
1 http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/2D0917AD730593CF85257E3100505062/$File/EPA-SAB-15-
008%20unsigned.pdf
EJ 2020 Public Comments
30
-------
distribution of burdens across all populations, but also the distribution of reductions in
risk from EPA actions." But the Draft EJTG does not explain what "distribution" of risk
reduction EJ actually requires. It seems reasonable to expect that the benefits of
regulatory action will accrue primarily to the same persons - whatever their
demographics might be - who are currently most affected by the environmental
hazard(s) that EPA is reducing. Because the Draft EJTG provides no clear statement of
the EJ goal in the context of environmental benefits, it will be very difficult for EJ analysts
to provide useful information to EPA program officers and decision makers.
3. The final EJTG should tailor the EJ analysis to the scope of the EJ issue. The Draft
EJTG calls for a "blue sky" EJ analysis that incorporates many new and different factors
and mechanisms, but it provides no benchmarks, prioritization or indication of the
relative importance of any of them. The Draft EJTG lacks proportionality between the
scope of the potential EJ issue that might arise in a particular context and the scope of
the analysis of that potential EJ issue. Instead, every potential EJ issue gets the "full
treatment." In practical terms, this means that virtually any proposed EPA regulatory
action could be stymied for years because the EJ analysis is deemed incomplete. It also
means that there will be little or no consistency from one regulatory analysis to the next,
because the list of factors is virtually endless and the range of parameters for each of
them is unlimited. This level of uncertainty will also deprive the regulated community of
the predictability it needs in order to plan its compliance activities and expenditures.
4. The final EJTG should address how the impracticably large workload burdens it creates
will be shouldered. The Draft EJTG calls for in-depth analysis of all future regulatory
actions using innovative tools and methods. The Draft EJTG is silent as to who would
perform all this work. It may be that the individual EPA program offices would each
conduct these EJ analyses for their own rules. If so, the BNEJ is concerned that there
would be a lack of consistency in final results, as each program office could interpret the
EJTG differently. Or it may be that the work would be handled by separate staff within
the Office of Environmental Justice ("OEJ"). If so, it is unclear as to how OEJ would
become familiar with the extensive rulemaking records, compiled over many years, that
typically underlie EPA's existing regulatory framework.
Because of the BNEJ's deep concern over the Draft EJTG, the BNEJ filed extensive
written comments with EPA in the summer of 2013. The BNEJ also presented oral testimony
before the SAB review panel on January 30, 2014. Although the BNEJ has not received a
response from the EPA on the technical and policy points raised, it is still anticipate that it would
take EPA at least another 18 months - until late-2016 - to address all the shortcomings in the
Draft EJTG before issuing it in final form. Issuance of an incomplete or flawed document would
fail to achieve the objectives of EJ.
II. "Collaborate with partners to expand our impact within overburdened communities."
With regard to Section II of the Draft Framework, the BNEJ offers two comments. First,
equal enforcement of environmental laws is an important and highly visible indicator of a
commitment to environmental justice. Regulations and permits are only as good as the public's
level of confidence that they will be complied with and requirements will be met. The
enforcement and compliance assurance measures that EPA describes in the Draft Framework
help to underscore that commitment by confirming that industrial, commercial, and
governmental facilities are complying with the law, including the terms and conditions of their
environmental permits.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
31
-------
Secondly, EPA sometimes makes its own job more difficult by focusing heavily on
disparate impacts. This may not be the most useful approach, because the law requires equal
treatment, not equal results. BNEJ emphatically supports the proposition that environmental
standard-setting, environmental permitting, and environmental enforcement should be neutral
and non-discriminatory.
III. "Demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened communities."
The BNEJ shares this goal as stated by EPA. One specific item listed under this heading
is: "develop indicators of progress through collaborative processes with communities, states,
tribes, and other stakeholder partners." The BNEJ urges EPA to include business and industry
among the "other stakeholder partners" with whom it will seek to develop indicators of progress.
Agreement on what constitutes progress helps foster agreement over what steps should be
taken, and when. If EPA follows an open and collaborative process in developing these
indicators, then we can look forward to successful outcomes from the perspective of all
stakeholders.
IV. "Related efforts."
One of the two items listed as a "related effort" would actually benefit from greater
transparency and outreach. The entry states: "EPA will advance its program relative to the
implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act through a comprehensive, long-term Office of
Civil Rights (OCR) strategic plan, which OCR is currently developing."
Over the past 15 years, a significant obstacle to progress in the realm of EJ has been
EPA's overreaching interpretation of Title VI. A good example of this problem is the highly
controversial draft guidance regarding OCR's investigation of Title VI complaints, 65 Fed. Reg.
39,650 (June 27, 2000), which Congress eventually de-funded. See Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
1999, Pub. L. No. 105-276 (1998) and Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-74 (1999).
More fundamentally, even though the Supreme Court squarely ruled in Alexander v.
Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), that Title VI prohibits only intentional discrimination, EPA
continues to administer Title VI as if it also prohibits disparate impacts in programs run by
federal funding recipients. See 40 C.F.R. § 7.35(b) (2013). This legal overreach continues to
create uncertainty for all stakeholders and needless confrontation often results.
Given this background, EPA should specify what it means by its "program relative to the
implementation of Title VI." This Title VI "program" should take account of the Supreme Court's
ruling, and focus appropriately on intentional discrimination. EPA should not continue to assert
authority over disparate impacts in environmental programs run by state agencies that receive
federal funds.
EPA also refers to a "comprehensive, long-term" plan being devised by OCR. No
mention of that plan appears on OCR's web site. EPA should solicit input before the OCR plan
is developed and finalized. The BNEJ strongly urges OCR to seek public and stakeholder input
on its planning, especially as it relates to the important goal of environmental justice.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
32
-------
V. Priorities for 2015
Without repeating the points made above in Part I of these comments, the BNEJ is very
concerned to see "finalizing]" the Draft EJTG listed as a priority for 2015. Given the many
corrections needed to the draft document, and the comprehensive critique issued in April by the
SAB review panel, the BNEJ urges EPA to take time to address these issues rather than
prioritize finalizing the document this calendar year. Although EPA may wish to treat this
guidance document as a priority, it would be more productive to issue it in mid- or late 2016, by
which time EPA will have had more time to address the various concerns identified with that
document.
Conclusion
Overall, the BNEJ finds the Draft Framework to be a useful exercise in priority-setting.
The BNEJ has suggested several ways in which EPA can strengthen the Draft Framework and
enhance its implementation. The BNEJ appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments
on the Draft Framework.
Sincerely,
Ross Eisenberg
Vice President, Energy and Resources Policy, National Association of Manufacturers
On behalf of the Business Network for Environmental Justice (BNEJ)
c: Charles Lee, EPA Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
EJ 2020 Public Comments
33
-------
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Carlton, Ginny
Tuesday, May
ejstrategy
Environmental Justice 2020
>
How, specifically, do you define an "overburdened community"? What burden(s) is/are the community bearing? Are
you using the word community in the geographic sense, social sense or both? For example air pollution doesn't stay in
one place, so are all communities that are located downwind (as the wind typically blows) considered
"overburdened"? Are "overburdened communities" those that have higher contamination than other communities? Are
"overburdened communities" those that have higher reported instances of negative health consequences? Both? Some
other criteria? Top X% of all the communities displaying that particular criteria nationwide or within a particular EPA
region, or any and all communities that meet particular threshold criteria? Is it possible to apply to have a community
designated as an "overburdened community" so that it might receive assistance from the EPA? Based on what was
available in the draft framework it is very unclear as to what an "overburdened community" is and thus who will be the
beneficiaries of this initiative.
The outcomes seem superficial. Writing reports, networking with other government agencies and stakeholder groups,
creating reporting and decision-making tools don't necessarily remove the burden of the environmental injustice. This
statement "Promote holistic strategies that meet communities where they are and help them to achieve health,
sustainability, economic opportunity, revitalization and resilience" is a prime example of meaningless babble. It doesn't
provide enough detail that someone could measure success. Be more specific about what exactly success will look like-
it should be measurable.
For example this statement:
Foster multi-stakeholder, community-based, public-private partnerships (including local government, business and
industry, academia, faith groups, youth, and others) for general and location specific engagement
What does "fostering" look like? Hosting a single meeting where these groups meet each other face-to-face? Creating a
specific project that improves environmental quality by having members of each and every one of the groups listed
above participating for a year or more? Why are those specific groups called out? Why not include non-governmental
organizations, senior citizens, K-12 education? Granted, you do say "other" Are the groups that are called out
considered to be "overburdened communities" and that is why they are listed?
You say complete mandatory EJ training for all employees (page 4) and indicate it is already complete. Who do you
mean when you say employee? All employees of EPA including all employees in each of the regions and offices listed on
page 5? Only employees of the Office of Environmental Justice? All federal employees? All employees of each of the
partner groups you work with on environmental justice projects?
In my opinion this draft is too big picture to be helpful. Yes it is a framework....but it needs more timbers and less open
space between the timbers.
l
EJ 2020 Public Comments
34
-------
MM'HAMJ R \W 1 INOS-BiAM Major
CITY OF BALTIMORE
Rudolph S. Chow. P.K.. Director
Abe! VVwlman Municipal Building (>ih I'looi
200 N 1 iolliday S J reel
Baltimore Maryland 21202
DEPARTMENT Of PUBLIC WORKS
June 12,2015
Charles Lee [ejstrategy@epa.gov]
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Lee:
The Baltimore City Department of Public Works (DPW) appreciates this opportunity to provide
comments to the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) regarding development of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Draft Environmental Justice 2020 Action Agenda
Framework (EJ 2020 Framework). DPW provides water to 1.8 million people in the Baltimore
Metropolitan Area and is one of the largest clean water utilities in the State of Maryland. DPW's
experience as a large, municipal entity offers an important perspective in the environmental
justice (EJ) discussion.
DPW is committed to improving water quality and to ensuring that environmental benefits are
shared equitably. Sustainable progress towards improved water quality cannot be achieved
without special consideration for the plight of EJ communities. However, DPW believes that
meaningful implementation of environmental justice cannot be fulfilled without recognition of
the affordability challenge facing EJ communities.
In the coming years, DPW will spend billions of dollars to address sanitary sewer overflows,
upgrade wastewater treatment plants, protect drinking water reservoirs, and reduce stormwater
pollution. In addition, DPW continues to invest in existing water, wastewater, and stormwater
infrastructure, much of which is over half a century old. DPW is committed to meeting these
challenges. However, DPW often finds itself caught between its duty to provide essential public
services, and the duty to ensure that EJ communities can afford to pay their utility bills.
Like most clean water utilities, DPW is required by law to be financially self-sufficient. As
federal and State funding has diminished relative to the cost of new and existing legal
requirements, the expense of compliance falls directly on local citizens. This financial burden is
particularly acute for EJ communities, many of whom already face significant economic distress.
DPW urges EPA to recognize the importance of affordability under the EJ 2020 Framework
because EPA's decisions build the structure for public financial decisionmaking. Recognizing
affordability as an EJ issue is crucial to inform decisions whose financial consequences
reverberate loudly within EJ communities.
EJ 2020 Public Comments 35
-------
DPW respectfully requests that EPA's OEJ examine affordability concerns in developing the EJ
2020 Framework. DPW believes that recognition of affordability as an EJ challenge will ensure
that the interests of the most vulnerable citizens are given due consideration. Again, DPW
appreciates the opportunity to provide input into this effort by EPA. Please contact me at
Rudy.Chowui,batttmorecit\.uov or (410) 396-3310 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
KudolplrS. Chow, P.E.
ttrectom Department of Public Works
60D Afiel Wolman Municipal Building
200 Holliday Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
EJ 2020 Public Comments
36
-------
CI " PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1200 Main Street
Grandview, Missouri 64030-2498
July 3, 2015
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEPA, Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Comments
Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, April 15, 2015
Dear Mr. Lee:
Following are our comments on the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, dated April 15, 2015. We
appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Framework and extending the comment period has allowed
us to respond. In considering our response, we feel it is important you know something about the City of
Grandview, so you can understand the context of our comments.
We are a City of over 25,000 people, the boyhood home of a President of the United States, and over 100
years old. The City of Kansas City surrounds us on three sides so we are often overlooked because of this
geographic coincidence. The Mid American Region Council (MARC), the Kansas City Metropolitan Planning
Organization has identified Grandview as an Environmental Justice (EJ) community as 100 percent of our
census tracts are classified as EJ. We are also identified as a Majority-Minority community. We are the only
community in the MARC region with both these designations.
During the recent recession Grandview, because of good financial management practices was one of the few
cities in the MARC area that did not need to lay off employees and do drastic budget cutting. Despite their
relatively low income level our Citizens have regularly approved and renewed millages for infrastructure and
parks improvements. We have been recognized many times for the work done on projects by organizations
such as the American Public Works Association and the Missouri Parks and Recreation Association
Our City's crime rate has been steadily decreasing since 2010 and we are currently about 7.1 percent down
through April of 2015 compared with 2014.
Crime Statistics
Year
Total Part 1 Indexed
Crimes
Total All Part
1 Crimes
2009
1302
1761
EJ 2020 Public Comments
37
-------
Re: City of Grandview Comments
Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, April 15, 2015
July 3, 2015
Total Part 1 Indexed
Total All Part
Crimes
1 Crimes
2010
1122
1547
2011
1051
1499
2012
889
1235
2013
923
1335
2014
936
1282
Part 1 Crime Rate
80.00
70.00
60.00
* 50.00
Q.
O
Qi
Q_
O
0
*—I
1 40.00
t/i
Qi
£
z
u
*—I
¦e
£ 30.00
In 1980 the City was hit with three events that proved to be nearly catastrophic; shutdown of the Richards-
Gebaur Air Force base, opening of a new shopping center in nearby Kansas City, and two-waying of the
frontage roads along the future 1-49 freeway, which bi-sects our community. Together, these events, carried
out by parties outside the control of the City, resulted in a tax base stagnant for nearly 35-years, loss of a
significant portion of our population, and devastation of local businesses and retailers. As a result, in 2008,
FORBES magazine declared us as one of the top-ten, fastest dying communities in the United States.
Fortunately, the last 5 years have seen the beginning of a turnaround for Grandview. We recently started
renovating Truman's Corners, our main shopping center, originally built 60-years ago by President Harry S.
Truman. Grandview Plaza, the City's other major 50's style retail complex has undergone a seven-million
dollar renovation. After being nearly abandoned, it is now home to a private, religious based educational
facility with nearly 1,000 students. Construction is currently underway in our City on a NOAA (National
2
EJ 2020 Public Comments
38
-------
Re: City of Grandview Comments
Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, April 15, 2015
July 3, 2015
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) office/repair complex next to the NNSA (National Nuclear Security
Administration) facility built in Kansas City recently. The future also looks brighter as this spring an
announcement was made by developers of a new soccer/sports complex to be developed in Grandview,
which includes 15 soccer fields as well as retail and hotel components.
For the past several years Grandview's population has been growing at the fastest percentage rate of any
community in the MARC region and recently climbed over the 25,000 mark for the first time in 30-years. Our
local schools have improved significantly and have been some of the fastest growing (student population-
wise) in the region.
Through the City's and our citizen's efforts we have rejuvenated our downtown - Main Street corridor, and
gained funds to dismantle the one-way frontage road system that has hampered our redevelopment efforts
and nearly destroyed our retail base for the past 30-years. Citizen approved millages have resulted in the
renovation of all our parks and construction of a new amphitheatre and a new water park. Yet despite these
efforts we find we are off the radar as far as EPA and its agent the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
are concerned when it comes to the health and welfare of our citizens. Similarly, we find FHWA and the
Missouri Department of Transportation continue to make significant highway modifications without even
minimal contact and coordination with the City. Our designation as an EJ community seemingly has no
meaning to these agencies when spending federal funds in our city.
As a result we have been engaged in a single-handed legal effort to have MoDNR issue air quality permits
that comply with the current provisions of the Clean Air Act. We have been engaged in another effort to
determine how a road cutting our community in two can be designated as an Interstate route without, we
believe, any consideration or thought being given to the fact we are an EJ community and people have
trouble walking from one side of the road to the other. We have seen no EIS or environmental study even
though it is well known that air, noise, and social impacts from such facilities cause harm to EJ communities.
Having experienced, what we feel is a lack of thought or consideration about the impact of significant public
actions in our City that can negatively impact environmental health as well as its social fabric, we feel EPA's
proposed framework should provide a basis for guiding regulators and EPA's public agents to insure they not
only fully, but thoughtfully and meaningfully consider EJ communities in their regulatory deliberations. We
feel the Framework should insure regulators actively contact and involve EJ communities in their assessments
especially when federal dollars are involved. To this end, we have the following comments on the Draft EJ
2020 Action Agenda Framework:
1. Above all it is important the Framework make it clear EPA and its agents must actively undertake,
and carry out real, meaningful and sincere contacts and coordination with EJ communities. Further,
that EJ communities of all size and make-up be involved in regulatory actions for activities not only in
their community, but those in nearby areas, that result in surface or groundwater run-off, dispersion
of air emissions, or introduce noise emissions into or over an EJ community. To this end, it should be
clear each EJ community has a place at every regulatory worktable, and without explicit prior
approval EPA or its agents cannot assume they speak for any EJ community.
While the Framework specifically calls-out the idea of overburdened communities, the
Framework should make it clear the term overburdened refers not only to environmental
degradation, but to the fact that staff and resources to deal with such problems are very limited in EJ
communities. The Framework should make it clear EPA staff understands small communities lack
staff and resources, and most important staff that does exist is capable of understanding EJ topics.
The Framework should specifically define local communities as a partner to EPA in their
regulatory work and should define a path that makes it clear to regulatory staff their partner local
government EJ communities are not a burden on them or their work. Rather the Framework should
3
EJ 2020 Public Comments
39
-------
Re: City of Grandview Comments
Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, April 15, 2015
July 3, 2015
insure regulatory staffs recognize local EJ communities and their protection is in fact the entire
objective of the EJ process and program.
2. Section I: Deepen environmental justice practice within EPA programs to improve the health and
environment of overburdened communities. It is critical EPA's regulators and co-regulators
understand the need to seek out and make meaningful contact with EJ communities during any
regulatory activity, and no regulatory action be taken until all affected EJ communities have been
engaged in review and discussion. It is simply not enough EPA, its regulators and co-regulators feel
they know or "understand" the situation of any particular EJ community, because frankly they do
not. Documented comments should be obtained well before any draft or final regulatory action is
taken.
Our particular situation is a case in point. While we have 100 percent EJ designated census
tracts and are a Majority-Minority community, we are seemingly ignored time after time and our
neighbor Kansas City, with neither a majority of its tracts classified as EJ nor a Majority-Minority
population, is deemed by regulatory bodies at EPA and MoDNR to speak for us.
The Framework must make it clear each EJ Community must have and indeed has the right
to speak for itself, and it is essential EPA insure its regulatory staff not only not make these
assumptions, but actively seek out comments from each EJ community that might be impacted by an
action.
As it stands, in recent actions involving the implementation of federal regulatory actions
involving Grandview, there has been no consideration given to the health and welfare of
Grandview's citizens. In our opinion recent actions that have been ignored have resulted in potential
health problems related to air quality, surface water quality, and noise pollution. As a result we feel
that the existing framework clearly is deficient in that it does not provide guidance to EPA or other
federal staff that requires them to consider potential problems in EJ communities.
3. Section II: Collaborate with partners to expand our impact within overburdened communities.
We have not, and are not aware of any contacts with EPA seeking to work with us on any issues
that might impact our Community. One reason for this may be EPA lacks knowledge of which
communities are or have EJ designated tracts, the portion of a community that may have EJ
designated tracts, or even which communities might have demographics that would, for example,
cause it to be determined a Majority-Minority community. The Framework should support the
development of a database that would contain this information and allow regulators to identify EJ
communities at the beginning of any regulatory action, so they could contact the community and
thus be able to engage in meaningful dialog with them.
4. Section III: Demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened communities. As we
indicated earlier, communities are different. Just because they may be adjacent to each other does
not mean they share points of view, or have common problems. That communities are separate
entities clearly suggests two adjacent communities should not be assumed to be able to speak for
each other; if they could then they would probably not be separate in the first place.
Cities and local government communities are as different as people, so when engaging in
regulatory actions EPA and its agents must recognize there is a difference. Grandview has,
historically been an independent community that has taken care of itself. It seeks only the
recognition it is a distressed community, and as an EJ community, it should be protected from
actions that can increase existing burdens on its Citizens and most ideally, prevent any new burdens
from being imposed.
Our concerns are different from, for example, the City of Kansas City Missouri's, because we
are smaller, we are 100 percent EJ, and we are Majority-Minority and Kansas City is not. Our relative
smallness means we are much closer to our citizens and businesses. Thus we are concerned with
4
EJ 2020 Public Comments
40
-------
Re: City of Grandview Comments
Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, April 15, 2015
July 3, 2015
responsiveness. Therefore we feel the Framework should emphasize that regulators also be
responsive. In particular, in going though the regulatory process EPA regulator should not set
deadlines for local input or responses shorter than the amount of time those same regulators have
to respond back. That is, if EPA demands we must respond to their inquiry in 30-days, then EPA must
be required to respond back to us within 30-days. The Framework, must set the standard for a fair
and equitable discourse that respects each party's time, and recognizes its partners in any
determination must be treated with respect.
We are concerned with protecting what resources we have from deterioration, thus we
expect the Framework direct and emphasize to regulators how they must not be dismissive of a
community's concerns just because they are small in area or population. As we have emphasized so
far, the Framework must make it clear regulators actively engage in real communications with EJ
communities of all size, and this engagement must be more than a web posting.
The fact is after 45-years in government it is clear to this writer that all government
employees are and should be busy, that is exactly what we are paid for. If employees are so "busy"
they cannot allocate time or prioritize work to contact the very communities this Framework is
intended to help, then they simply should be dismissed.
What is important to EJ communities like Grandview is that EPA actually contact us. The
reason for this is simple. Again, after many years of local government work, it has always been made
abundantly clear to this writer and the organizations I have represented that cities and counties
must not contact federal agencies directly, especially when there is a state agency that has been
delegated the regulatory authority to handle an item of interest. It has always been made
abundantly clear attempting to go around a state regulatory agency can result in an immediate and
long-term regulatory disaster for a local government.
For an EJ community regulatory disasters are real, and simply compound (or add insult to
injury) problems a community overburdened with environmental and related health and social
problems already has. Again, a case in point is the quandary Grandview finds itself in when we
question the Missouri Department of Natural Resources regarding their administration of the Clean
Air Act. After two-years and with no end in sight, we find we have been burdened with over
$200,000 of legal fees because state regulators simple do not care about the health and welfare of
an EJ community, and choose instead to protect an artificial administrative procedure. That the
state has totally ignored the fact Grandview is an EJ community, and does in-fact share the
environmental burdens implicit in the EJ designation, should be of interest and concern to the EPA.
An EJ community should not need to risk retaliation to have regulators do the right thing. Nor should
it be necessary for an EJ community to take the extreme step of going to elected officials or EPA's
Inspector General to force regulators to comply with the Clean Air Act.
If for no other reason than wanting to make regulators actually recognize they must fully
consider and account for EJ community concerns. EPA should want its Framework to provide
guidance to regulators, and establish a protocol that would incorporate documentation of
compliance.
In terms of outcome, EJ communities want to be able to see how EPA has actually helped
protect EJ communities, with a count of contacts, and instances where EPA has clearly stepped in
and caused its regulators to fully account for and deal with potential problems for our communities.
We expect EPA recognize the difference between an EJ community that actually has worked
hard to pull itself up by its "bootstraps" as opposed to communities simply looking for a hand-out or
a way to finance unsustainable programs with other people's money. There are not that many
"Grandviews" around, it should be simple for EPA to keep track of and account for how their
regulators have actually helped or worked with us to protect ourselves from the actions of others.
In any case, EPA's Framework should document and account for situations where poor
regulatory behavior has harmed an EJ community. Again, in the case of Grandview, it should not
have cost the City over $200,000 in its quest to simply make the Missouri Department of Natural
5
EJ 2020 Public Comments
41
-------
Re: City of Grandview Comments
Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, April 15, 2015
July 3, 2015
Resources comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act. EPA should be doing this fight, and the
Framework should provide guidance so it does, and then reports its actions in a clear, concise and
transparent way.
5. Section IV: Related efforts.
Promoting climate adaptation and resilience and greenhouse pas reduction co-benefits will be an
important part of the EJ 2020 Action Agenda: Over the past several years EPA/State regulators
charged with enforcing the Clean Air Act have dismissed local concerns by a simple finding a
proposed action was de minimis in nature. While there are times when such a finding may be
proper, especially in areas away from population centers, and involving temporary, low-source
emitters, we strongly recommend the Framework make it clear that as far as EJ communities are
concerned, a simple de minimis declaration by a regulatory body is never right or correct.
As an alternative, in the case where a meaningful dialog with the local EJ community is
entered into, a joint declaration of a de minimis action agreed to by both the EJ community and the
designated regulatory agency might be acceptable. In any case, use of terms such as "de minimis" by
regulators in a dismissive way should be strongly discouraged by the Framework.
While a primary focus of the Administration in greenhouse gas reduction efforts has been
the use of coal in large stationary emitters, we are concerned several small (otherwise known as de
minimis) emitters can cumulatively add up to high-levels of emissions. Again a case in point is in our
City. We question how it is ever appropriate in an EJ community to have an action deemed to be de
minimis. More to the point we cannot understand when, there is a network of air monitors in place,
and a nearby monitor clearly shows there are high levels of regulated pollutants, and the prevailing
winds are into an EJ community, and a new, smaller emitter is proposed to be placed in the path of
this flow of air, a declaration an action is de minimis can result. The Framework should be such that
regulators cannot engage in or use such bad science, especially when it involves the interests and
especially the health of an EJ community.
An effective Framework invokes a change in mindset that includes regulators understanding
what the actual purpose of a regulation is. For example, on one hand the Clean Air Act is intended to
protect the environment, but most important it is intended to protect living beings, now and in the
future. The Framework should insure there is enough guidance for regulators so they understand
their job is to protect all people and be especially careful to protect those least able to protect
themselves.
EPA will gdvgnce its progmrn relgtive to the implementgtion of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act through
g comprehensive, long-term Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Stmtegic Plgn, which OCR is currently
developing: It is important, we feel, when organizations such as EPA or FHWA do work that impacts
a community like as ours, and especially when that work involves federal funds, that communities be
fully engaged in developing those projects. More importantly, this engagement must be positive and
take the form of a true two-way dialog. While distressed communities often have difficulty
maintaining large staffs that can engage in pro-active activities, we do have staffs capable of
engaging and contributing to meaningful dialogs relating to a wide range of technical and social
matters.
However, because of the general lack of staff, we need to know EPA regulators will seek to
contact us, or at a minimum provide a "heads-up" before any regulatory or design action affecting
our community takes place. Again, if projects using federal funds are affecting our community, then
user agencies and regulators must be required to contact communities like ours and engage in
meaningful dialog, and if they do not then they must be considered to not be in compliance with
Title VI.
The Framework should stress the use of federal funds be interpreted very broadly. For
example if a facility, in the course of manufacturing a construction material creates emissions
6
EJ 2020 Public Comments
42
-------
Re: City of Grandview Comments
Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, April 15, 2015
July 3, 2015
exceeding limits imposed by the Clean Air Act, then the use of that material on any federally funded
project should be prohibited. Again, if in the course of creating such materials, the excess emissions
enter or involve an EJ community, then the facility should be considered to not be in compliance.
In closing, we feel it is important to emphasize we feel the EPA Framework can be a positive mechanism to
insure EJ communities are protected from further damage. However, it has not been our experience any
group or organization, including the EPA and its regulatory agents, cares or even understands what being an
EJ community really means. If fact we see it is a designation that is often ignored and our concerns are
ridiculed and demeaned.
The EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework can provide positive guidance to regulators and other government
officials, but there must be a significant shift in how regulators view EJ communities. Even more important,
regulators must see and understand who and where EJ communities are.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Framework. If you have any questions please contact me
at (816) 316-4855 or at drandolph(5)grandview.org.
Sincerely,
Dennis A. Randolph, P.E.
Director of Public Works
EJ 2020 Public Comments
7
43
-------
City of Phoenix
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
June 15, 2015
Mr. Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEPA, Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: City of Phoenix Support for the Environmental Justice 2020 Action Agenda Framework (EJ
2020)
Dear Mr. Lee:
The city of Phoenix (hereinafter, the "COP") would like to express support of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) draft framework for EJ 2020 which will continue to
integrate environmental justice practices and define a new set of ambitious goals over the next
five years.
As the sixth largest city in the United States, Phoenix is expected to grow by nearly 30 percent
by 2025. This population growth projection presents opportunities for our future but also
increased challenges that will have an effect on programs designed to improve the health and
quality of life for our residents, especially those in overburdened communities. Additionally, as
we assess, set targets and measure our community's sustainability, including ensuring equity
and access to community services for all residents, environmental justice issues become an
important, integral component to consider.
We look forward to strengthening our work in the area of environmental justice and view the EJ
2020 Framework as a mechanism to deepen our practice. We are pleased with the defined
goals and elements of the framework. The overall theme of fostering partnerships that include
"local government" for location specific engagement is of utmost importance and demonstrates
your commitment to expanding these efforts from this level of government. Providing local
communities the opportunity to connect EJ 2020 with related efforts and promote co-benefits
(e.g. greenhouse gas reduction, brownfields redevelopment, green infrastructure, etc.) further
demonstrates a spirit of collaboration and willingness to address our most important work in
conjunction with your goals.
Thank you for accepting our comments and providing an opportunity for input. We eagerly
anticipate the final release. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (602)
256-5654.
Office of Environmental Programs
EJ 2020 Public Comments
200 West Washington Street, 14th Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003 • 602-256-5669 • TTY: 602-534-5500
www.phoenix.gov
44
-------
Amigos de los Rios * Asian and Pacific Islander Obesity Prevention Alliance (APIOPA) * The City Project
Hispanics Enjoying Camping, Hunting, and the Outdoors (HECHO) * Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California (LCHC) * Los Angeles Wilderness Training * New Mexico Environmental Law Center
Social Justice Consultancy * Social & Public Art Resource Center (SPARC)
July 14, 2015
The Honorable Gina McCarthy
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mustafa Santiago Ali, Senior Advisor to Administrator Gina McCarthy on Environmental Justice
Washington, D.C.
Via e-mail ejstrategy@epa.gov
Re: Public Comments on EJ 2020 Strategic Plan on Environmental Justice and Health; Ensure
Compliance with Title VI and Executive Order 12898; Address Parks as an Environmental Justice,
Health, and Civil Rights Concern; Pope Francis the Poor and the Earth Are Crying
I. Overview
We submit these comments as part of a diverse and growing alliance regarding the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's proposed strategic plan on environmental justice and health, which will be called EJ
2020. The stated goals of EJ 2020 are to:
~ Deepen environmental justice practice within EPA programs to improve the health and
environment of overburdened communities;
~ Collaborate with partners to expand our impact within communities; and
~ Demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to communities.
We submit these comments to highlight leadership and best practice examples to ensure compliance with
civil rights, and environmental justice and health, laws and principles. These laws and principles include
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations, and the President's Executive
Order 12898 on environmental justice and health. These laws and principles apply to EPA, and to
recipients of funding from EPA.1 We request that EPA implement Title VI, the Title VI
implementing regulations, and Executive Order 12898 in EPA's own work, and in ensuring
compliance with these laws by recipients of funding from EPA.
Title VI and its regulations prohibit intentional discrimination, as well as unjustified discriminatory
impacts, on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities by recipients of federal
funding. Title VI and its regulations covers recipients of funding from EPA, including state and local
agencies and private recipients.2 The discriminatory impact standard plays an important role in
uncovering discriminatory intent: it counteracts disguised animus, unconscious prejudices, and implicit
bias that escape easy classification as intentional discrimination. See Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 576 U. S. - (2015) (upholding discriminatory
impact standard under the Fair Housing Act). Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency
including EPA to achieve environmental justice as part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.3 We request that EPA
1 See generally Comments Of Environmental And Community Groups (July 14,2015).
2 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq. EPA, like other federal agencies, enacted
regulations pursuant to Title VI. 40 C.F.R. Part 7.
3 See Exec. Order No. 12898, 59 Fed. Reg. 32 (February 16, 1994), Section 1-101 ("...each Federal agency shall make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
The City Project, 1055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1660 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2499 T: (213) 977-1035 F: (213) 977-5457 www.cityprojectca .org
EJ 2020 Public Comments
45
-------
provide leadership and best practices and integrate its enforcement responsibilities under Title VI
and its implementing regulations, Executive Order 12898, and EPA's other environmental justice
and health strategies throughout all its programs and activities, including EJ 2020.
In Pope Francis's encyclical on caring about our common home, the Pope counsels us to care about
climate, care for creation, and care for the poor and underprivileged. EPA's work and EJ 2020 should
reflect the Pope's encyclical. Indeed, Administrator McCarthy recognizes that climate justice is not just
an environmental issue, but a public health threat, and a chance for economic opportunity. "I think the
most important thing that we can do, working with the Pope, is to try to remind ourselves that this is
really about protecting natural resources that human beings rely on, and that those folks that are most
vulnerable — that the church has always been focused on, those in poverty and low income — are the
first that are going to be hit and impacted by a changing climate."4
These comments focus on access to parks and green space for people of color and low income people for
several reasons. First, President Barack Obama and other federal authorities - as well as Pope Francis -
recognize parks and green space as issues of social justice, and environmental justice and health. Second,
federal authorities provide EPA with leadership and best practice examples for addressing parks and
green space under civil rights, and environmental justice and health, laws and principles. Third, EPA
itself must address access to parks and green space as an environmental, health, and justice issue. Instead,
EPA generally marginalizes or ignores these concerns. Finally, the examples below are not limited to the
context of parks and green space. The legal framework and best practices cut across other environmental
programs and activities.5
According to President Barack Obama:
We heard from the community .... Too many children . . . especially children of color, don't
have access to parks where they can run free, breathe fresh air, experience nature and learn about
their environment. This is an issue of social justice. . . . Because it's not enough to have this
awesome natural wonder within your sight - you have to be able to access it. My commitment to
conservation isn't about locking away our natural treasures; it's about working with communities
to open up our glorious heritage to everybody — young and old, black, white, Latino, Asian,
Native American — to make sure everybody can experience these incredible gifts.6
While President Obama was referring to Los Angeles County when he dedicated the San Gabriel
Mountains National Monument in 2014, his remarks are true in communities of color and low income
populations..."). See DOJ guidance Concerning Environmental Justice, at 2 (Dec. 3, 2014), available at
www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ej/pages/attachments/2014/12/19/doj_guidance_concerning_ej.pdf.
4 AP, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy Meets With Vatican Officials About Climate Change (Jan. 30, 2015),
www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/30/epa-vatican-climate-change_n_6580098.html.
5 See generally Robert Garcia and Seth Strongin, Healthy Parks, Schools and Communities: Mapping Green Access and Equity
for Southern California (The City Project Policy Report 2011), goo.gl/pAi7v; Robert Garcia and Ariel Collins, Celebrate The
Civil Rights Revolution: The Struggle Continues (The City Project Policy Report 2014), goo.gl/HUijxo; Michael Rodriguez, MD,
MPH; Marc Brenman; Marianne Engelman Lado, JD; and Robert Garcia, JD, Using Civil Rights Tools to Address Health
Disparities (The City Project Policy Report 2014), goo.gl/mYvhOm; James Salzman, Craig Anthony (Tony) Arnold, Robert
Garcia, Keith Hirokawa, Kay Jowers, Jeffrey LeJava, Margaret Pelosa, and Lydia Olander, The Most Important Current
Research Questions in Urban Ecosystem Services, 25 Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum 1-47 (2014), goo.gl/OGezR4.
6 The President's remarks are available at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/10/10/remarks-president-designation-san-
gabriel-mountains-national-monument. See Robert Garcia and Michelle Kao, The San Gabriel Mountains: A National Monument
for All, NPRA Parks & Recreation Magazine (Dec 2014), www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/34698.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
2
46
-------
communities across the nation that suffer from disparities in access to resources for parks and healthy
living.7
We do not seek Blue parks, or Red parks, based on ideology or party affiliations. We seek green parks for
all.
II. The Values at Stake
The diverse values at stake in access to parks and green space are properly the concern of EPA.
According to the National Park Service (NPS), these values include the following:
~ Fun, health, and human development. Children who are physically fit tend to do better
academically, and parks can create community and drive out vandalism and crime.
~ Conservation values: This includes climate justice, complete green streets with transit, biking,
hiking, and safe routes to schools, clean air, water, and land, and habitat protection.
~ Economic values: This includes jobs and apprenticeships for youth, diversification of government
contracts to include small, minority, women, and veteran owned enterprises and people of color
NGOs, and avoiding gentrification and displacement as communities become greener, more
expensive, and more desirable.
~ Art, culture, and spiritual values. This includes the Pope's encyclical on caring about our
common home. This also includes Native American values.
~ Equal justice, democracy, and livability for all. "Ultimately, we can appeal to the values that we
strive to achieve as a community and democracy and emphasi/e the inherent democratic nature
of public spaces."8
Human health includes a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, and not merely
alleviating chronic diseases including obesity and diabetes, according to the World Health Organization
and NPS.9
III. Best Practice Framework for EPA to Ensure Compliance with Civil Rights, and Environmental
Justice and Health, Laws and Principles
in addition to President Obama, the following federal authorities provide leadership and best practice
examples for EPA to implement compliance with civil rights, and environmental justice and health, laws
and principles. These examples include National Park Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, US
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Under Secretary of Agriculture Robert Bonnie,
Representative Judy Chu, and Representative Raul Grijalva, who is the Ranking Member of the U.S.
House Committee on Natural Resources.
7 See, e.g., Penny Gordon-Larsen et al., Inequality in the Built Environment Underlies Key Health Disparities in Physical
Activity and Obesity, 117 Pediatrics 417 (2006); Lisa M. Powell et al., Availability of Physical Activity-Related Facilities and
Neighborhood Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics: A National Study, 96 Am. J. Pub. Health 1676 (2006); Lisa M.
Powell et al., The Relationship between Community Physical Activity Settings and Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status, 1
Evidence-Based Preventive Medicine 135 (2004); Robert Garcia, The George Butler Lecture: Social Justice and Leisure, 45 J.
Leisure Research 7 (2013); Robert Garcia and Seth Strongin, Healthy Parks, Schools and Communities: Mapping Green Access
and Equity for Southern California (2011); Chona Sister et al., Got Green? Addressing Environmental Justice in Park Provision,
75 GeoJournal 229 (2010); Jennifer Wolch et al., Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An Equity-based Analysis 26 Urban
Geography 4 (2005); Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris & Orit Stieglitz, Children in Los Angeles Parks: A Study of Equity, Quality
and Children's Satisfaction with Neighbourhood Parks, 73 Town Plan. Rev. 467 (2002).
8 See NPS Healthy Parks Healthy People Community Engagement eGuide, page 15, available at
www.nps.gov/public_health/hp/hphp/press/HealthyParksHealthyPeople_eGuide.pdf.
See NPS Healthy Parks Healthy People Science Plan July 2013, available at
http://www.nps.gov/public_health/hp/hphp/press/HPHP_Science%20Plan_accessible%20version.final.23.july.2013.pdf.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
3
47
-------
NPS and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) agree on the framework for environmental justice
and health to address parks and healthy active living. According to the NPS draft study to expand the
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area ("Rim of the Valley" or ROTV),10 the NPS draft
study for the San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area,11 and the USACE draft study to restore
the Los Angeles River:'
(1) There are disparities in park and green access based on race, color, or national origin;
(2) This contributes to health disparities based on those factors; and
(3) Environmental justice laws and principles require agencies to address these disparities.
Attached are maps on green access and health, and the relevant, highlighted portions of the three NPS and
USACE studies.
Robert Bonnie, who is the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment at the US Department
of Agriculture, agrees. Under Secretary Bonnie provides leadership and commitment on environmental
justice and health on behalf of the United State Forest Service when he writes as follows regarding the
proposed management plan for the San Gabriel Mountains:
Environmental justice is a very important issue for the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and the US Forest Service. Executive Order 12898 requires each Federal agency to address
environmental justice as part of its mission. Pursuant to this Executive Order, USDA has an
Environmental Justice Strategic Plan which was updated in 2012 and signed by Secretary
Vilsack. ... In keeping with this direction from the strategic plan as well as the requirements for
stakeholder input in the 2012 Forest Service planning rule, the Forest Service will pursue an
inclusive, open and transparent process in developing the San Gabriel Mountains National
Monument plan that will meet with the requirements of the Executive Order as well as USDA's
environmental justice policies. Beyond that, the Forest Service is deeply committed to
strengthening relationships with all communities and citizens. This planning process will afford
an opportunity to build on that commitment.
Email message from Under Secretary Bonnie to The City Project, June 19, 2015 (on file with The City
Project).
Representative Raul Grijalva and the US House Committee on Natural Resources held a forum in Los
Angeles in April 2015 attended by seven members of Congress. The forum explicitly addressed the need
to implement Title VI and Executive Order 12898 in the context of parks and green access.13
10 NPS, Rim of the Valley Corridor: Draft Special Resource Study and Environmental Assessment (April 2015). Highlighted
excerpts of the study are available at goo.gl/86fMwS. The full report is available
at: parkplanning.nps.gov/rimofthevalley_draftreport. See NPS Rim of the Valley Draft Study Best Practice for Expanding Green
Access, Health, and Environmental Justice for All (The City Project Blog 2015), www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/36966.
11 NPS, Draft San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study & Environmental Assessment, p. 231 (Sept 2011).
Highlighted excerpts of the study are available at goo.gl/nXGbom. See San Gabriel Mountains Best Practice Environmental
Justice Framework for Parks, Health, and Conservation Values (The City Project Blog
2014), www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/32899. See also NPS, Healthy Parks, Healthy People Community Engagement
eGuide, available at www.nps.gov/public_health/hp/hphp/press/HealthyParksHealthyPeople_eGuide.pdf.
12 USACE, Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Integrated Feasibility Report. Relevant excerpts of the study are
highlighted at goo.gl/jraRdw. The complete draft study is available
atwww.spl.usace.army.mil/Portals/17/docs/publicnotices/DraftIntegratedReport.pdf See US Army Corps of Engineers Study
Best Practice Framework for Revitalizing L,A. River (The City Project Blog 2014), www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/33093.
13 See www.sgvtribune.com/environment-and-nature/20150408/local-democrats-wield-environmental-justice-to-fight-republican-
bills.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
4
48
-------
Rep. Judy Qui spoke on environmental justice and parks at the April House forum in Los Angeles.
Well thank you Ranking Member Grijalva and the Natural Resources Committee for holding this
very important forum on the state of environmental justice .... I'd like to talk about
environmental justice as it relates to parks. Los Angeles is one of the most park poor places in the
country. Just 15% of the region's population has pedestrian access to green spaces, leaving more
than 85% of residents without easy access to public parks or green spaces, particularly affecting
minorities and those from low-income communities. And there's a color divide. Did you know
that in L.A., white neighborhoods enjoy 32 acres of parks per 1,000 people, but for African
American neighborhoods it's 1.7, and for Latino neighborhoods it's .6.
The transcript and video of these remarks are available on The City Project blog.14 Representative Judy
Chu also cites environmental justice and health as two of the main justifications for her proposed
legislation to create the San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area.15
Andrew Cuomo, who was then the Secretary of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development,
provides a best practice to address the values at stake under Title VI and Executive Order 12898.
Secretary Cuomo withheld federal subsidies for proposed warehouses at what is now Los Angeles State
Historic Park unless there was a full environmental review that considered the park alternative and the
impact on people of color and low-income people. Secretary Cuomo cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and the President's Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice and health. Secretary Cuomo
acted in response to an administrative complaint based on these civil rights and other housing laws filed
by diverse community allies, including The City Project. Secretary Cuomo's leadership and actions, and
this community victory, are a seminal moment for people, planning, and parks in the green justice
movement." They provide best practices for EPA to conduct compliance analyses under Title VI and
12898.
The follow ing planning process applies to federal agencies, and to recipients of federal funding including
state and local agencies and private recipients, to help ensure compliance and equity under Title VI and
Executive Order 12898.
1. Describe what you plan to do ~~ for example, revitalize the Los Angeles River.
2. Analyze the benefits and burdens on all people, including people of color and low-income people.
Who benefits, and who gets left behind? Analyze the values at stake. The analysis should address any
numerical disparities, statistical studies, and anecdotal evidence; impacts based on race, color or
national origin; inequalities based on income and wealth; and the use of GIS mapping and census data.
Follow the money.
3. Include people of color and low-income people in the decision making process.
4. Analyze the alternatives.
5. Develop an implementation and monitoring plan to distribute benefits and burdens fairly, avoid
unjustified discriminatory impacts and intentional discrimination, and comply with civil rights,
environmental justice and health, and environmental laws and principles}1
14 Rep. Judy Chu's remarks are available at www.cityprojectea.org/blog/arehives/36870.
15 See Rep. Judy Chu, San Gabriel National Recreation Area Proposal Frequently Asked Questions,
http://chu.house.gov/content/san-gabriel-national-recreation-area-proposal-faq.
16 See Best Practice HUD Los Angeles State Historic Park Healthy Green Land Use for All (The City Project Blog
2014), www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/32984.
17 In addition to the studies above examples, see Federal Transit Administration, Environmental justice policy guidance for
Federal Transit Administration recipients, Circular (FTA C 4703.1) (Washington, DC: Department of Transportation, Aug. 15,
2012); FTA, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients, Circular (FTA C
4702.IB) (Washington, DC: Oct. 1,2012); Letters from FTA to Metropolitan Transportation Commission and San Francisco Bay
EJ 2020 Public Comments
5
49
-------
EPA can implement compliance with Title VI and 12898 through various means. This includes planning,
regulations, data collection and analyses, review of federal funding applications, contractual assurances of
compliance by recipients of federal financial assistance, compulsory self-evaluations by recipients,
compliance reviews after funding, investigation of administrative complaints, full and fair public
participation in the compliance and enforcement process, and termination and deferral of funding. The
Department of Justice has civil rights coordinating responsibility with federal agencies and can enforce
civil rights laws in court.18
IV. EPA Must Recognize that Access to Parks and Healthy Green Space Is a Civil Rights and
Environmental Justice Issue
EPA must recognize that access to parks and healthy green space is a civil rights and environmental
justice issue. Among other things, this entails that EPA revise its environmental justice mapping and
screening tool called EJScreen to include parks and green space.19
EPA needs to include park and green space data in its EJ Screen in part so that public officials can
develop standards to measure compliance, equity, and progress, and to hold public officials accountable.
Park funds in California have been prioritized based on need in communities that are defined under state
law as "park poor" and "income poor." Park poor is defined as less than three acres of parks per thousand
residents, and income poor is below $48,706 in median household income. These communities are
disproportionately of color. The park poor, income poor standards are a best practice to define standards
to promote compliance, measure equity and progress, and hold public officials accountable.20
The attached two maps of California illustrate that the same communities that are disproportionately of
color and low income are also the most burdened for pollution, and are the most vulnerable to its effects.
The same communities also have the worst access to green space.
Area Rapid Transit District (Jan. 15, 2010 and Feb. 12, 2010), available at www.cityprojectca.org/blog/arehives/4468. The FTA
table comparing 12898 and Title VI is also attached below.
California and other states provide similar protections. California Attorney General Kamala Harris, for example, has published
a fact sheet on civil rights and environmental justice protections under California law for projects that are funded or administered
by the state. The Attorney General's fact statement is available on the web at
oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/ej_fact_sheet.pdf.
18 Michael Rodriguez, MD, MPH; Marc Brenman; Marianne Engelman Lado, JD; and Robert Garcia, JD, Using Civil Rights
Tools to Address Health Disparities (The City Project Policy Report 2014), goo.gl/mYvhOm.
19 See California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool: CalEnviroScreen Version 2.0 (CalEnviroScreen 2.0),
http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/ces2.html.
20 See Park funds for park poor and income poor communities - Prop 84 and AB 31 standards are working! (The City Project
Blog 2014), www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/32075.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
6
50
-------
Park Poor, Income Poor and People of Color
the City Piojtct
CA SP - 2010 (2)
Less than 3 acres parkland per 1000 people and
Below $48,706 Median Household Income'
Less than 3 acres parkland per 1000 people and
Above $48,706 Median Household Income'
More lhan 3 acres parkland per 1000 people and
Below $48,706 Median Household Income'
More than 3 acres parkland per 1000 people and
Above $48,706 Median Household Income'
Over Stale Average for People of Color
State A mage - 58.8%
Demographies - Community 5orvet (ACS) 5-yeor bloc kg roup »
estimates 2006-2010, US Census Bureou
ceosm.gov/oc3/wvfv.,'dafo documentation/summary Me-'
*548.706 » 80* of the state w>de overage and a used fo define a disadvantaged
community .n Cofifomia, Co) Pub- Res Code §§ 5642(b), 75005(g)
Emsting Parte/Green Space - California Protected Areas Del abase (CPAD) vl 8 Jv;y
201 2. Greenlnlo Network colondi.org All parks and open space ore used to
colcu'oto acres of porkJand per 10CO people, including Forest Service. Bureou of Land
Management and large state/regional porks.
Slate Parks ore defined as lands evened by The Coltfomia Deportment of Porks and
Recreation. This includes: tfate beac'nes, state recreation areas, stole veh>culbr
recreohon areas, and sta*e Hutortcal porks.
Map and analyses by The City Project and Green Info Network, September 2013,
cityproiectoa.org and greeninfo.org CC 8Y NC SA
The State Parks logo does not 'mply ed tonol content has be«n authored by or
¦:'--ie • o; -o
~VI FC.MA M .
SaitfNKMiK »
Beach
>
EJ 2020 Public Comments
7
51
-------
The same communities that are disproportionately of color and low income are also the most burdened for
pollution, and are the most vulnerable to its effects. Thus:
~ In the communities that are the most burdened for pollution and vulnerability (the 10 percent
worst score under California's CalEnviroScreen (CES), fully 89 percent of the people are of color
and only 11 percent are non-Hispanic white people. Statewide, the population average is 58
percent people of color.
~ In the communities that are the least burdened for pollution and vulnerability (the 10 percent best
CES scores), only 31 percent of the people are of color and fully 69 percent are non-Hispanic
white people.
~ Sixty-four percent of people of color live in the most-burdened communities for pollution and
vulnerability (the 50 percent worst CES scores) — only 31 percent of non-Hispanic white people
live in those areas.
~ Only 36 percent of people of color live in the least-burdened communities for pollution and
vulnerability (the 50 percent best CES scores) and fully 69 percent of non-Hispanic white people
live in those areas.
The measures of pollution and vulnerability are from CES. The City Project and Greenlnfo Network
provide the analysis on race, color, national origin, and green access, because CES inappropriately
excludes these factors. EPA should require California to include race, color, and national origin in CES in
order to facilitate compliance with Title VI and its regulations.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
8
52
-------
Pollution Burden, Vulnerability, and People of Color
CA - CES2.0
People of Color
-fijrssfiftL.
GmcotCi*
Highest Pollution ^
Burden &
Vulnerability 9
v> *
-^Of-amenlo
Son F»a ncuco y wfcat'qhd \
iMdoapoit.
Lowest Pollution
Burden &
Vulnerability
Non Hispanic White
11%
x\\n Over State Average for People of Color
v State Ann# - 58.4%
No Score available for Tract
Long brock
I
IWwh 7'v 1 X . ^
¦i
„^*n[>eflO
MEXICO
Demographics Genu* 2010, US Cereut Buisu,
provided far #»e ColE*v>^oScrB«n a' Kfrp //oe^o co go>/«t/cw2 html
CalErWfoScrwen 2.0 - "Hie CE5 2.0 Score identities communises in CoHforrvo
most burdened by pollution
-------
V. Reflect in EPA's Work including EJ 2020 Pope Francis's Encyclical on Caring about Climate,
Caring for Creation, and Caring for the Poor and Disadvantaged
Pope Francis in his encyclical on caring for our common home calls for all of humanity to care about
climate, care about creation, and care about the poor and underprivileged. The Pope intricately weaves
moral and spiritual teachings with science, economics, and politics, addressing environmental values as
well as human dignity and human rights. See Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' of the Holy
Father Francis on Care for our Common Home.21 We request that EPA reflect the Pope's encyclical in its
work including EJ 2020.
A. Park Access and the Disposable of Society
Pope Francis, President Barack Obama, USFS, NPS, and HUD emphasize similar values in park access.
Pope Francis writes that we find beautiful green space in safe areas, but not where the disposable of
society live. This is true in communities of color and low income communities across the nation, as
discussed above. This can lead to brutality and exploitation. The Pope emphasizes the need to include
those who are most affected in the planning process. Thus the Pope writes:
Many cities are huge, inefficient structures, excessively wasteful of energy and water.
Neighborhoods, even those recently built, are congested, chaotic and lacking in sufficient green
space. We were not meant to be inundated by cement, asphalt, glass and metal, and deprived of
physical contact with nature.
In some places, rural and urban alike, the privatization of certain spaces has restricted people's access
to places of particular beauty. In others, "ecological" neighborhoods have been created which are
closed to outsiders in order to ensure an artificial tranquility. Frequently, we find beautiful and
carefully manicured green spaces in so-called "safer" areas of cities, but not in the more hidden areas
where the disposable of society live.
The extreme poverty experienced in areas lacking harmony, open spaces or potential for integration,
can lead to incidents of brutality and to exploitation .... Here too, we see how important it is that
urban planning always take into consideration the views of those who will live in these areas.
There is ... a need to protect those common areas, visual landmarks and urban landscapes which
increase our sense of belonging, of rootedness, of "feeling at home" within a city which includes us
and brings us together. It is important that the different parts of a city be well integrated and that those
who live there have a sense of the whole, rather than being confined to one neighborhood and failing
21 See The City Project's blog posts on Pope Francis's encyclical: Pope Francis Care about Climate Justice, Care for Creation,
Care for the Poor Encyclical in English, Espahol, etc. (www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/38050); Pope Francis "The poor
and the earth are crying out. " Who are the poor in the US and CA? (www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/38317); Pope Francis
on housing, equal dignity, and displacement. Fair housing is a right US Supreme Court,
(www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/38352); Pope Francis Parks make us feel at home, bring us together, and are needed
where the disposable of society live (www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/38366).
Prof. Michael Gerrard writes: "The remarkable Encyclical Letter issued last week by Pope Francis could be read as a primer on
the importance and idealized operation of many of our environmental laws." Prof. Gerrard identifies as examples the National
Environmental Protection Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. Prof.
Gerrard also cites the Encyclical's discussion of Zoning, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yet-to-be written
laws on energy transition, and the Importance of Environmental Laws. See Pope Francis on Environmental Law, available at
blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/06/22/pope-francis-on-environmental-law/#sthash.PIdVnf6W.dpuf.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
10
54
-------
to see the larger city as space which they share with others. For this same reason, in both urban and
rural settings, it is helpful to set aside some places which can be preserved and protected from
constant changes brought by human intervention.
Anyone who grew up in the hills, or sat by the spring to drink as a child, or played outdoors in the
neighborhood park, feels one is being called to recover one's true self when one goes back to those
places.
Encyclical, 44-45, 84, 149-51.
B. Climate Justice
Pope Francis recognizes that climate justice and environmental degradation cannot be solved without
solving the problems of poverty and inequality. Thus the Pope writes:
Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic,
political and for the distribution of goods. ... Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing
countries in coming decades. Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena
related to warming .... ^( 25.
We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with
one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an
integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time
protecting nature. 1 131.
We agree. Climate worsens a range of health problems, especially for communities of color and low
income communities. Latinos and other people of color disproportionately believe climate science, and
are willing to support climate action. Responding to the climate challenge can create jobs, improve
people's health, reduce heating and cooling bills, and reduce the damage caused by the production of
fossil fuels. We can grow the economy and promote human health, the environment, and equal justice at
the same time. See Robert Garcia and Ariel Collins, Climate is a civil rights and moral issue as well as a
health, economic, and environmental issue (2015), www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/35499.
C. Environmental, Equity, and Health Impact Assessments
The assessment the Pope describes is consistent with a compliance and equity assessment under civil
rights laws, including Title VI and Executive Order 12898. Health impact assessments are consistent with
both the Pope's and the civil rights assessments.
The Pope writes: "In any discussion about a proposed venture, a number of questions need to be asked in
order to discern whether or not it will contribute to genuine integral development. What will it
accomplish? Why? Where? When? How? For whom? What are the risks? What are the costs?
Who will pay those costs and how?" Thus the purpose of an environmental impact assessment includes
equity and health:
Environmental impact assessment should not come after the drawing up of a business proposition
or the proposal of a particular policy, plan or programme. It should be part of the process from the
beginning, and be carried out in a way which is interdisciplinary, transparent and free of all
economic or political pressure. It should be linked to a study of working conditions and possible
effects on people's physical and mental health, on the local economy and on public safety.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
11
55
-------
Economic returns can thus be forecast more realistically, taking into account potential scenarios
and the eventual need for further investment to correct possible undesired effects. A consensus
should always be reached between the different stakeholders, who can offer a variety of
approaches, solutions and alternatives. The local population should have a special place at the
table; they are concerned about their own future and that of their children, and can consider goals
transcending immediate economic interest. . . . The participation of the latter also entails being
fully informed about such projects and their different risks and possibilities; this includes not just
preliminary decisions but also various follow-up activities and continued monitoring. Honesty and
truth are needed in scientific and political discussions; these should not be limited to the issue of
whether or not a particular project is permitted by law.
In the face of possible risks to the environment which may affect the common good now and in the
future, decisions must be made "based on a comparison of the risks and benefits foreseen for the
various possible alternatives". This is especially the case when a project may lead to a greater use
of natural resources, higher levels of emission or discharge, an increase of refuse, or significant
changes to the landscape, the habitats of protected species or public spaces. Some projects, if
insufficiently studied, can profoundly affect the quality of life of an area due to very different
factors such as unforeseen noise pollution, the shrinking of visual horizons, the loss of cultural
values, or the effects of nuclear energy use. The culture of consumerism, which prioritizes short-
term gain and private interest, can make it easy to rubber-stamp authorizations or to conceal
information, 183-85 (citations omitted).
VI. Diversity, Funding and Compliance
Transformational change is necessary to attain the world we seek and to modernize the environmental,
climate, and health movement. Diversifying the boards and staff of white mainstream NGOs is only part
of the solution. EPA and other agencies, mainstream environmental organizations, and foundations need
to fund diverse organizations whose core values are to serve communities of color and low income
communities, including grass roots, environmental justice, and civil rights organizations. EPA and other
agencies, organizations, and foundations need to ensure compliance with civil rights and environmental
justice laws in principles.22
VII. EPA Must Create a Culture of Compliance with Civil Rights, and Environmental Justice and
Health, Laws and Principles
EPA must create a culture of leadership and best practices for compliance with Title VI and Executive
Order 12898, following the examples cited above and going beyond them.
There is instead a culture at EPA that marginalizes and ignores compliance with the law, including Title
VI and Executive Order 12898. This culture of non-compliance is manifested in a range of ways. EPA has
a "record of poor performance" on civil rights.23 EPA commonly uses euphemisms to avoid controlling
legal standards. Thus, for example, EPA states that it seeks to make "a visible difference in
environmentally overburdened, underserved, and economically-distressed communities."24 While people
22 See Dorceta E. Taylor, The State of Diversity in Environmental Organizations: Mainstream NGOs, Foundations &
Government Agencies, available at http://diversegreen.org/report/; Environmental Justice Leaders Call for Diversifying Funding
of People of Color NGOs, Civil Rights Compliance (The City Project Blog 2015), www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/36235.
23 See, e.g., Deloitte Consulting LLP, "Final Report: Evaluation of the EPA Office of Civil Rights," (March 21, 2011) (citing a
"record of poor performance") at 2.
24 Broadcast email message from Environmental Justice EPA re: [epa-ej] EPA Extends Public Comment Period on Draft EJ 2020
Action Agenda Framework to July 14,2015 (June 8, 2015).
EJ 2020 Public Comments
12
56
-------
of color and low income people are commonly "overburdened, underserved, and economically-
distressed," the legal standards are written in the stated legal terms, not in the latter amorphous terms.
EPA must enforce the laws.
That is why we submit the present comments. "[L]lack of respect for the law is becoming more common.
Laws may be well framed yet remain a dead letter. . . . Because the enforcement of laws is at times
inadequate . . . , public pressure has to be exerted in order to bring about decisive political action. Society,
through non-governmental organizations and intermediate groups, must put pressure on governments to
develop more rigorous regulations, procedures and controls. Unless citizens control political power -
national, regional and municipal - it will not be possible to control damage to the environment."
Encyclical 179.
Conclusion
We look forward to working with EPA to ensure compliance with civil rights, and environmental justice
and health, laws and principles, now and through EJ 2020.
Sincerely,
Claire Robinson
Amigos de los Rios
Scott Chan
Asian and Pacific Islander Obesity Prevention Alliance (APIOPA i
Robert Garcia
The City Project
Camilla Simon
Hispanics Enjoying Camping, Hunting, and the Outdoors (HECHO)
Ruben D. Arvizu
Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society
Xavier Morales
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California (LCHC)
Chelsea Griffie
Los Angeles Wilderness Training
Douglas Meiklejohn
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
Marc Brcnman
Social Justice Consultancy
Judy Baca, Debra J.T. Padilla
Social and Public Art Resource Center (SPARC)
EJ 2020 Public Comments
13
57
-------
CEEC
Corporate Environmental Enforcement Council, Inc.
July 13,2015
Submitted Electronically and via Hard Copy
ei strategy@epa. gov
Mr. Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Comments on EPA's Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Dear Mr. Lee:
The Corporate Environmental Enforcement Council (CEEC) welcomes this opportunity
to comment on EPA's Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, which was released to the
public on April 15, 2015. CEEC is encouraged by EPA's commitment to making a visible
difference in communities across America, including, without limitation, those that are
environmentally overburdened, underserved or economically distressed. CEEC also appreciates
the many long-standing policies and commitments EPA has made to advance the meaningful
consideration of environmental justice (EJ) factors in the Agency's decision-making. CEEC
recognizes that the Framework marks the beginning of an ambitious new environmental justice
agenda, but we are concerned that it does not provide sufficient details about the Agency's plans
to allow for meaningful public review and comment. CEEC is also concerned that the
Framework wholly overlooks one of the core elements of EJ - disproportionate impact.
Founded in 1995, CEEC is the only cross-industry business coalition that brings together
the diverse perspectives of legal, technical and governmental affairs professionals on
environmental health and safety issues in the context of enforcement policy and practice. For
many years, CEEC and its 29 member companies have maintained an active and constructive
dialogue with EPA on its enforcement policies and initiatives. Indeed, at our March 12, 2015
member meeting, Matt Tejada joined us to discuss EJ developments within the Agency,
EJ 2020 Public Comments
58
-------
Mr. Charles Lee
July 13,2015
Page 2 of 4
including the Framework, EJSCREEN and the recently released EPA guide on incorporating EJ
into the rulemaking process. CEEC welcomed Mr. Tejada's willingness to engage with us and
his commitment to involving business and industry in EPA's EJ-related community outreach
efforts.
Scope of Framework
EJ is based on two core elements: a disadvantaged community and a disproportionate
impact to that community. Noticeably absent from the Framework is any reference to, or
acknowledgement of, the second element. CEEC believes that this is a fundamental oversight
that must be corrected before the Framework is finalized. Indeed, much more needs to be done
to bring clarity to the agency's EJ efforts in terms of what constitutes a disproportionate impact
and how such an impact is measured. CEEC is concerned that the agency sometimes focuses
only on the existence of a disadvantaged community and the fact that a facility (or facilities) may
"impact" that community, without enough attention on the issue of whether the facility/facilities
at issue have a "disproportionate" impact. Doing so could run afoul of the Agency's long-
standing EJ policies.
Any effort to address EJ in permitting, rulemaking or enforcement should be based on
valid, real time monitoring data that show disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on the disadvantaged community in which a particular facility is located.
If there are such valid scientific findings based on those data, EPA's next step must be to assess
the reasons for the disproportionate impact. CEEC notes that "reasons" for an impact are very
different than "sources" of an impact. The purpose of EPA's assessment must be to evaluate
whether there are other "reasons" for the impact that could and should be handled using a
mechanism other than, for example, automatically targeting a particular facility with a pending
permit. CEEC believes that the assessment should include a review of whether there are other
environmental indicators, such as traffic, that are causing the impact, or other facilities that are
also impacting the community while operating completely outside of the regulatory system (e.g.,
no permits whatsoever). If either is the case, then CEEC submits it would be more appropriate,
in the first instance, to look to address whatever disproportionate impact is occurring by bringing
those facilities or activities into the regulatory system and enforcing compliance with applicable
regulatory and permitting requirements. This approach needs to be captured in the Framework.
Using EJ in Enforcement
The Framework calls for EJ to be used for targeting, case development and resolution of
compliance and enforcement actions in overburdened communities. However, CEEC suggests
that use of EJ as a "targeting" tool (both in civil and criminal enforcement) needs to be carefully
considered to the extent it is used as a proxy for determining whether individual cases merit
enforcement. CEEC has emphasized previously that as a legal and policy matter, enforcement is
appropriately focused on non-compliance with existing legal requirements - regardless of
whether EJ is a factor or not. CEEC believes it is important that EJ not be used to redefine what
constitutes compliance or non-compliance.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
59
-------
Mr. Charles Lee
July 13,2015
Page 3 of 4
CEEC is concerned that EJ will be used to pressure regulated entities into accepting new
compliance requirements through adjudicated settlements (and permits) that have not been
established through normal APA procedures. This approach could undermine the very thing the
Agency seeks for EJ purposes, i.e., robust public engagement.
Using NextGen Tools to Further EJ Goals
The Framework also encourages more NextGen monitoring, community-based
participatory research and citizen science. As noted in CEEC's written comments on EPA's
Notice and Request for Comment on Improving EPA Regulations, 80 Fed. Reg. 12,372 (March 9,
2015), CEEC supports EPA's NextGen Compliance Initiative. We are particularly interested in
opportunities for EPA to use NextGen to shift from a retroactive compliance approach (i.e., one
that measures and enforces what went wrong) to one that is more proactive (i.e., encouraging and
rewarding programs that prevent things from going wrong in the first place). CEEC views these
opportunities as particularly valuable in the EJ context, especially as EPA seeks to foster more
local community collaborations. CEEC also believes that for NextGen to be both useful and
defensible, EPA must provide clear and objective standards for data quality, authentication and
veracity (particularly as they relate to new and emerging mobile apps that lack - and indeed may
fail - such standards). CEEC encourages EPA to address these NextGen considerations and
concerns in the final Framework.
Collaborating with E J Partners
Consistent with the Agency's call for greater collaboration, CEEC encourages EPA to
identify ways to reduce environmental impacts to overburdened communities, including
improving economic opportunity and revitalization. Many cases of disparate impacts,
particularly in urban settings, are the result of many years of benign economic neglect from local
political decision-making that must be resolved over time with greater capacity building and
sustainable development. We believe this type of collaboration needs to be explicitly identified
and encouraged in the Framework.
Demonstrating Progress on EJ Outcomes
As part of the Framework, EPA has asked for public input on whether there are particular
program areas of such consequence to overburdened communities that should be the focus of
attention nationally, including, for example, drinking water and lead paint. CEEC believes that
these are both worthy examples, and further, that any EJ priorities should coincide with the
agency's overarching priorities for protecting the environment and public. Nothing is more
critical than safe, healthy and sustainable water resources, yet the Nation's crumbling water
infrastructure is having enormous adverse impacts on small and rural communities - many of
them minority and poor - without the financial and technical resources to fix the problem. These
are complex issues that cannot be resolved by EJ initiatives alone, but should include Congress,
the States, mayors, businesses, industries, NGOs and community leaders, more reinvestment in
failing infrastructure, improvements in local governance, and increased enforcement against
those entities operating outside of the law.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
60
-------
Mr. Charles Lee
July 13,2015
Page 4 of 4
In closing, we want to thank you for this opportunity to provide input on the Framework.
CEEC is committed to continuing its engagement with the Agency on this important topic and
believes that the collective experience and perspective of our members would greatly improve
the direction and ultimate success of EPA's EJ agenda.
Sincerely,
Steven B. Hellem
Executive Director
EJ 2020 Public Comments
61
-------
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Drew Walker
Monday, June
ejstrategy
>
Rhonda Anderson
EPA EJ 2020 Comments
State_of_Detroit_s_Environment.pdf
Hello,
Below are some comments we have in regards to your EJ 2020 Action Framework.
• A great number of overburdened communities that we serve are immigrant communities, meaning that a large portion of the
population cannot speak English well or at all. I suggest providing more information in other languages or in simple English so
that people living in EJ communities can be well informed.
• We desire to see more tangible results in regards to issues in EJ communities. In our area, that includes shutting down or
reducing the emissions of the biggest polluters which contribute to Detroit having among the highest asthma rates in the country
and Detroit's 48217 being the most polluted zip code in the state of Michigan.
• Finally, we would like to see harsher consequences for polluters that violate EPA standards, especially those that pollute in
already overburdened communities.
Attached is a publication by the Sierra Club Detroit Chapter entitled The State of Detroit's
Environment, which describes Detroit's most prevalent environmental issues and facts and figures
from recent studies. I hope that this publication and email can help you understand the urgency of
environmental justice issues in Detroit.
Thank you for your time.
Best wishes,
Rhonda Anderson, Senior Organizer, Beyond Coal Campaign-Sierra Club
rhonda.anderson@sierraclub.org
Drew Walker
University of Michigan, Residential College, 2016
Intern, Sierra Club
EJ 2020 Public Comments
1
62
-------
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Charles Lee, Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental
Justice, EPA Office of Environmental Justice
FROM:
David Konisky, Georgetown University
Christopher Reenock, Florida State University*
SUBJECT:
Comments on EPA's Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
DATE:
May 27, 2015
The EPA has taken important steps in recent years to better integrate environmental justice
into its decision-making. The documents produced as part of EPA's EJ Plan 2014 in
particular have directed significant attention to how the agency will use regulatory
enforcement to achieve improved outcomes in overburdened communities. And, there is
some preliminary indication in a recent EPA Office of Inspector General report that EPA
regional offices have begun to actively consider environmental justice in their enforcement
programs.
Despite these advances, we believe the EPA needs to take additional actions to ensure that
these activities extend to state regulatory enforcement efforts. EPA's report, "Advancing
Environmental Justice through Compliance and Enforcement, Implementation Plan" notes
that the EPA will work with state governments to achieve compliance and enforcement
goals, but the steps to be taken are vague, and do not specify how the EPA will use its
significant capacity to assure that state governments fulfill the agency's enforcement goals
in the federal programs they implement
This is an important area that we believe the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework does
not satisfactorily address. The Environmental Council of the States has estimated that more
than 90% of the actions taken to enforce major federal pollution control laws are carried
out by state administrative agencies, and states have considerable discretion in determining
their enforcement strategies. For this reason, we believe it is imperative that the EPA work
directly with states to be sure that the EPA's environmental justice related enforcement
goals are carried out by state agencies.
We have completed a number of studies (listed at the end of this memorandum) of state
enforcement of laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act that have found significant disparities in enforcement
Specifically, we have consistently found that state regulators tend to direct fewer
compliance monitoring inspections and fewer enforcement actions in response to violations
when facilities are located in communities with large proportions of poor and minority
communities. Moreover, our research indicates that these disparities have not diminished
in the years since the issuance of Executive Order 12898.
* These comments reflect our opinions, and do not represent the views of Georgetown
University or Florida State University.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
63
-------
For these reasons, we believe it is critical that the EPA broaden the Draft EJ 2020 Action
Agenda Framework in the area of enforcement to emphasize the important role of states.
Specifically, we strongly recommend that a fourth priority be added to the "Advance
environmental justice through compliance and enforcement" section of the framework:
"Work with state, tribal, local governments and other co-regulators to develop robust
enforcement programs in overburdened communities."
Further, we recommend that the EPA take the following actions in support of this additional
priority:
• EPA regional offices should closely oversee states' enforcement programs to be sure
they are targeting facilities in overburdened communities.
• EPA should direct states to use EPA tools such as EJScreen to identify enforcement
targets.
• States should regularly report to the EPA on their compliance and enforcement
efforts in overburdened communities.
• EPA should monitor administrative procedures within state agencies given their
influence over facility targeting.
• EPA should integrate environmental justice priorities in performance partnership
agreements and other federal-state cooperative arrangements.
In sum, we believe that the EPA needs to vigorously engage with state agencies and other
relevant government authorities to assure that the compliance and enforcement initiatives
that the agency is pursuing as part of the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework are
effective.
List of relevant studies we have authored:
David M. Konisky and Christopher Reenock. 2015. "Evaluating Fairness in Environmental
Regulatory Enforcement," In: Failed Promises: Evaluating the Federal Government's Response
to Environmental Justice, Konisky, D.M., ed., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 173-203.
David M. Konisky and Christopher Reenock. 2013. "Compliance Bias and Environmental
(In)Justice," The Journal of Politics 7 5(2): 506-519.
David M. Konisky and Tyler S. Schario. 2010. "Examining Environmental Justice in Facility-
Level Regulatory Enforcement," Social Science Quarterly 91(3): 835-855.
David M. Konisky. 2009. "The Limited Effects of Federal Environmental Justice Policy on
State Enforcement" Policy Studies Journal 37(3): 475-496.
David M. Konisky. 2009. "Inequities in Enforcement? Environmental Justice and
Government Performance,"Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 28(1): 102-121.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
64
-------
Contact information:
David Konisky, Associate Professor
Christopher Reenock, Associate Professor
EJ 2020 Public Comments
65
-------
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
District Department of the Environment
Office of the Director
~ ~ ~
July 8, 2015
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEPA, Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20460
ei strategv@epa. gov
Mr. Lee,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide input on U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework (EJ 2020). We are pleased to learn
that EPA remains committed to environmental justice, and that it plans to strengthen the
foundation established by Plan EJ 2014. Below you will find our comments and questions on the
draft framework. We look forward to informing the EJ 2020 process further if need be, and to
continuing our collaboration with the Office of Environmental Justice.
• We are looking forward to the National Program Managers guidance which, according to
the draft framework, will be developed in the next two years under EJ 2020. Under the
section "Priorities in 2015," it reads that "measurable activities to advance environmental
justice" will be included in the National Program Managers guidance. Will the goals
delineated in EJ 2020 have measurements associated with them? What will be the
quantifiable indicators of progress for the EJ 2020 goals?
• We believe that every plan needs to be followed up with a pulse check or progress report
of some kind. Does EPA intend on providing a progress report a few years after goal
implementation is underway?
• It is our hope that EJ 2020, and any derivative guidance, will prioritize cross-
jurisdictional partnerships (i.e., partnerships between geographically adjacent local
governments). Environmental issues often cross boundaries and are diffuse in nature.
Therefore, when enacting policy, we request that future EPA directives local
governments should work with their neighbors that are located both upwind and
downwind of them.
OF THE
ENVIR.ONWl.2Q20 Public ComrtiiflfeFirst St. NE. 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20002 | tel: 202.535.2600 | web: ddoe.dc.gov
~ ~ ~
WE ARE
DC
DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT
green forward
-------
• We're pleased to see public-private partnerships < P3) mentioned under Goal II.C of Ei
2020. We would like to see mure of an emphasis on P3 in E.l 202(1 moving forward, P3 is
an approach thai lias been proven to be successful in certain eon 1 munily revitali/ution
projects (i.e., ReCienesis in South Carolina, and Prinee Georges County, MDj, Private
entities are often pointed out as being the cause of en\ iromnental injustices; however,
they can also be part of the solution if they are involved early on in the planning process.
We hope hi 2020 will encourage stakeholders to leverage the strengths of P3s so that
businesses can he brought into the fold as active stewards of social responsibility.
• Cnder Goal II.A, Hi 2020 lists stakeholder engagement us a goal. There are two types of
public dialogue or engagement - reactive and proactive. Reactive engagement occurs
when communities react to environmental policy decisions after they have been made.
Proactive engagement occurs when policy makers use public participation to inform their
goals prior to decision-making. More often than not. reactive engagement is the
predominant or only form ol public feedback. We hope I-J 2020 encourages stakeholders
to elevate the use of proactive ei\ii engagement over reactive engagement.
• We recommend including green infrastructure as one of the climate justice considerations
in KJ 2020. [J 2020 should elevate the importance of building and maintaining reliable
infrastructure in low-income and minority communities. This includes all types of
infrastructure - critical infrastructure (e.g.. evacuation routes for climate change-related
disasters), urban municipal infrastructure (e.g., sewer systems), and green infrastructure
(e.g.. greenroofs. ram gardens). Typically, resilient infrastructure is most lacking in
vulnerable communities. I:PA might consider including this as one of III 2020\s climate
justice goals: strengthen infrastructure programs m neighborhoods that traditionally don't
receive resources to do so.
• We were pleased to see an emphasis placed on the role of local government in executing
IJ 2020. Local government should play a lead role in connecting vulnerable communities
to available resources. The challenges that communities face are often not about resource
scarcity, but rather about identifying and tapping into available resources. Often, these
communities aren't aware of existing resources (funding, grants, green rebate programs,
toolkits) or they don't know the right channels to access them. We hope the finali/.ed plan
w ill include this consideration.
• Local government should also play a facditator role in helping the environmental justice
actors and community leaders collaborate with one another. Communities sometimes lack
the nuts and bolts resources (e.g., meeting rooms, conference lines, etc.) to exchange
information about environmental and health issues with one another. We hope the
final i/ed plan will include this consideration.
Director. District Department of the Environment
/
EJ 2020 Public Comments
Page 2 of2
67
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
(June 15, 2015)
)
)
)
Submitted via e-mail - July 14, 2015
to eistrategy®,eya. gov
COMMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY GROUPS
Air Alliance Houston; Alaska's Big Village Network; Apostolic Faith Center;
California Communities Against Toxics; California Kids IAQ; California Safe
Schools; CAT A - The Farmworkers Support Committee; Center for Effective
Government; Citizens Against Ruining the Environment; Citizens' Environmental
Coalition; Citizens for Clean Air; Clean Air Council; Clean and Healthy New York;
Clean Water and Air Matter; Coalition For A Safe Environment; Comite Civico del
Valle; Comite DiAlogo Ambiental, Inc.; Community Dreams; Community In-Power and
Development Association; Community Science Center; Conservation Law Foundation
Massachusetts; Del Amo Action Committee; Desert Citizens Against Pollution;
Diesel Health Project; Downwinders At Risk; East Yard Communities for
Environmental Justice; 48217 Community and Environmental Health Organization;
Farmworker Association of Florida; Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological
Disorders; Jesus People Against Pollution; Kentucky Environmental Foundation;
Labadie Environmental Organization; Martinez Environmental Group; Midwest
Coalition for Responsible Investment; Mossville Environmental Action Now;
Natural Resources Defense Council; Neighbors for Clean Air; New Mexico
Environmental Law Center; North Carolina Coastal Federation; Ohio Valley
Environmental Coalition; PenderWatch & Conservancy; Pesticide Action Network
North America; Sierra Club; Southeastern North Carolina Environmental Justice
Coalition; Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards; Steps Coalition; Texas
Environmental Justice Advocacy Services; The City Project; The Original United
Citizens of Southwest Detroit; Tri-Valley CARES; West End Revitalization
Association; and Earthjustice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently taking public comment on its
proposed action agenda for a new strategic plan on environmental justice, to be called Plan
EJ2020.1 EPA has stated specific objectives it is considering including as areas of focus for this
new plan. The undersigned commenters recommend that EPA put the bulk of its attention,
authority, commitments, and resources into two of these areas: demonstrating progress on
outcomes that matter to overburdened communities; and creating specific tools and initiatives
that will assist with achieving this progress.
Many community members and organizations are submitting additional comments. This
set of comments aims to supplement and emphasize cross-cutting actions that would advance
environmental justice across the broad spectrum of the important issues that affect communities.
1 This version, filed on July 23, 2015, adds five organizations who have since joined these
comments.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
68
-------
These comments focus on the following components that EPA should commit to include
as top priorities in Plan EJ2020, as described below.
I. DEMONSTRATE PROGRESS ON OUTCOMES THAT MATTER TO
OVERBURDENED COMMUNITIES: MAKE MEANINGFUL PROGRESS
FOR COMMUNITIES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS 4
A. Increase Agency Resources and Action Focused on Hot Spots: Vulnerable
Communities with Disproportionate Need 4
B. Achieve Health and Environmental Outcomes and Reduce Injustice 7
C. Set Action Commitments and Evaluate Progress in Achieving Each of the
EJ Metrics Outlined to the Agency in Prior Reports and Comments that
Focus at the Regional and Local Level, As Well As the National Level 10
II. TO DEEPEN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PRACTICE, CREATE NEW
CROSS-CUTTING INITIATIVES AND TOOLS THAT WOULD IMPROVE
THE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT OF OVERBURDENED AND
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES WITH PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE CONCERNS 17
A. Enforcement Initiatives 17
1. EPA should expand enforcement resources and direct its resources
to the most vulnerable communities with greatest need and past
and current compliance problems 17
2. Require EPA enforcement staff to ensure that the outcomes of
cases, including any supplemental environmental projects, provide
the best available benefits and pollution and health protections for
affected local communities 17
3. EPA should track and regularly evaluate and publish detailed
success metrics and results of enforcement cases in achieving
objectives, environmental justice, and provide this information to
the public and affected communities 18
4. EPA should create and publicize an anonymous community and
worker hotline for concerns, tips, and complaints about potential
violations of environmental laws and regulations 19
5. For each EPA Region, hold an annual enforcement symposium
with communities and state and local enforcement agencies 20
6. Create a formal project for EPA-DOJ community-directed
enforcement technical assistance, trainings, and amicus briefs 20
EJ 2020 Public Comments
69
-------
7. Create community trainings and information on pollution,
compliance, permitting, and enforcement 20
8. Provide input opportunities, information, and protections for
communities living near contaminated and Superfund sites 21
B. Regulatory Tools and Actions 22
1. Update EPA's approach to assess cumulative risks and impacts
based on current science and the need to protect vulnerable
communities 22
2. EPA should perform a review of permits and strengthen the
requirements applicable to all permits, including Title V permits,
through state oversight and direction by providing best practices 26
3. Revise the minimum public notice requirements for Clean Air Act
and other permits, for both major and minor sources, to allow for
adequate public review and participation 26
4. Create a National Clean Air Monitoring Rule to assure strong
monitoring and reporting in Clean Air Act Title V permits 26
5. Strengthen Monitoring and Reporting Requirements in Rules 28
6. Strengthen Air Monitoring Networks, Requirements, and Data 29
7. Create a policy to use citizen-collected science and monitoring
data within EPA programs, to the greatest extent possible 30
8. Integrate enforcement staff and enforcement expertise into the
rulemaking process 31
9. Assess and provide EJ outcomes in rulemakings and permitting,
not just process 32
10. OEJ should be given authority to set performance measures and
evaluate EJ progress annually, as well as give advice and feedback
to program staff. 32
III. INTERAGENCY WORK 33
IV. EPA SHOULD BUILD TITLE VI COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
INTO ALL ASPECTS OF AGENCY OPERATIONS AND INCLUDE TITLE VI
ACTION ITEMS IN PLAN EJ2020 35
V. CONCLUSION 39
EJ 2020 Public Comments
70
-------
I. DEMONSTRATE PROGRESS ON OUTCOMES THAT MATTER TO
OVERBURDENED COMMUNITIES: MAKE MEANINGFUL PROGRESS FOR
COMMUNITIES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS.
To demonstrate that EPA is achieving progress, EPA must make commitments and take
substantive action to reduce environmental health disparities, not merely create more
commitments on process as its prior guidance documents have done.
EPA must look at, assess, and set goals to achieve improved outcomes for the health and
protection of the environment for communities of color, low-income, and indigenous people. A
long history of discrimination and neglect has produced socioeconomic inequality and has made
people of color and low-income people more vulnerable to the harms of pollution, and with the
least access to safe and healthy environments and natural areas.
The objective of Executive Order 12898 is not just to increase protection for all and leave
disparities in place - it is to "make achieving environmental justice part of [each Federal
agency's] mission."2
To achieve this objective, EPA needs to set metrics that assure:
(1) The agency is targeting its resources to ensure that people of color and low-
income people are experiencing the outcomes of its work as measurable, direct
benefits and protections;
(2) The agency is achieving the best possible, and greatest achievable results on
the ground, in terms of such health and environmental outcomes; and
(3) EPA is targeting and taking particular actions that aim to reduce the greater
rate of environmental threats and impacts that are occurring for particular
communities, correlated with and connected to their race and socioeconomic
status, not just strengthen protections in some way and call its work done.
A. Increase Agency Resources and Action Focused on Hot Spots: Vulnerable
Communities with Disproportionate Need
To achieve objective one, EPA must ensure that it expands resources and prioritizes its
existing resources to reach the communities that are overburdened by pollution or other toxic
exposures and have disproportionate representation of vulnerable communities of color and low-
income people.
For example, for fiscal year 2015, EPA has created a "Making A Visible Difference In
Communities" project, where it has selected 50 communities nationwide for particular attention
"3
and resources. To achieve its environmental justice objectives, in Plan EJ2020 EPA must do
more than just choose these 50 communities to make a "visible difference." And, EPA must do
more than just consider issues related to "smart growth."
2 Exec. Order No. 12,898 § 1-101, 59 Fed. Reg. 7,629, 7,629 (Feb. 11, 1994).
3 EPA, Making a Visible Difference in Communities, http://www2 .epa. gov/smart-growth/maki n g-
visible-difference-communities (last updated May 26, 2015).
EJ 2020 Public Comments
71
-------
First, EPA should commit to direct resources and apply its authorities to all overburdened
communities meeting key criteria, not just select a limited number.
Second, EPA should use environmental justice factors to choose communities that will
receive additional attention, action, and resources. For the 2015 project, it is unclear whether or
how environmental justice factors were included in EPA's determination of which communities
would be part of this project. It is unclear whether all of the communities EPA has chosen are
the communities with the greatest need for environmental and health protection, that they are hot
spots, or that they are communities with particular environmental justice concerns. EPA should
provide transparency and an opportunity for further input, and should extend such opportunities
to communities who may not have had a prior opportunity to provide input, and who seek to
receive the additional protection and attention that this project will provide.
In particular, as part of Plan EJ2020, EPA should develop an expansive list of all known
hot spot communities or areas that have environmental justice concerns, and that need further
review, agency action, and attention, after taking public notice and comment. EPA should create
this list using factors such as the following:
(1) the factors contained in EJSCREEN;
(2) additional health status and health disparity factors included in CalEnviroScreen,4 and
any other valuable state tools;
(3) additional indicators that are also linked with environmental justice, public health, and
EPA's statutory authorities, such as:
• whether an area is in nonattainment for a criteria pollutant;
• whether an area has elevated cancer risks, as identified in EPA's Second
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Report5;
• whether an area has elevated levels of drinking water or soil contamination,
including from legacy pollution or ghost industrial sites6;
• whether a community has Superfund and/or brownfield sites;
• whether a community includes facilities with a high number of violations of
environmental laws;
• whether a community includes major sources regulated under EPA's air toxics
and other permitting programs;
4 Cal. EPA Ofc. Of Envtl. Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), CalEnviroScreen Version 2.0,
http://oehha.ca.gov/ei/ces2.html (last updated Nov. 10,2014).
5 EPA, The Second Integrated Urban Air Toxics Report to Congress (Aug. 21, 2014), available at
http://www2.epa.gOv/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/082114-urban-air-toxics-report-
congress.pdf.
6 See, e.g., USA Today, Ghost Factories, http://www.usatodav.com/topic/B68DCD3E-7E3F-424A-
BDA4-41077D772EAl/ghostfactories/.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
72
-------
• whether a history of segregation, racial zoning, redlining, and similar forms of
discrimination played any role in the proximity between majority-minority
neighborhoods and industrial sources, highways, and other pollution sources;
• whether a community includes a port or goods movement/transportation hub,
and/or is located along or in close proximity to an international border or point of
entry including both the U.S.-Mexico, and the U.S.-Canada borders;
• whether an area contains mining and/or oil and gas resources or extraction
activities;
• whether a community is located in a geographical region or area that is
particularly susceptible to extreme drought impacts, sea level rise, or other
impacts from natural and climate-change related disasters;
• whether a community is located on tribal land, or may otherwise be linguistically
or geographically isolated;
• whether a community is in proximity to one or more facilities that store or use
hazardous chemicals7;
• whether a community relies on subsistence farming, fishing, or hunting;
• whether an area is largely agricultural, resulting in community members being
exposed to pesticides;
• whether a community has been the site of repeated environmental health or safety
emergencies;
• whether an area is identified by other state or federal agencies (including HUD,
USD A or DOT) or initiatives such as Partnership for Sustainable Communities,
Sustainable Communities/Strong Communities ("SC2"); and
• whether a community has equal and meaningful access to parks, green space, and
the ability to enjoy natural areas.
Third, for all identified hot spot communities, EPA should commit to target its resources
and authorities, and create an "all hands on deck" approach for environmental justice.
For EPA's existing communities list in the "Making a Visible Difference" project, it is
unclear whether community-specific plans have been or are being developed to protect these
communities, or who is involved in this process other than the regional staff. For the full Plan
EJ2020 list, EPA should direct all offices, departments, and relevant staff at the national and
regional level to create a plan that assesses and uses specific authorities, resources, and actions to
make progress to protect these hot spot communities, after taking public comment, and publish
these plans. As part of these action plans for hot spot communities, EPA should commit to:
(1) increase enforcement and compliance of all existing requirements applicable; (2) reduce air,
water, and waste pollution and toxic exposure, including through use of EPA's rulemaking,
permitting, and chemical and product control authorities; (3) increase environment-related health
protections and reduce environment-related health problems such as asthma, early mortality
7 See, e.g., Envtl. Justice and Health Alliance for Chem. Policy Reform, Who's In Danger? (May 2014),
available at
http://comingcleaninc.org/assets/media/images/Reports /Wlio's%20in%20Danger%20Report%20FINAL.p
df.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
73
-------
including infant mortality, cardiovascular problems, cancer, lost school and work days, high
blood-lead levels, mercury and other toxin-burdens measured, and other health factors of
importance; and (4) improve monitoring, pollution and health information, technical assistance,
o
and other tools available to help communities protect their own health and environment.
During the course of Plan EJ2020, EPA should regularly audit and include achievement
of pollution reductions, health protections, and compliance progress in hot spot communities as
part of all relevant EPA staffs performance reviews and staff reports. EPA should include
community groups within the hot spot communities or areas of environmental justice concern as
part of the progress audit process. EPA should publish regular reports on all actions taken to
provide relief in hot spot communities, and a final report on progress achieved or in process as of
2020.
Notably, each regional office has a shortage of staff capacity to address the state-specific
and local environmental justice issues facing some of their most vulnerable and overburdened
communities, as well as to enforce regulations intended to protect vulnerable communities such
as farmworkers. Indeed, some, if not many, regional offices have fully disbanded their
environmental justice staffs, and are entirely dependent on the volunteer hours of committed
program staff to address pressing environmental justice issues and impacts. When program staff
who have full-time commitments to other areas of work are expected to devote extra, unpaid
hours to address cumulative health and pollution issues facing environmental justice
communities, there can be no realistic expectation that such issues are actually being adequately
addressed. It is imperative that EPA back its commitments to achieving tangible environmental
justice outcomes with full time staff and programmatic commitments beyond the agency's
Washington, D.C. office, and throughout the reach of the regional offices. In order to make
environmental justice outcomes a reality for many the nation's most impacted and overburdened
communities, EPA must back its commitments with real human, financial, and programmatic
resources in each of its regional offices, as well as action plans that staff must implement there.
As further examples of communities that greatly need attention, see the community
impact reports previously submitted to EPA in connection with the agency's request for
information on cumulative risk and impact assessment, and on the refineries rule.9
B. Achieve Health and Environmental Outcomes and Reduce Injustice
In response to EPA's request for comment on example metrics to use in assessing success
on environmental justice concerns and in communities where people of color and low-income
8 Further information on these issues is discussed later in these comments. As one example, EPA needs
to require that safety information on pesticide labels appear in Spanish as well as English so that
farmworkers, who are overwhelmingly Latino, know how to protect themselves.
9 See, e.g., Comments of Environmental and Community Groups: Addendum A - Community Impact
Report (Oct. 28, 2014), EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0568; Comments of Air Alliance Houston, et al.:
Appendix E - Stories From Communities Overburdened by Pollution (June 28, 2013), EPA-HQ-ORD-
2013-0292-0133.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
74
-------
people are disproportionately affected by pollution, toxic exposures, and EPA's program actions,
here is a list of some example metrics that EPA should be considering. The important points are:
(1) focus on actual on-the-ground health impacts and not just EPA's abstract environmental
metrics (which may show progress but not anywhere near the progress communities need and
want); and (2) assess whether EPA is actually addressing and working toward justice and equity,
i.e., not merely whether EPA has strengthened protection, but whether or not EPA has actually
achieved any progress to reduce the disproportionate and unjust nature of the exposures and
other impacts or made a meaningful difference to a particularly affected community. As EPA
did not provide any real guidance on this question in the action framework document, we
encourage EPA to publish a list of potential metrics for substantive objectives, including and in
addition to the below, that it is actually considering and take further comment on this question,
before determining the metrics it will use to assess success.
Progress Objective
Essential Metrics
Key Additional Metrics To
Prevent Ongoing Injustice
Pollution
Reduce air emissions, water
contamination discharges,
waste - for the most exposed
and most vulnerable
populations. Fine-scale
studies may be needed where
census tract- or even
neighborhood-level may be
too coarse.
Using EJSCREEN and other
relevant factors, track
pollution burdens by race,
income, and other
socioeconomic factors, and
report on whether they are
both being reduced and
becoming less
disproportionately distributed
in communities with
environmental justice
concerns.
Assess whether the amounts
reduced are comparable to
what has been achieved using
the best available pollution
controls and practices in other
communities that have
achieved the greatest
reductions in similar pollution;
and whether the amounts
reduced reflect the maximum
achievable levels of pollution
reductions.
In determining whether
ambient pollution levels and
toxic exposures have declined,
EPA must base its assessment
on reductions to the most
exposed and most vulnerable
populations.
Health
Increase health protection,
particularly from
environmentally-associated
illnesses including pediatric
and adult asthma, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease
("COPD") and other
respiratory problems,
Compare results to
communities with least
pollution and highest health
scores; set disparity reduction
goals and reduce disparities;
assess whether the best
available protection is
achieved for children, in utero
EJ 2020 Public Comments
75
-------
Progress Objective
Essential Metrics
Key Additional Metrics To
Prevent Ongoing Injustice
cardiovascular disease, cancer,
birth defects and reproductive
harm, diabetes - particularly
for the most vulnerable
community members,
including children and the
elderly.
and early life exposure, and
for communities with
socioeconomic stressors that
increase vulnerability.
Enforcement and
Compliance
Achieve compliance and
create disincentives to violate
environmental laws. Assess
cases brought; success
achieved; and environmental
and health results achieved
from these cases.
Show direct compliance
results in targeted
communities, compared with
communities with the best
compliance records, and
include community input on
the results of enforcement
cases, to benefit immediate
communities affected.
Clean Up Contaminated
Sites including Superfund,
and Expand Access to
Healthy Green Space and
Natural Areas
Identify more sites in priority
areas and assure effective
clean up progress, results, and
success.
Prioritize protecting and
expanding free access to
parks, healthy green space,
and natural areas for
communities of color and low-
income communities.
Apply best practices and
achieve best results in speed,
amount and rate of clean up,
public information and
participation, access to clean
and healthy natural areas, and
community satisfaction in the
results, as have occurred in
communities without EJ
concerns.
Products, Chemicals, and
Pesticides
Reduce the number of
chemicals that have not been
assessed for toxicity, or have
not been updated to reflect
that they are particularly
harmful early in life; that are
persistent or bioaccumulative,
or have only been assessed for
one type of toxicity.
Reduce unhealthy chemicals
and product use in targeted
Assess results by comparison
with best practices and
outcomes achieved in some
communities; focus on
chemicals most known to be
present in communities with
environmental justice
concerns, and on pesticides
that are disproportionately
associated with farmworker
poisonings.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
76
-------
Progress Objective
Essential Metrics
Key Additional Metrics To
Prevent Ongoing Injustice
communities, from pesticides
to toys, home cleaning, and
other consumer products.
Cancel the most toxic
agricultural pesticides handled
by farmworkers and to which
they and other community
members are exposed.
C. Set Action Commitments and Evaluate Progress in Achieving Each of the E J
Metrics Outlined to the Agency in Prior Reports and Comments that Focus
at the Regional and Local Level, As Well As the National Level.
EPA should (1) create the above-described cross-cutting projects and metrics to achieve
progress across a number of issues; and (2) direct its staff to assess progress in resolving
environmental justice concerns raised on many different issues nationally, regionally, and
locally.
On the latter, we direct EPA's attention, for example, to the 2010 Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights Under Law report.10 That report provides a list of important issues that EPA
should seek a status report from its staff on to determine if any EJ progress is being made in
program areas, and to commit to do so, where progress is not being made. Those policy
recommendations cover the following areas, among others:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, p. 68
EPA Office of Civil Rights ("OCR"), p. 68
• Environmental Enforcement, p. 68
• Toxic Air Pollution, p. 71
Coal Mining, p. 71
Power Generation from Coal, p. 71
Cessation of Mountaintop Removal Mining, p. 72
Regulation of Coal Combustion Waste, p. 72
Healthy Schools, p. 73
Climate Change, p. 74
Green Jobs, p. 75
Transportation, p. 76
10 Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Now Is The Time: Environmental Injustice in the
U.S. and Recommendations for Eliminating Disparities (June 2010), available at
http://www.lawverscommittee.org/admin/site/documents/files/Final-Environmental-Justice-Report-6-9-
10.pdf.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
77
-------
Housing and Urban Development, p. 76
Public and Environmental Health, p. 77
Homeland Security and Emergency Response, p. 78
Federal Facilities, p. 78
Gulf Coast Restoration and Hurricane Impacts, p. 79
Semi-Urban and Rural Areas, p. 79
Industrial Animal Production, p. 79
Sewer and Water Infrastructure, p. 79
Land Loss, p. 79
Food Security and Federal Agriculture Policy, p. 79
Indian Country, p. 80
Canadian Border, p. 81
• Mexican Border, p. 81.11
In addition, EPA should consider all comments received as part of prior rulemakings, and
as part of this planning process, on other important issues with an environmental justice
dimension, including but not limited to: issues involving goods movement (see, e.g., Comments
of Moving Forward Network (submitted on Plan EJ2020)12; chemical facility safety and security,
including the need to protect public health and safety from refineries (see, e.g., Petition of United
Steelworkers et al. to EPA to Exercise Its Authority Under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act to
13
Prevent Chemical Disasters (July 25, 2012); Who's In Danger?, supra n.7 ; Comments of
Environmental and Community Groups on EPA's Refineries Rule Proposal (Oct. 28, 2014)14;
and the Letter from the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council to EPA on the
Refineries Rule (May 21, 2015)); the need for stronger national ozone and other air and air toxics
standards from power plants and other sources, as submitted to EPA previously in various rule
dockets; toxic air and land use permitting programs and enforcement (Comments of the
California Environmental Justice Alliance (submitted on Plan EJ2020)); the need for meaningful
public participation in issues surrounding failing sewage systems, conversion of land to landfills,
remediating groundwater contamination from historic hazardous waste dumping, and
ameliorating harmful effects of massive industrial hog and poultry operations (see, e.g.,
Comments of North Carolina Community Groups (submitted on Plan EJ2020)), the need for
improved worker protection standards for farmworkers and the prevalence of unsafe and
unhealthy products and practices like dangerous pesticide spraying in communities of color and
11 Id. at 68-81.
12 See also Nat'l Envtl. Justice Advisory Council ("NEJAC"), Reducing Air Emissions Associated With
Goods Movement: Working Towards Environmental Justice (Nov. 2009), available at
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/resources/publications/neiac/2009-goods-movement.pdf.
13 See also Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security, Exec. Order No. 13,650, 78 Fed. Reg.
48,029 (Aug. 1, 2013); Ctr. For Effective Gov't, Kids in Danger Zones (Sept. 2014), available at
http://www.foreffectivegov.org/files/kids-in-danger-zones-report.pdf (One in three U.S. schoolchildren
goes to school within the vulnerability zone of a hazardous chemical facility.).
14 EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0568 ("Refineries Comments"); see also Coalition to Prevent Chemical
Deisasters, Home, http://preventchemicaldisasters.org.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
78
-------
low-income communities (see, e.g., Comments of Farmworker Justice and Earthjustice, etal.
(Aug. 18, 2014)15).
We highlight in particular that noxious air pollution from large industrial and
transportation-related sources has presented a serious health crisis in underserved communities
across the country. That is partly why these Comments emphasize the need for cross-cutting
tools and projects that would particularly help translate into stronger air monitoring, standards,
and enforcement, if EPA prioritized these issues in Plan EJ2020. Recent reports on the harm
caused by soot, and the link between asthma and weak national air standards for ozone and other
pollutants, provide helpful information on this issue and the disparities of air pollution exposures
and impacts.16
For example, a 2013 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that
Baltimore, Maryland - a city that is predominately black and home to many highly concentrated
socio-economically distressed neighborhoods - had the highest emissions-related mortality rate
17
of over 5,600 U.S. cities studied. Fueling this problem are the exceedingly high levels of fine
particulate matter- and ozone-producing volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") and nitrogen
oxides ("NOx") emissions from cars, trucks, and buses that occupy the Baltimore-area's
congested highways and narrow streets, as well as local coal-fired power plants. The deleterious
impact of air pollution on public health in Baltimore is reflected by the fact that an alarming 20%
of children in Baltimore City have asthma (more than double the national average), and the city's
18
pediatric asthma hospitalization rate is among the highest in the nation. In addition, across the
state, black Marylanders are nearly 2.5 times more likely to die from asthma than white
Marylanders. Air pollution and resulting harm to environmentally burdened communities in the
City and surrounding areas are likely to increase significantly if the Port of Baltimore expands
and brings in fleets of large diesel trucks and rail cars to move goods and other cargo in and out
of the Baltimore.
15 EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184-2434.
16 See, e.g., Am. Lung Ass'n, State of the Air 2015 (2015), available at http ://www. stateoftheair. org; Am.
Lung Ass'n, et al., Sick of Soot: How the EPA Can Save Lives by Cleaning Up Fine Particle Pollution
(Nov. 2011), available al http://www.catf.us/rcsourccs/publications/rilcs/SickOfSoot.pdf: M. Ash, etal.,
Justice in the Air: Tracking Toxic Pollution from America's Industries and Companies to Our States,
Cities, and Neighborhoods (Apr. 2009); Black Leadership Forum, et al.,Air of Injustice: African
Americans and Power Plant Pollution (Oct. 2002); Am. Lung Ass'n, Too Many Cases, Too Many
Deaths: Lung Cancer in African Americans (2010), available at
http://www.lung.org/associations/states/california/assets/pdfs/too-manv-cases-too-manv.pdf; Am. Lung
Ass'n, State of Lung Disease in Diverse Communities: 2010 (2010), available at
http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/publications/lung-disease-data/solddc 2010.pdf; NAACP et al.,
Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People, http://www.naacp.org/pages/coal-blooded 1.
17 F. Caiazoo, et al.,Airpollution and early deaths in the United States, 77 Atmospheric Env't 198, 205
(2013), available af http://lae.mit.edu/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/US-air-pollution-
paper.pdf.
18 Baltimore City Health Dep't, Asthma, http://health.baltimorecitv.gov/node/454.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
79
-------
Low-income communities and communities of color in and near many other major cities,
from Houston to Los Angeles to Chicago to New York and Newark, are facing similar problems
that require immediate attention from EPA at the national and local levels. EPA's own Second
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Report and the American Lung Association's State of The Air
provide strong illustrations of key work that EPA must do to recognize the strong link between
national air standards, health, and the disproportionate impacts felt by environmental justice
communities. In order to address these impacts, EPA must take active and immediate steps to
protect communities from harmful air pollution.19 As discussed in comments and
reconsideration petitions submitted by community groups into the dockets of these rules, EPA's
air standards for power plants, refineries, and other sources causing disproportionate harm to
communities of color and low-income communities provide an important opportunity and duty
for EPA to take meaningful action to protect communities by setting health-protective standards,
and standards that assure the maximum achievable degree of pollution protection, and by
20
requiring the best available fenceline monitoring and enforceability measures.
There is a great need also for EPA and each regional office, specifically, to seek
community input on important regional issues and hot spots, and national issues of particular
regional concern. EPA should require all regions to create action plans, with input and help from
states, local governments, and community members, and include concrete action and progress
metrics in each plan that will help ensure every region sees on-the-ground benefits from Plan
EJ2020 that are tailored to the communities' needs in that region. Commenters encourage EPA
to require regions to seek input more broadly and increase transparency in how they are
implementing EPA's environmental justice objectives, including through creating updated
concrete action plans of their own with direct and significant input from local community
groups.
Commenters note that Region 2 has provided an environmental justice action plan on its
website that includes some significant objectives and concrete projects.21 But, formal planning
is not translating into sufficient change on the ground. For example, although there are identified
liaisons between Region 2 and affected Tribes, these liaisons are not conferred with sufficient
authority and are not always included in relevant meetings. Ultimately, metrics of performance
are critical to determine impact on the ground and with input from community stakeholders.
EPA should evaluate changes that would ensure that action items produce outcomes that matter
to overburdened communities.
19 See supra nn.5, 16 (State of the Air 2015).
20 See, e.g., EPA, Rules and Implementation, http://www.epa. gov/ttn/atw/eparules .html (last updated May
22, 2015) (listing rules).
21 See EPA Region 2, Environmental Justice Action Plan (2014), available at
http://www.epa.gov/region2/ei/region 2 environmental justice action plan.pdf. We note, however, that
although there are large farmworker communities in Region 2, the Action Plan does not mention the EJ
community of farmworkers,.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
80
-------
Many, if not most, other EPA Regions do not even have such plans in place, or have only
permitting-specific plans.22 These are important efforts, but it is unclear to Commenters how
those plans were created, whether community input was received in designing them, and what
kinds of reports and updates will be provided to assure ongoing community input in assessing
progress in achieving the objectives these reports include. EPA must provide educational
opportunities, information, and training so that communities can participate in comment periods
for draft permits and in public hearings. The permitting plan discusses working with other
offices, but often, community groups do not feel that their voices are heard by the actual
decision-makers. One suggestion would be a permit ombudsperson, with whom a community
group could talk, to find out information and express its concerns in situations where the regional
office and HQ rule-writer staff are not responsive to or actively engaging community members.
EPA staff must be directed to listen to and weigh seriously the concerns raised by community
members and this ombudsperson.
Furthermore, these documents state that EPA is planning to use EJSCREEN to identify
affected communities. This is important as a starting point, but it is not enough not only because
the tool is incomplete and needs to be strengthened as part of the input process EPA has created,
but also because EPA needs to reach out to community groups actively. For example, EPA
should create lists of past community group commenters and engage them early, actively, and
directly on similar matters affecting their communities. EPA must develop a method that allows
a community group to identify itself or register or utilize some way to make their presence
known. Gathering demographic information is important, but this alone does not assure
identification and involvement of the community groups and leaders who can help inform EPA
action. The permitting plans also call for encouraging activities by the permit applicant - but
this assumes that there is a positive relationship between the permittee and the community - and
often that is not the case. Once again, this illustrates the importance of early community
identification and engagement, which involves outreach activities, not just data analysis (which
is important, but not enough).
Many of the regions also cover vast and dramatically diverse geographic areas - with
Region 9 as one good example of this. The states encompassed in the region are home to a wide
array of industries ranging from pervasive and often extreme oil, mineral, and other natural
resource extraction and refining, to widespread commercial agricultural production, and from
heavy ship, truck, and railroad traffic facilitating the movement of goods and labor from the
region's ports and other points of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, to some of the nation's
most robust and concentrated technology and computer science development. As a result of
these all-too-often highly polluting and toxic activities, communities of color, including many
immigrant and linguistically isolated communities, low-income communities, and tribal
communities experience a range of substantial environmental justice impacts. As such, the
region is also home to a robust network of groups and organizations that engage in rigorous
advocacy to address local, state-wide, and national environmental justice concerns. As an
example, Commenters attach comments submitted by the People's Senate, including a one-year
roadmap, urging reforms of California's Department of Toxic Substances Control to strengthen
22 EPA, Considering Environmental Justice in Permitting: Regional Implementation Plans and Contacts,
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/plan-ei/permitting,html#regions (last updated Apr. 2, 2014).
EJ 2020 Public Comments
81
-------
23
community protections and address environmental justice problems. Many, if not all, of these
recommendations would also be valuable for EPA to use in strengthening other states' programs,
as discussed elsewhere in these comments.
Due to the vast expanse of this region, and other similar regions, we strongly urge EPA
to integrate each regional office in a state-by-state evaluation of how state-level agencies are
engaged in incorporating environmental justice principles into their own permitting and
enforcement practices. This will not only help EPA to adequately assess the environmental
justice issues facing these large regions, but it will also enable EPA to better evaluate the
region's progress towards achieving environmental justice objectives. State-level
communication, cooperation, and oversight are also key to ensuring, rather than merely
considering, environmentally just permitting and enforcement decisions. As a starting point, all
regions could follow the lead of a region that has first assigned an environmental justice
coordinator to be a liaison for one (or more) dedicated states, allowing them to aim to become an
expert on environmental justice concerns in that state, and work closely with community group
representatives from the assigned state.
As a part of this particular effort, we further recommend that EPA exercise its oversight
authority to set specific, standardized permitting and enforcement criteria that must be followed
by state agencies issuing and/or enforcing hazardous waste, air, and water permits to operate;
permits to construct; closure or post-closure clean-up and remediation permits under the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; as well as
enforcing Worker Protection Standards for agricultural workers under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, among others. Such standards should plainly incorporate strong
metrics to account for existing cumulative health and environmental burdens in the areas in
which new polluting facilities are proposed, or have already been sited and are operating, and
should ensure that adequate financial assurances are obtained and safeguarded prior to issuing
permit modifications, new permits, or post-closure permits. These standards should also include
metrics for ensuring that safeguards for workers and members of the community are rigorously
enforced.
Beyond engaging with each state-level agency in the region, we further recommend that
EPA reach out to and engage with local and municipal agencies and governments, as well as
tribal governments, who have decision-making power over land use and permitting decisions that
detrimentally and disproportionately impact communities of color and low-income communities
in all of each region's states. Engaging with such agencies would directly assist EPA in ensuring
meaningful inter-agency co-operation to achieve environmental justice goals, as contemplated in
both its 2014 and 2020 EJ plans. For example, EPA's Enhanced Public Participation during
permit review is a document EPA should promote with state and local governments to increase
community engagement and input. At the same time, EPA needs to work with states to assist
23 Letter to Barbara Lee, Dir., Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances Control, from The People's Senate (Mar.
27, 2015); Ctr. on Race, Poverty & the Env't, The People 's Senate: Building a New Vision for DTSC
(Aug. 2014), available at http://www.crpe-
ei.org/crpc/images/storics/pdf/FINAL PeoplesSenateReport.pdf.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
82
-------
and require them to do more than just expand process steps or public participation, but also to set
24
and achieve substantive environmental justice objectives, as discussed above for EPA itself.
We also strongly recommend that EPA exercise its authority to support the existing and
future efforts of the regional offices to engage in program development aimed at addressing
climate change impacts, adaptation, and mitigation on environmental justice communities.
Across many regions, environmental justice groups are at the forefront of resiliency planning,
conducting research, and identifying innovative strategies,25 and must be involved as leaders in
EPA's national and regional actions on global warming.
Many of the regional efforts should ensure that EPA also commit to outreach, education,
and communication to better understand the needs of native and tribal communities which may
face non-traditional EPA environmental justice issues. For example, Region 8 has unique issues
EPA should consider in a regional environmental justice strategy alongside urban issues, such as
mitigating acid mine drainage; abandoned mine cleanup; health impacts due to oil and gas
development, agricultural runoff, nitrogen deposition in mountain areas; and energy-related
permitting and siting issues. The region is also home to some of the most impoverished tribal
communities in the country who have fundamental infrastructure needs and lack environmental
enforcement assistance and resources. The Tribes also need EPA trainings to strengthen their
governmental programs and EPA educational meetings to strengthen tribal community
awareness. EPA should consider participating in tribal college environmental programs too.
EPA received good advice on implementing its environmental justice goals in Indian Country
through the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council recommendations.26 As another
example, for many or most federal projects in Alaska, only "foreign" languages, such as Hmong
and Filipino, are included to translate and protect the interests and needs of limited English
proficient ("LEP") persons. But, as shown in recent cases in Alaska, with both Yup'ik and
Gwitch'in LEP for voting under the Voting Rights Act, it is important for EPA to prioritize the
inclusion of native and indigenous languages.2 These recommendations should be implemented
when EPA interacts with Tribes in various regions.
24 As a survey of environmental justice policies showed, many states have procedural steps or
requirements in place, but those are insufficient alone, without additional substantive limits, measures,
targets, and requirements, to actually reduce the amount of pollution, toxic exposures, and environmental
injustices that communities face. See J. Owley, et al., Symbolic Politics for Disempowered Communities:
State Environmental Justice Policies, Buffalo Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Paper No. 2014-036,
Brigham Young Univ. J. of Pub. L. (2014), http ://ssrn/com/abstract=2425 83 3.
25 See, e.g., New York Environmental Justice Alliance, Waterfront Justice Project, http://www.nvc-
eia.org/?page id=311.
26 NEJAC, Proposed Advice and Recommendations on Implementation of the EPA Policy on
Environmental Justice for Tribes and Indigenous Peoples, (Sept. 2014), available at
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/resources/publications/neiac/recommendations-tribal-policv-
2014.pdf.
27 See, e.g., Legal Language Services, Election Translation 2014 (Oct. 6, 2014),
https://www.legallanguage.com/legal-articles/election-translation-2014-vupik-and-gwichin.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
83
-------
II. TO DEEPEN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PRACTICE, CREATE NEW
CROSS-CUTTING INITIATIVES AND TOOLS THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT OF OVERBURDENED AND VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES WITH PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
CONCERNS.
In addition to creating the metrics and actions described above, EPA should create the
following national initiatives and tools to advance environmental justice.
A. Enforcement Initiatives
1. EPA should expand enforcement resources and direct its resources to
the most vulnerable communities with greatest need and past and
current compliance problems.
As part of setting EPA's next national enforcement initiatives, EPA should increase
enforcement resources and ensure broad community input and outreach, not just seek comment
on its website or through the Federal Register. EPA should use EJSCREEN and other
environmental justice metrics, as described in these and other comments EPA has received, to
ensure targeting of initiatives and enforcement resources to achieve environmental justice
objectives.
2. Require EPA enforcement staff to ensure that the outcomes of cases,
including any supplemental environmental projects, provide the best
available benefits and pollution and health protections for affected
local communities.
To strengthen the demonstrated outcomes of enforcement cases for communities, EPA
should take at least the following three key steps:
• Community Input During Enforcement. EPA has previously made
commitments to include community input in enforcement, but in many
instances that input has not been sought or has not been utilized in a way that
allows community members to affect the result of a consent decree or a
supplemental environmental project ("SEP") chosen by EPA/DO J. As part of
Plan EJ2020, EPA should do an audit of prior cases; report on where there
was community input and which groups were contacted; report on the results;
and provide a report on best practices and specific actions that should be used
across the board. Where possible, EPA should modify prior enforcement
results to better protect communities. For new cases: EPA should require
enforcement staff to identify community groups and contact them as early as
possible during an action to seek input on the case objectives and results,
including any supplemental environmental projects under consideration. EPA
should ensure that there is a sufficient public comment period for consent
decrees and settlements to allow for meaningful community input, and that
this is publicized through direct communication and in other ways in the
affected community, not just in the Federal Register and on-line.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
84
-------
• Achieve Community Protections As Part of Case Results and
Implementation. EPA should require each proposed consent decree or
settlement to include a clear method and role for community input as well as a
community-focused benefit and protection objective. EPA should assess the
results of enforcement cases based on community outcomes achieved,
including metrics described earlier in these comments. EPA should provide
information to community members on requirements, monitoring, and other
components of successful enforcement cases so they can help track and
receive the full benefit of these results over time as enforcement decrees,
settlements, and court orders are implemented. EPA should create an ongoing
Community Advisory Board or host regular meetings with the community and
representatives during enforcement and throughout implementation to have
continual meaningful engagement and input. EPA should require that copies
of annual reports go to local community or civic groups to help keep the
community informed.
• Publish and Disseminate Lists of Best Practices to Increase Community
Protections. EPA should perform an audit, with input from pollution control
and monitoring companies, and create a list of best practices and technologies
available for particular industries, pollutants, and pollution controls and
monitoring methods. EPA should update this list and publish it annually so
that it is available to community members evaluating permits, regulations, and
bringing their own enforcement actions. Before proposing a component of a
consent decree or settlement, EPA should assess whether it is the best
available method already in use in another settlement, decree, or a state or
local jurisdiction by the same or a similar industry or company at a different
facility. EPA should set up a clear method of information-sharing to assist in
this process, including through required communications within the agency
and with state and local agencies.
3. EPA should track and regularly evaluate and publish detailed success
metrics and results of enforcement cases in achieving objectives,
environmental justice, and provide this information to the public and
affected communities.
EPA often issues a press release when it achieves success in an enforcement case, listing
the objectives that will be achieved. But, as the Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") found
after evaluating EPA's refinery enforcement initiative, EPA needs to better assess the success of
meeting requirements of consent decrees and settlements, and publish that information on a
28
regular, at least annual, basis (or more often, depending on the consent decree and settlement).
EPA should also assure that this is provided to communities in an understandable way, so
communities can help assess ongoing results and progress achieved.
28 EPA, OIG Report, EPA Needs to Demonstrate Whether It Has Achieved the Goals It Set Under the
National Petroleum Refinery Initiative, Report No. 14-P-0184, (Apr. 15, 2014), available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20140415-14-P-Q184.pdf.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
85
-------
4. EPA should create and publicize an anonymous community and
worker hotline for concerns, tips, and complaints about potential
violations of environmental laws and regulations.
Currently, EPA has a website that is not known to most community members and not
29
useable without computer access. This website directs people who wish to phone in a
complaint to another site that says it is necessary to find the correct EPA Region. The website
also states that it may be better to call a state or local agency, rather than EPA. This system is
not workable or useful for many, if not most, community members with environmental and
health concerns in vulnerable communities.
There should be a clear and easy to use, well-publicized method to phone in anonymous
complaints. EPA should provide a public log of complaints received; the office or department,
including contact information, to which the complaint was directed; and ultimate follow-up
action (if any) or other outcome. EPA, on the regional websites, could also easily post contact
information for regional state emergency or hotline numbers.
It is important that EPA publicize a complaint mechanism to ensure it particularly
reaches workers and community members in overburdened communities with environmental
justice concerns. EPA should use EJSCREEN and other metrics to ensure that community
members whose primary language is not English have the necessary information and access to
submit complaints, and receive follow-up information.
Anonymous reporting is especially important for workers who may have inside
information about a problem that needs to be fixed, maintenance that could avoid a disaster, or
other issue that is important to correct to prevent both additional pollution and immediate injury
or loss of life.
In addition, EPA should update its tips and complaints website to keep up with the times,
and allow for easy submission of photos, video, GPS data, air monitoring data collected
remotely, etc., to accompany a complaint. The public needs to be able to submit information that
will be meaningful and useable for enforcement if they have this type of information. In
addition, as discussed later, EPA needs to strengthen the availability of public information that
community members can consult to assess compliance.
For example, EPA should review the best practices in use in some states or local areas,
30
such as the Fresno Environmental Reporting Network ("FERN") in Fresno County, CA, and
the Kern Environmental Enforcement Network ("KEEN"), in Kern County, CA.3 FERN
provides information on how to submit complaints through multiple methods, and allows
multilingual reporting. It even allows people to receive email alerts of problems reported in the
area, so that other community members can receive the immediate benefit of knowing if there is
29 See EPA, Report Environmental Violations, http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/report-environmental-
violations (last updated June 1, 2015).
30 FERN, Welcome, http://www.fresnoreport.org/.
31 KEEN, Home, http://www.kernreport.org/.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
86
-------
an immediate potential health or safety concern they should be aware of. As stated on its
website: "FERN is modeled after a successful project, the Imperial Visions Action Network. In
32
the first two years IVAN generated violations leading to $90,000 in penalties." IVAN has
since been expanded to other communities as well, as an "Environmental Monitoring System that
33
connects the community with real people that can help solve local environmental problems."
5. For each EPA Region, hold an annual enforcement symposium with
communities and state and local enforcement agencies.
For each region, EPA should hold an annual meeting that brings together affected
communities, EPA, state, and local environmental enforcement agencies to increase EPA's
enforcement impact and share information. There should be a community complaint and
comment mechanism as part of this meeting. This meeting should also include a transparent
discussion of identified compliance problems in the region; strategies to address those; and ways
in which communities can have input, gain additional information, or in some instances assist in
addressing such problems. This meeting should also include technical assistance and other
information for community members. Some states - such as California - and regions previously
have held these kinds of events, and EPA should contact staff there to seek information on best
practices in how to organize and implement this kind of event.
6. Create a formal project for EPA-DOJ community-directed
enforcement technical assistance, trainings, and amicus briefs.
EPA should create a work-group of EPA and DO J enforcement staff who are available to
provide technical assistance and enforcement trainings for community members who seek to
evaluate potential problems arising from pollution or other toxic exposures, and decide whether
to bring cases themselves that EPA/DOJ does not have the resources to bring directly. This
group should be part of trainings and publicized widely to affected communities.
As part of this work-group, EPA and DOJ should track enforcement cases and actively
consider submitting an amicus brief in federal courts, especially courts of appeals, where such a
brief could make a difference to: strengthen applicable precedent on enforcement; ensure an
incentive for facilities to comply rather than violate environmental laws; and assist in achieving a
positive result for communities where EPA-DOJ did not have sufficient resources to bring a full
enforcement case. EPA should actively seek out cases for potential amicus briefs.
7. Create community trainings and information on pollution,
compliance, permitting, and enforcement.
EPA has made it a priority to create "Next Generation" monitoring and compliance tools
in individual enforcement cases, even while it is going backward in rules and monitoring
32 See supra n.30.
33 Identifying Violations Affecting Neighborhoods, Home, http://www.ivanonline.org/.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
87
-------
networks - which are important issues for Plan EJ2020 to address, as discussed later.34 It is
important that EPA provide training and information to communities so that they can understand
how to interpret and use this information, and receive the full benefits that this project is
intended to provide. EPA should hold regular community trainings and provide information on
pollution, toxic exposures due to drift, monitoring data, compliance and enforcement to assist
community members in understanding all of the ways in which they can help assure compliance
and strengthen environmental enforcement. EPA provides some of these kinds of resources
online, but they are difficult for community members to find, and not all are publicly available.
EPA should create a single place where community members can find and access available
information, publicize this widely for community members, and also hold additional trainings in
the regions for more in-depth dissemination of information that communities need to engage
actively in permitting and enforcement matters.
As a good example, EPA Region 4 has scheduled their 14th Community Involvement
Training Conference on August 4-6, 2015 in Atlanta, Georgia. Events such as this are very
important. EPA also must provide a mechanism by which poor and underserved communities
can participate in this and other similar events. EPA has arranged for participation via telephone
for those who cannot attend in person, but the phone is no substitute for the value of training or
other informal and personal connections and discussions that can occur in person.
8. Provide input opportunities, information, and protections for
communities living near contaminated and Superfund sites.
There is a strong need to reform and address environmental justice issues in all aspects of
the Superfund program, including in terms of site prioritization, clean-up, and oversight.
Experience at the General Motors Superfund Site in Massena, New York, a massive PCB dump
directly adjacent to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, illustrates this. EPA has long recognized the
need to take the cultural and historical concerns of Tribes into account when conducting
Superfund remediations, and EPA recognized that because "the people of the St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe ... have a cultural and spiritual link to the St. Lawrence Environment[,]" which they call
Akwesasne, "[sjpecial consideration must be given to Native American concerns in evaluating
35
and remediating the site." Yet EPA has persistently failed to incorporate the suggestions of the
Tribe in its oversight of remedial actions, and the site is not expected to be cleaned up until 2017
34 Mem. from Cynthia Giles, Asst. Administrator, EPA (Jan. 7, 2015), available at
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2Q15-01/documents/memo-nextgen-useinenfsettlements.pdf
("Giles Memo"); EPA, Next Generation Compliance, http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/next-generation-
compliance (last updated June 15, 2015); see also EPA Ofc. of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance,
Next Generation Compliance: Delivering the Benefits of Environmental Laws, EPA (Oct. 9, 2014),
http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/next-generation-compliance-delivering-benefits-environmental-laws:
EPA Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance, Next Generation Compliance: Strategic Plan
2014-17 (Oct. 2014), available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-09/documents/next-
gen-compliance-strategic-plan-2014-2017.pdf.
35 EPA Superfund, Record of Decision: General Motors (Central Foundry Division), EPA/ROD/R02-
92/170 at 29 (Mar. 1992), available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0292170.pdf.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
88
-------
- over thirty years after the site was first listed on the National Priorities List, even though there
is significant PCB contamination.36
As further examples of Superfund issues some supposedly "closed" Superfund sites are
not closed at all - no fence, no posting, tanks labeled "permanently closed" but that are broken
open, etc., with nothing to warn or prevent children or adults from going onto the site. In
addition to a hotline to report issues like this, as noted above, EPA should track and ensure
protections to keep these sites closed and inform communities of the dangers of entering them.
This information needs to be provided in languages used by all local community members.
In addition, a common concern expressed by community groups is the lack of
meaningful, active EPA community engagement. Communities often feel that they are not
considered to be important stakeholders in planned remediation activities in their communities.
One example involves the Jacksonville Showcase community, where EPA has developed a
strong relationship with the residential community group near a hazardous waste site. However,
there is a former worker population that has not been included in EPA's activities and, as such,
this community has not received protections that should come from interaction with state, local,
or federal environmental and health agencies. EPA must work actively to ensure the
involvement of multiple community voices and groups in clean-up processes.
B. Regulatory Tools and Actions
1. Update EPA's approach to assess cumulative risks and impacts based
on current science and the need to protect vulnerable communities.
EPA must carry forward and follow through on its commitment from Plan EJ 2014 to
address cumulative impacts, including cumulative risks.37 EPA's approach to assessing
environmental health threats and impacts is woefully outdated and behind the science. This
problem comes to a head in clean air, toxics, pesticides, civil rights enforcement, and other
actions where EPA is required to assess health risks and impacts. But failing to follow the
current science also harms the agency's effort to account for and address vulnerabilities and
environmental justice concerns across a broader range of its actions as well. EPA must take
action to update its guidance. EJSCREEN is a screening tool that addresses only a few factors
and is no substitute for the policies and protocols that EPA must use in actually deciding what
action to take at the program level.
The dire reality is that environmental hazards affect some communities much more than
others. Pollution and polluting sources are often concentrated together, overburdening and
overwhelming communities and populations, and causing greater health effects and safety
36 EPA, G.M. Massena: St. Lawrence County, NY,
http://www.epa.gov/r02earth/superfund/npl/gmmassena/index.html (last updated July 9, 2015).
37 EPA. Plan EJ2014, http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ei/plan-ei/.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
89
-------
38
threats. Further, farmworker communities are often exposed to multiple pesticides in their
workplaces, in their drinking water, and in their homes and communities as a result of drift and
pesticides borne on clothes, shoes, and skin. Current risk assessment practices, which have
failed to keep up with current science and do not account for real-world impacts, jeopardize the
health of communities surrounded by sources of pollution - such as coal plants, refineries,
cement kilns, chemical plants, metal smelters, incinerators, dry cleaners, highways, truck routes,
landfills, Superfund, and other hazardous waste sites.
In order to fulfill the agency's renewed commitment to environmental justice and the
recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, EPA
must update its approach to account for the cumulative impacts and risks faced from early-in-life
exposure (including childhood) and from exposure to multiple sources, as well as the increased
vulnerability from socioeconomic stressors and multiple pollutant and pathway exposures. To
this end, we urge EPA to commit to do the following as part of Plan EJ2020:
a) EPA must incorporate the real-world experience and perspective
of people who live in communities that are overburdened by
pollution and other environmental hazards.
Too many communities of color and lower income communities are exposed to a
disproportionate share of air pollution and all of the resulting health risks and impacts.
Communities have previously submitted statements that summarize the situation and provide
narratives from various example communities around the United States that describe the on-the-
ground impact of EPA's scientific policy decisions and the urgency of reforms in risk assessment
39
practices.
b) EPA must advance environmental justice and protect public
health by establishing guidance that provides a means to reduce
cumulative impacts in overburdened communities.
There is clear and mounting evidence that the concentration of environmental hazards in
lower income communities and communities of color threatens public health and that current risk
assessment practices contribute to environmental inequities and increase disparities. Experts
have identified addressing cumulative impacts as a critical step to ensuring environmental justice
and reducing disparities. At minimum, this must include:
38 OEHHA, Cumulative Impacts: Building a Scientific Foundation at 5-16 (Dec. 2010), available at
http://oehha.ca.gov/ei/pdf/CIReportl23110.pdf (citing numerous research studies showing that exposure
to pollution-emitting facilities, hazardous waste facilities and disposal, toxic releases, non-attainment air
areas, high motor vehicle air pollution areas, and other types of pollution is more likely to be concentrated
in communities with higher minority and lower income populations); R. Morello-Frosch, el al.,
Understanding The Cumulative Impacts of Inequalities in Environmental Health: Implications for Policy,
30(5) Health Affairs 879, (2011); R. Morello-Frosch, el al., Separate and Unequal: Residential
Segregation and Estimated Cancer Risks Associated with Ambient Air Toxics in U.S. Metropolitan Areas,
Envtl. Health Perspectives, 114(3) Envtl. Health Perspectives 386 (2006)..
39 See supra n.9.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
90
-------
(1) Immediately updating existing guidelines for conducting risk-based
assessments to incorporate mechanisms for accounting for the cumulative
impacts of multiple exposures and underlying vulnerabilities; and
(2) Moving beyond current risk frameworks and incorporating alternate methods
to assess health threats from environmental exposures in a way that will better
capture the impacts faced by overburdened communities and support policies
to reduce them.
Regarding item (1) above, most urgently, where its authorities direct it to assess risk,
EPA must use the best available current science to do so. EPA can and must vastly improve its
approach by updating existing risk assessment guidelines to incorporate the science on
cumulative risk and impacts, including by implementing the following:
• Account for individual-level vulnerability in risk assessments by better incorporating
the vulnerability of children, early-life exposures, and the developing fetus into risk
assessment methods:
¦ Account for increased susceptibility by using age-dependent
adjustment factors for all carcinogens, not just known mutagens.
¦ Pre-natal susceptibility: Account for increased susceptibility by using a
pre-natal adjustment factor for all carcinogens of at least 10X.
¦ For chronic non-cancer risk, consult and apply child-specific reference
values (such as those created by California EPA scientists), where
available.
¦ If child-specific reference values are unavailable, consult science on
early exposure impacts, and use an additional default factor of at least
10X.
• Account for community level vulnerability by including factors to account for
increased vulnerability based on demographic differences, as part of the risk
assessment. EPA also must fully integrate the findings of its environmental justice
analyses into its risk assessments and rulemakings, and set stronger pollution limits to
provide environmental justice.
• Assess the cumulative burden of exposures to multiple pollutants and sources via
multiple pathways:
¦ Assess and aggregate exposure from multiple pathways - including by
adding inhalation and non-inhalation-based cancer risks.
¦ Include the interaction of multiple pollutants.
¦ Account for exposure to multiple sources. Until EPA has a specific
mechanism for estimating total exposures, a default or uncertainty
factor of at least 10X should be used to provide overburdened
communities with the protection they need now.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
91
-------
• Account for cumulative impacts of multiple exposures and vulnerabilities by shifting
the level of risk which triggers policy action.
¦ Reduce EPA's benchmark of what it considers acceptable lifetime cancer risk,
instead of relying on the outdated upper limit of 100-in-a-million. This
benchmark is way too high, and is completely unacceptable to affected
communities who are bombarded by high levels of pollution from many
different sources, emitting many pollutants that can cause both additive and
synergistic harm, and experience exposure through multiple pathways.
¦ Use a Margin of Exposure ("MOE") framework for non-cancer impacts and
adjust the target MOE according to known vulnerability factors.
• In the face of increasing evidence calling into question the assumption of a safe or
acceptable level of exposure, EPA should also consider reforming risk assessments to
support reducing risks to the lowest possible level to protect public health, rather than
suggest that there is a safe or acceptable level.
Prior comments submitted to EPA providing more detail on these issues are available in
the dockets of the Office of Science Advisor and air office, among others.40
Commenters also wish to highlight that EPA should be requiring and using a full Health
Impact Assessment ("HIA") wherever possible, in addition to looking at health risks where
directed by law. An HIA is a more detailed and comprehensive tool to understand the impacts of
pollution on a community that already includes significant health burdens and legacy pollution.
The Port of Los Angeles HIA provides an example of the type of impact assessment that should
be used more often.41
In addition, continued development of EJSCREEN and similar tools is also recommended
to support communities in learning more about the environmental justice threats that surround
them, so that communities know which pollutants to track and which monitoring tools will be
most useful. EJSCREEN is a screening tool, and is no substitute for the long-overdue updates to
EPA's policy and protocol to assess cumulative risks and impacts, but these tools can work
together to strengthen information available to communities, EPA, and state and local agencies,
as well as other stakeholders.
40 See, e.g., Comments of Air Alliance Houston, Earthjustice, el al. (June 28, 2013), EPA-HQ-ORD-
2013-0292-0133; see also EPA, Cumulative Risk Webinar Series: What We Learned, EPA/600/R-14/212
(July 2014), available at http://epa.gov/ncer/cra/webinars/cra-webinar-summarv.pdf; NEJAC, Ensuring
Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative
Risks/Impacts (Dec. 2004), available at
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/resources/publications/neiac/neiac-cum-risk-rpt-122104.pdf.
41 EPA, Los Angeles and Long Beach Maritime Port HIA Scope (May 17,2010), available at
http://www.epa.gov/Region9/nepa/PortsHIA/pdfs/DraftHIAScope4PortsOfLALB.pdf. EPA should also
ensure that this HIA is actually finalized so it can be fully used to strengthen local environmental and
health protection.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
92
-------
2. EPA should perform a review of permits and strengthen the
requirements applicable to all permits, including Title V permits,
through state oversight and direction by providing best practices.
As some commenters, such as the Coalition For A Safe Environment, have previously
proposed, EPA should create a permit taskforce - including one specific to Clean Air Act Title
V, as well as for CWA permits - that updates EPA's prior assessments with meaningful action
steps. Each permit-focused taskforce should be charged with an independent review and
evaluation of the quality of permits, including specific areas that need strengthening including:
monitoring, reporting, public information, and other key components needed to assure
compliance, including through public review and enforcement. EPA should provide a report and
use this in oversight of states, and provide it for public commenters, along with a clear direction
to lift all permits up to a higher level of essential enforcement requirements. The objective of
this project would be to strengthen environmental justice protections for communities with a
significant number of permitted facilities.
3. Revise the minimum public notice requirements for Clean Air Act
and other permits, for both major and minor sources, to allow for
adequate public review and participation.
To give more community members a chance to learn about permits that govern facilities
in their area (including Clean Air Act Title V, PSD, NSR, Clean Water Act, and other types of
permits), EPA should require facilities and/or state agencies to post permit applications and the
proposed draft permit online on a publicly available website at the start of the public notice
period. EPA should also ensure that notification occurs in relevant languages for the affected
nearby communities.
It is a serious problem that some sources apply for and receive minor source permits
without adequate review, often without submitting proper data showing that they are minor
rather than major. A minor source often escapes the most protective requirements under the
Clean Air Act, which can lead to communities facing even higher, unfair, and unlawful levels of
pollution. EPA must revise its minor source permit rules to ensure public notice of all minor
source permitting decisions.
In addition, EPA should require states to maintain a mailing list to notify interested
persons of draft permits and final permits via email and telephone (for people without email
access), for major and minor sources.
4. Create a National Clean Air Monitoring Rule to assure strong
monitoring and reporting in Clean Air Act Title V permits.
In addition to the taskforce and to complement its work, as part of Plan EJ2020, EPA
should create a national clean air monitoring rule that will include specific requirements for
monitoring, reporting, and public disclosure of emissions data for all air permits.
Years ago, EPA acknowledged the need to implement the Act's enhanced monitoring
requirements by setting regulatory requirements, but it has not promulgated a national rule and
EJ 2020 Public Comments
93
-------
42
instead has proposed to do so rule-by-rule and permit-by-permit. EPA has often failed to
follow through on these proposals. Many rules for specific source categories and many permits
continue to lack monitoring requirements sufficient to ensure compliance with emission
standards and to provide contemporaneous information on emissions to people exposed to those
emissions in the community. In many cases, rules and permits require only a single stack test,
once a year (or even less often) that does not reflect ongoing emission levels and does not assure
continuous compliance. EPA has previously even taken action to prevent states from
implementing supplementary, stronger monitoring requirements, which was struck down in
court.43 A national rule is needed to require all permits to include monitoring necessary to assure
compliance.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set monitoring provisions to assure continuous
compliance with emission standards.44 The Act also requires emission standards to be
continuous and apply at all times.45 Many air sources, such as refineries, have a long history of
violations, malfunctions, and other exceedances of the standards.46 EPA is in the process of
removing the unlawful SSM exemption that is included in some current standards, but in view of
42 Revisions To Clarify the Scope of Certain Monitoring Requirements for Federal and State Operating
Permits Programs, 69 Fed. Reg. 3202 (Jan. 22, 2004) (vacated in Envtl. Integrity Pro]. v. EPA, 425 F.3d
992, 998 (D.C. Cir. 2005)); see also Enhanced Monitoring Program; Proposed Rule, 58 Fed. Reg. 54,648,
54,661 (Oct. 22, 1993) ("EPA intends to address the enhanced monitoring requirements pursuant to
section 114(a)(3) in the requirements developed for such pollutants"; "EPA intends that the general
provisions of part 63, MACT standards promulgated by rulemaking in individual subparts of part 63 ...
will include, pursuant to the authority in section 114(a)(3) of the Act, appropriate enhanced monitoring
provisions."); see also Compliance Assurance Monitoring; Final Rule, 62 Fed. Reg. 54,900, 54,902 (Oct.
22, 1997) ("One method is to establish monitoring as a method for directly determining continuous
compliance with applicable requirements. The Agency has adopted this approach in some rulemakings
and, as discussed below, is committed to following this approach whenever appropriate in future
rulemakings.").
43 See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 536 F.3d 673, 680 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (vacating EPA's prohibition on
states from enhancing monitoring requirements, 71 Fed. Reg. 75,422 (Dec. 15, 2006)).
44 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 7414(a)(3) (directing that EPA "shall in the case of... a major stationary source
... require enhanced monitoring and submission of compliance certifications"). In addition, Title V
requires permits to contain "conditions as are necessary to assure compliance with applicable
requirements of [the Act];" and to include "monitoring ... requirements to assure compliance with the
permit terms and conditions." 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(a), (c). As the Senate Report accompanying the Act
summarized: "EPA must require reasonable monitoring ... requirements that are adequate to assure
compliance." S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 350 (1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3733. Pursuant
to its rulemaking authority and duty under Title V, 42 U.S.C. § 7661a(b)(2) and § 7661c(b), EPA has
issued regulations in 40 C.F.R. Part 70 that affirm these requirements. 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B)
requires "monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period that are representative
of the source's compliance." Section 70.6(c)(1) requires all Part 70 permits to contain "testing,
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements sufficient to assure compliance with the terms and
conditions of the permit."
45 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k); Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
46 See, e.g., Refineries Comments at 26-27, supra n.14 (citing sources).
EJ 2020 Public Comments
94
-------
the record of the industry's reliance on that exemption, effective monitoring is required to assure
compliance with the standards at all times. EPA needs to require truly "enhanced monitoring" in
a national rule that will assure compliance with all air standards in permits, without further delay.
The agency's compliance assurance monitoring rule is outdated and woefully inadequate for this
purpose, and does not even purport to cover all sources covered by EPA rules and Title V
permits.
EPA's own Enforcement Division is also implementing enhanced monitoring
requirements to assure compliance in its refinery enforcement initiative, and EPA must require,
at least, what its division is requiring as part of its "next generation compliance" policy.47 EPA
as a whole should follow this policy and implement the Act's enhanced monitoring requirements
in this rulemaking.
In addition, significant advancements in monitoring have occurred in recent years. There
are newly available technologies and monitoring techniques to assure compliance with air
emission standards. In particular, more time-resolved, higher data-quality-producing fence-line
monitoring protocols have been implemented at specific refineries through enforcement suits
brought by EPA and negotiations with community groups. As examples, Commenters highlight
the EPA consent decrees at Shell Deer Park and BP Whiting, and the community monitoring
protocol set up at Chevron Richmond, and attach a summary of some of these monitoring
protocols.48
To date, EPA has not followed up to create a national monitoring rule addressing the
monitoring needs outlined above, or to ensure that permits include such requirements. This is
the kind of national program action that would help communities overburdened with air
pollution, who are disproportionately communities of color and low-income communities. It is
also extremely important for EPA to strengthen and require fence-line monitoring on a case-by-
case basis in industry-specific rules and facility-specific enforcement actions. In addition,
though, EPA must set national requirements to ensure stronger monitoring reaches more
communities faster and in a more efficient way than a rule-by-rule approach allows.
5. Strengthen Monitoring and Reporting Requirements in Rules.
EPA needs to ensure that its rules provide for the best available monitoring, reporting,
and public transparency requirements for the purposes of assessing and enforcing compliance.
Its rules need to facilitate both government and affected community enforcement, such as
through citizen actions, where necessary. Enforcement staff involved in review of permitting
programs should be directed to ensure that states are issuing enforceable permits.
To achieve this objective, EPA should perform a systematic review of monitoring and
reporting requirements in national standards and issue a publicly available report on the results.
With input from the enforcement division and the public, EPA should assess the best available
47 See supra n.34.
48 Earthjustice, EIP el al. Letter to NEJAC summarizing fenceline monitoring in place (Apr. 2015); see
also Refineries Comments, supra n.14.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
95
-------
monitoring requirements, such as: continuous emissions monitoring ("CEMS") and digital
camera and video monitoring; or continuous parametric monitoring and frequent stack testing for
any pollutants/points where CEMS is not yet available; the best available reporting and
transparency requirements: e.g., where electronic reports of data collected go directly to state
agencies and EPA, and are made publicly available in or near real time on-line, in a format that
the public can review and understand. As part of this review, EPA should also consult the states
to see the best practices in use for monitoring, testing, and reporting, as well as air pollution and
monitoring control companies and trade associations, such as the Institute of Clean Air
Companies ("ICAC").
To achieve environmental justice objectives, EPA must recognize that community
members have a basic right to know what is going into their environment so that they can use
this information to better protect their own health and advocate for stronger protection, and so
that they can know whether or not a source is in compliance or needs action to bring it into
compliance.
To date, EPA has been moving in the opposite direction. For example, as detailed in
comments filed in November 2014, EPA has proposed to weaken or forego public participation
requirements for various monitoring programs that are particularly critical to people living in
disadvantaged communities.49 In addition, many rules include, at most, an initial, one-time stack
emission test, or very delayed {i.e., 5-year periodic one-time tests). Many rules include only on-
site recordkeeping for agency inspection, without the ability for public review or transparency.
And in some instances, EPA has eliminated the use of special purpose monitors to assess
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA has also created biased
defaults that assume "no pollution" whenever there is a concern about the quality of data, rather
than using that data to trigger the need for areas/sources to prove that data was incorrect. This
bias means that areas with poor resources are more likely to be assumed "clean" and there is
actually an incentive not to invest in quality assurance/control. These are all serious problems
that particularly affect communities with large numbers of sources, including many communities
of color and low-income communities. Similar issues plague farmworker and other low-income
worker communities, who have little reliable information about the number of acute pesticide
and other types of chemical poisonings in the workplace; workers fear retaliation if they
voluntarily report and there is no national pesticide incident reporting system or effective
chemical safety risk reporting system that could be utilized by clinicians and others who work
with farmworkers, chemical plant, refinery, or other workers.
6. Strengthen Air Monitoring Networks, Requirements, and Data.
EPA should invest in additional ambient air monitors. EPA should prioritize siting those
monitors in communities identified as hot spots for environmental justice.
To create strong monitoring networks across the country, EPA should incorporate
environmental justice principles when reviewing and approving air monitoring network plans.
Consistent with the Clean Air Act's requirements that states assure air quality for all people,
49 Comments of Earthjustice & Am. Lung Ass'n at 1-4 (Nov. 10, 2014), EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619-
0034.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
96
-------
EPA's review of these plans should assess whether a given air monitoring network is producing
data that represents what people are breathing in overburdened communities.50
In addition to the ambient air monitoring network, EPA should identify low-income
communities and communities of color and target continuous, real-time fenceline monitoring at
facilities in those communities, in line with Executive Order 12,898.51 Other "advanced
monitoring" practices should be required in environmental justice communities as well,
including lower-cost monitors that can be installed in many locations, monitors that produce data
52
in real time, and monitors that present data in ways that a layperson can understand. Infrequent
periodic stack tests are completely insufficient to assess and assure compliance. Further, all
monitoring data must be reported to the public in or near real time, in a useable and
understandable form, and not just collected for agencies to look at, if they so choose. EPA
should also include indoor air quality monitoring under the umbrella of advanced monitoring, so
that community members have a fuller understanding of the air quality they experience within
their communities.
7. Create a policy to use citizen-collected science and monitoring data
within EPA programs, to the greatest extent possible.
Community air monitoring must play an important role in creating strong air quality
monitoring networks for low-income communities and communities of color. EPA should
prioritize the acceptance of monitoring data that communities produce for themselves, and act as
a partner and a resource for communities working to address air quality threats.
To this end, EPA has begun creating projects and grants to provide training and
technology to encourage and assist community members to help assess air quality and other
environmental problems. Yet, frequently when community members have brought data showing
an air pollution problem or air standard exceedance to EPA, EPA has ignored and refused to use
these data. As one recent example, community members in Galena Park in Houston, TX
53
provided community monitoring data showing PM2.5 exceedances. Yet, EPA neither
recognized these data as showing a violation that required the area to be found to be in
nonattainment for PM2.5, nor performed any independent monitoring or verification to assess
whether, with some additional work or data collection on EPA's part, the data could be used to
50 See generally 42 U.S.C. § 7407(a).
51 See Exec. Order No. 12,898 § 1-101, 59 Fed. Reg. at 7,629 ("... each Federal agency shall make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations ...").
52 Giles Memo at 1-2, supra n.34.
53 Comments of Sierra Club, et al. at 4 (Sept. 29, 2014), EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0918-0295 (submitting
data showing that "particulate matter levels are often well above the NAAQS standard in this area,"
including at a monitor near the Early Head Start building (a childhood development center serving
children between 0-3 years of age), reporting recorded particulate matter daily average levels ranging
from 7.8 to 44.7 micrograms per cubic meter, with an average value of 20.7).
EJ 2020 Public Comments
97
-------
address the clear problem they showed.54 Thus, even though there is clearly a particulate matter
problem in the air in this Houston neighborhood, and even though the community spent time and
resources to gather air monitoring data to supplement the data EPA already had, the community
was not designated as nonattainment and will not receive the health protections that would come
from such a designation.
Rather than allow examples like this to continue to occur, EPA must set clear guidelines
and a clear policy to recognize citizen science and monitoring, especially when citizen-provided
data show environmental problems, toxic exposures, or violations, with input from regions and
community groups. EPA should work with the states and local agencies to encourage them to do
the same, following best practices. These guidelines should be predicated on an acceptance of
the principles of community-based monitoring. As part of these:
¦ First, EPA should provide clear instruction to community members who will
be collecting data on what quality assurance and quality control protocols or
steps must be taken for the data to be considered as equally reliable as
federally monitored data.
¦ Second, if citizens provide data that EPA believes do not meet these criteria
for any reason, then EPA should presume such data are at least relevant, rather
than just ignoring the data as though they were never collected and show
nothing. In particular, EPA should direct its staff to ensure that when citizens
submit data suggesting there is an environmental problem, then rather than
reject or ignore these data, staff must take additional action to attempt to
verify those data, show the verification process used, use independent
monitoring to see if the data can be replicated using EPA methods, and/or to
require a facility to show that the data do not demonstrate a violation or
illustrate another environmental problem.
8. Integrate enforcement staff and enforcement expertise into the
rulemaking process.
As part of each significant rulemaking in its air, water, waste, pesticides, and other
programs, EPA should make it a requirement for rulewriters to request and receive an
independent review and report on recommendations from its enforcement division to assess and
strengthen monitoring, reporting, and other enforcement-related requirements in the rule. This
report should be made available in the rulemaking docket as part of the public comment process.
This review and report should both focus on what is needed to strengthen government
enforcement and ensure that the rule is also enforceable by affected community members.
In addition, OECA staff should take a bigger role, and rulewriters themselves should be
required to consider and address how to assure enforceability and compliance, as discussed
above, by looking at: (1) the data that will be collected to assess compliance, if it includes
enough detail and will be sufficiently understandable to assess compliance; (2) how it will be
made available to the public as well as government agencies; (3) how timely will the data be
54 Response to Comments at 56-57 (Dec. 17, 2014), EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0918-0337.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
98
-------
available, so that corrective action can be taken and there are no concerns that the lag will
prevent effective enforcement; and (4) if the rule will assure that a third party reviewing
information can actually assess and determine compliance or a violation?
9. Assess and provide EJ outcomes in rulemakings and permitting, not
just process.
In some recent public statements, EPA has referred to particular rules as examples of how
EPA is implementing environmental justice objectives in rulemaking and other actions. For
example, EPA pointed to the pending Refineries air toxics rule under Clean Air Act § 7412.55
Commenters do not believe that holding public workshops or hearings, alone, illustrates success
for environmental justice objectives. There must be both truly meaningful public participation
and input throughout the process, and a commitment to achieving strong substantive outcomes to
benefit affected communities.56 Most importantly, EPA must consider and evaluate the results
of the final rule, according to metrics of actual environmental health protections achieved,
pollution reduced, monitoring and enforceability mechanisms strengthened, and must do so by
comparison with the best available metrics, as discussed above, to determine whether or not it
has actually achieved environmental justice objectives in a rulemaking. For the refineries rule,
those are the metrics community members will be using, to assess whether indeed EPA has
fulfilled its objective to provide environmental justice, not the number of public hearings or
workshops held.
Regarding regulations and permitting, EPA should direct each regulatory and permitting
program office or division to provide an audit and a report on the top ways in which the program
office or division could strengthen the substantive outcomes for vulnerable communities in the
work that it does, and publish those reports. Commenters highlight especially the concerns about
how a history of problems with zoning or lack thereof have caused particularly disproportionate
siting and pollution burdens for communities of color and low-income communities; the
57
permitting process must reduce these disparities, not make them worse or ignore them.
10. OEJ should be given authority to set performance measures and
evaluate EJ progress annually, as well as give advice and feedback to
program staff.
On the metrics and objectives EPA chooses to establish for Plan EJ 2020, EPA should
create a clear ongoing role for the Office of Environmental Justice to provide the particular
expertise they have on EPA's program work and give input on ways that EPA's actions must be
strengthened substantively to assure environmental justice. This role must include not only
55 EPA, Guidance on Considering Envtl. Justice During the Development of Regulatory Actions at E-2
(May 2015), available at http://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/resources/policv/considering-ei-in-
rulemaking-guide-final.pdf.
56 See, e.g., Owley, supra n.24.
57 NEJAC, Recommendations Regarding EPA Activities to Promote Environmental Justice in the Permit
Application Process (May 2013), available at
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/resources/publications/neiac/2013-ei-in-permitting.pdf.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
99
-------
helping to connect community stakeholders into EPA's work in terms of the process, but also
evaluating and providing feedback to program staff on substance and concrete results in
achieving environmental justice objectives. In addition, OEJ, in consultation with the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council, should have authority for reviewing, auditing, and
providing a public progress report that is independent from EPA program staffs self-evaluations,
and is included in EPA's regular reports. OEJ should directly seek affected community
members' input on results achieved as part of evaluating progress on EPA's environmental
justice responsibilities and objectives from community groups. Such audits and reports are no
substitute for action, but action is unlikely to happen unless EPA commits to and also has an
independent evaluation of whether it is indeed following through, and has accomplished real
results for communities, that the communities themselves realize as progress on environmental
health and environmental justice.
In addition, Commenters also urge EPA to implement NEJAC's recommendations on
permitting and a long list of other issues - including recommendations submitted as part of Plan
58
EJ2014 that have not been implemented.
11. Identify additional mobile source regulatory measures to protect
disproportionately impacted communities.
Evidence suggests low-income and minority populations disproportionately reside near
heavily trafficked roadways, and thus face greater exposure to traffic-related air pollution.59
These concerns can be even more pronounced in communities adjacent to freight hubs (e.g.,
railyards, distribution centers, ports). While some pollution issues can be addressed through
better zoning, it is imperative to do more to protect communities currently facing the health
threats from transportation-related pollution. Thus, we recommend that EPA explore additional
regulations and guidance to ensure transportation-related pollution is cleaned up in communities,
including measures to clean up freight equipment.
III. INTERAGENCY WORK
States: EPA must strengthen oversight of state and local agencies administering federal
environmental laws and using delegated authority to issue permits, lead enforcement, and take
other actions. Many permitting and enforcement decisions are made at the state and local levels.
Without stronger EPA oversight, communities have not been afforded the full protection that
national standards and federal regulations are supposed to provide. As part of Plan EJ2020, EPA
should prioritize state and local oversight to lift up the best practices in some states and local
areas in permitting, rulemaking, and enforcement, and to end the worst practices in areas where
communities feel completely alone in handling serious environmental and health concerns. EPA
58 See NEJAC, Advice and Recommendations,
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/neiac/recommendations.html (last updated May 19. 2015); see
also NEJAC, NEJAC Comments to EPA Plan EJ 2014 (Apr. 2011), available at
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/resources/publications/neiac/plan-ei-2014-comments-0511 .pdf.
59 See D. Brugge, et al., Developing Community-Level Policy and Practice to Reduce Traffic-Related
Air Pollution Exposure, 8 Envtl. Justice 95, 96-97 (June 15, 2015), available at
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/env.2015.00Q7.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
100
-------
must use its full authority, including disapproving state programs or withdrawing delegation,
whenever necessary to ensure that communities do not lose the basic protections federal
environmental laws are supposed to provide. In addition, EPA should help make up the gap
where state and local government agencies and laws, such as a lack of appropriate zoning or a
history of discriminatory zoning, create particular concerns for communities of color and low-
income communities.
Under the Clean Water Act, for years communities in Appalachia have faced state
refusals to implement basic requirements to assure water quality, including the mandate to
translate narrative water quality standards into permit effluent limitations. EPA has documented
many of these problems and the fact that the impacts of these inadequate and unlawful permits
fall disproportionately on low-income communities in multiple documents, including reports and
guidance.60 Yet, EPA still has not exercised the full oversight and authority needed to end this
problem - while communities which are disproportionately low-income continue to suffer from
the years of devastation to waters, wildlife, and public health associated with mountaintop
removal mining.61
Longstanding problems with Texas's air permitting programs provide well-known
examples that EPA must address there and in other states, and on which EPA has received
comments in recent years.62
As another example, many parts of the country are currently facing potential increases in
use of oil and gas transportation and infrastructure developments located in close proximity to
communities with significant environmental justice concerns. For example, in Albany, New
York, Global Companies offloads crude oil from rail cars into storage tanks and then transfers
the oil to ships and barges on the Hudson River. Recent permitting actions by the New York
60 See, e.g., EPA, Review of Clean Water Act § 402 Permitting for Surface Coal Mines by Appalachian
States: Findings & Recommendations (July 13, 2010), available at
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/upload/Final Appalachian Mining PQR 07-13-10.pdf; EPA,
Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations Under the Clean Water Act,
National Environmental Policy Act, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order at 4 (July 21, 2011)
("The environmental legacy of mining operations in the Appalachian region is far-reaching.") (discussing
deforestation and adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems) ("July 2011 Guidance"); EPA Office of
Research & Development Final Report: The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on Aquatic
Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian Coalfields (May 27, 2011), available at
http://ofinpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile7p download id=501593; EPA, Final Determination of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to § 404(c) of the Clean Water Act Concerning the
Spruce No. 1 Mine, Logan County, West Virginia at 94-97 (Jan. 13, 2011) ("Spruce Determination"),
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/cwa/dredgdis/spruce.cfin.
61 See, e.g., Environmental Justice Petition for EPA Action Under Executive Order 12898 And All Other
Legal Authorities, filed by Coal River Mountain Watch el al. (2009); Petition of 19 Local, Regional and
National Organizations to EPA for Rulemaking to Set Water Quality Standards to Protect Appalachian
Waters from Mining Waste and Harmful Levels of Conductivity (May 6, 2013), available at
http://earthiustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/communitv-petition-to-epa-for-rulemaking-on-
mountaintop-removal-pollution-water-qualitv-standard-6.
62 See, e.g., Comments of Air Alliance Houston, el al. (submitted on Plan EJ2020).
EJ 2020 Public Comments
101
-------
State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") have significantly increased rail and
barge traffic and increased air emissions at the terminal, placing residents of the Ezra Prentice
Homes at risk, yet DEC initially failed to conduct an appropriate environmental review of the
project and failed to follow the required procedures for projects that could impact environmental
justice communities. This is also a serious problem in other parts of the country, and we also
highlight as an example the report from California on "blast zone" crude transport issues
impacting communities of color.63
Another example is North Carolina's failure to address the impacts of industrial animal
product in eastern North Carolina, where the density of hog and, more recently, poultry
operations in low-income African American, Latino, and Native American communities has
affected quality of life, waterways, and a range of health indicators. For years, community
members in eastern North Carolina complained to EPA and the state Department of Environment
and Natural Resources about the adverse effects of the industry on their health and environment
and implored the agencies to provide greater protection to no avail. In 2014 community groups
filed a civil rights complaint with EPA pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
which might have been avoided had the state and EPA taken action to resolve the problem.
Federal: Under the Federal Interagency Working group, EPA should continue to work
with other agencies and White House Offices to advance environmental justice, including
through achieving results for the identified hot spot communities and areas with environmental
justice concerns, as discussed earlier. Federal agencies, especially HHS, including the CDC,
NIEHS, should work to assure better data is collected and available on health status and health
concerns at the census tract level. These data are important for communities and EPA staff to
have to direct and assess the success of resources applied to promote environmental justice. In
addition, commenters are aware that some agencies (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) appear
to have no environmental justice office or clear objectives of any kind. EPA should assist all
agencies in implementing the Executive Order. For example, EPA should provide guidance to
HUD and other agencies to consider when spending public funds, such as on low-income
housing, which should be built in healthy and environmentally accessible areas - and not next to
refineries, power plants, or other industrial sources of air and water pollution. As another
example, EPA should ensure other federal agencies are vigilant in monitoring transportation
projects, including freight expansion projects, which can exact a large toll on communities.
IV. EPA SHOULD BUILD TITLE VI COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT INTO
ALL ASPECTS OF AGENCY OPERATIONS AND INCLUDE TITLE VI
ACTION ITEMS IN PLAN EJ2020.
EPA has separated Title VI enforcement from its Plan EJ2020 process. Commenters urge
EPA to set Title VI commitments as part of Plan EJ2020 for the following reasons.
63 Communities for a Better Environment, Crude Injustice on the Rails: Race and the Disparate Risk
from Oil Trains in California (June 2015), available at
http://www.forestethics.org/sites/forestethics.huang.radicaldesigns.org/files/Crude-Iniustice-on-the-
Rails.pdf.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
102
-------
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d - 2000d-7,
prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of race, color
or national origin in any of their programs or activities. EPA, like other federal agencies,
enacted regulations pursuant to Title VI. 40 C.F.R. Part 7. Title VI and its regulations prohibit
intentional forms of discrimination as well as actions, policies, and practices with unjustified
discriminatory impacts, regardless of intent. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled in Alexander v.
Sandoval that aggrieved persons have no private right of action to enforce Title VI unless they
can demonstrate intent.6 As a result, people living in environmental justice communities that
are environmentally overburdened with toxic releases rely on EPA to require compliance and
enforce the law. Without an effective Title VI compliance and enforcement program at EPA, the
law is an empty vessel. Unfortunately, EPA's Title VI program has been notoriously
inadequate.65
The Plan EJ2020 Action Agenda Framework again relegates EPA's external civil rights
compliance and enforcement program to consideration on another day. Although we support the
development of a long-term OCR Strategic Plan, Plan EJ2020 should recognize that Title VI of
the Civil Rights of 1964 is one of the cornerstone legal tools for addressing issues of
environmental justice66 and build specific action items for Title VI compliance and enforcement
into all aspects of EPA's operations, especially as they relate to permits, delegation of authority,
enforcement, and program approvals.67
Relegating Title VI compliance and enforcement to later and separate treatment replicates
the mistake made when Plan EJ 2014 failed to provide detail on actions to improve its civil rights
program and ultimately released "Draft Supplement: Advancing Environmental Justice Through
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act." If, indeed, EPA is committed to improving its civil rights
program and recognizing that enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an
important tool in EPA's efforts to address discrimination and advance environmental justice, the
Plan EJ2020 Action Agenda must include a strong and coordinated approach that identifies
goals, actions, and metrics to assess performance and to send a clear message to EPA staff and
stakeholders. Specifically, the Plan EJ2020 Action Agenda should address the following issues:
64 532 U.S. 275, 279-86 (2001).
65 See, e.g., Deloitte Consulting LLP, Final Report: Evaluation of the EPA Office of Civil Rights at 2
(Mar. 21, 2011), available at http://epa.gov/epahome/ocr-statement/epa-ocr 20110321 finalreport.pdf
(citing a "record of poor performance").
66 See Dept. of Justice, Dept. of Justice Guidance Concerning Environmental Justice at 2 (Dec. 3, 2014),
available at
http://www.iustice.gov/sites/default/files/ei/pages/attachments/2014/12/19/doi guidance concerning ei,p
df.
67 Notably, the audit conducted by Deloitte to assess EPA's Office of Civil Rights ("OCR") specifically
criticized EPA for operating OCR in "an insular fashion" that limited its effectiveness and for failing to
provide clarity regarding internally or externally regarding expectations. Deloitte, Evaluation of the EPA
Office of Civil Rights at 2, supra n.65. Failing again to address these issues in the Plan EJ2020 Action
Agenda misses yet another opportunity to address these concerns.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
103
-------
• Process: EPA must review and modify policies and practices governing
communications with complainants and community-based stakeholders in the
Title VI enforcement process, both to ensure a more active role for complainants
and community-based stakeholders in the enforcement process and to bring Title
VI enforcement into line with environmental justice principles and EPA efforts to
encourage "meaningful engagement" of overburdened communities in permitting
and other decision-making. Although completion of the policy paper "Roles of
Complainants and Recipients in the Title VI Complaints and Resolution Process"
is a step forward, the Plan EJ2020 Action Agenda should include specific goals,
activities, and metrics to ensure changes in practice, including, for example,
training for EPA staff and reform of policies that limit interactions of staff with
stakeholders.
• Transparency: EPA still fails to make up-to-date information about Title VI
enforcement readily available, including, for example, a docket with links to
complaints, resolution agreements, and other official documents on EPA's
website. Although this project is underway, the EJ2020 Action Plan should
include goals, activities and metrics to ensure that this project crosses the finish
line and then is maintained, reviewed, and improved over time.
• Strengthen Compliance: EPA should strengthen its pre-award and post-award
compliance review programs, including the collection and review of relevant
information. EPA has recently modified Form 4700-4, Preaward Compliance
Review Report For All Applicants and Recipients Requesting Federal Financial
Assistance, to determine whether applicants for federal financial assistance are
developing programs and activities on a non-discriminatory basis. Form 4700-4
is a start, but is insufficient to ensure compliance with Title VI. EPA should
require recipients of federal financial assistance to submit a detailed analysis of
how it complies with Title VI and EPA's implementing regulations. State
environmental agencies that receive funding from EPA, for example, should
provide detailed information on how the agency's permitting, enforcement, and
rulemaking requirements comply. Such documents should be made publicly
available for input, and should be reviewed by EPA as part of pre-award and post-
award compliance reviews.
• Legal Standards: EPA's second policy paper, "Adversity and Compliance with
Environmental Health Based Thresholds," 8 is languishing. Providing clarity on
the standard for determining adversity in a disparate impact case is a necessary
though insufficient step toward revision and finalization of guidance on legal
standards. The EJ2020 Action Plan should provide a clear and measurable path
forward to removing the "rebuttable presumption" that compliance with health
standards is a sufficient defense against a civil rights claim and resolving other
68 EPA, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of1964: Adversity and Compliance with Environmental Health
Based Thresholds, (Jan. 24, 2013), available at
http://www.epa.gov/civilrights/docs/pdf/t6.adversity paper 1.24.13.pdf.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
104
-------
uncertainties around the applicable standards by finalizing improved guidance
documents.
• The Backlog: The EJ 2020 Action Plan should establish activities and a timeline
by which EPA will resolve all pending Title VI civil rights complaints in a timely
way - with the involvement of complainants and their attorneys and with creative
and careful attention to the underlying issues. It is unconscionable that
complaints have been languishing with the Office of Civil Rights, in some cases
for more than a decade, reinforcing concerns about the integrity of the process.
Given EPA's breach of responsibility and the delay experienced by complainants
seeking justice, the agency has a duty not just to complete the investigations, but
to address claims raised in the complaints.
• Capacity & Infrastructure: The EJ 2020 Action Plan should ensure that the
organizational dynamics and challenges outlined in the Deloitte report are fully
addressed and contain clear goals, activities and metrics to ensure that scarce
agency resources are preserved at all stages of civil rights compliance and
enforcement work.
• Coordination: The EJ 2020 Action Plan must set forth goals, activities and
metrics for EPA's role in coordinating Title VI compliance and enforcement with
delegated programs, EPA's regional programs, and other federal agencies.
Among other things, EPA must ensure that states submit Title VI plans on an
annual basis and should require that funding recipients submit Title VI plans for
review.
• Resolution and Remedies: The EJ 2020 Action Plan must include specific goals,
activities and metrics for reform of its practice to ensure that (a) the alternative
dispute resolution program provides sufficient technical assistance to level the
playing field for complainants, and (b) when EPA enters a voluntary compliance
agreement, remedial measures protect communities and secure Title VI
compliance.
Finally, the EJ2020 Action Plan must ensure compliance and enforcement of the
prohibition against national origin discrimination affecting LEP persons. Among other things, to
comply with the Department of Justice's Title VI requirements pursuant to Executive Order
13166, "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency," EPA must
finalize its internal LEP plan, and ensure the inclusion of native and indigenous languages as
discussed above.69
69 See LEP.gov, Executive Order 13166, http://www.lep.gov/13166/eol3166.html ("The Executive Order
requires Federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those
with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so
LEP persons can have meaningful access to them. It is expected that agency plans will provide for such
meaningful access consistent with, and without unduly burdening, the fundamental mission of the agency.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
105
-------
V. CONCLUSION
Commenters appreciate EPA's time considering these comments and would be glad to
provide further information if helpful.
Sincerely,
Emma Cheuse
Staff Attorney, Washington, D.C.
Adrian Martinez
Staff Attorney, Los Angeles, CA
Marianne Engelman-Lado
Staff Attorney, New York, NY
Stephanie Maddin
Legislative Counsel, Washington, D. C.
Earthjustice
(202) 667-4500
echeuse@earthiustice.org
amartinez@earthiustice.org
mengelmanlado@earthiustice.org
smaddin@earthiustice.org
Ronald White
Director of Regulatory Policy
Center for Effective Government
Washington, D.C
Leslie Fields
Director, Environmental Justice and
Community Partnerships Program
Sierra Club
Washington, D.C.
A1 Huang
Senior Attorney and
Director of Environmental Justice
Natural Resources Defense Council
New York, NY
Alaska
Carl Wassilie Patrice Lee
Yupiaq Biologist Coordinator
Alaska's Big Village Network Citizens for Clean Air
Anchorage, AK 99504 Fairbanks, AK 99712
The Executive Order also requires that the Federal agencies work to ensure that recipients of Federal
financial assistance provide meaningful access to their LEP applicants and beneficiaries.").
EJ 2020 Public Comments 106
-------
California
Alfred Carrillo
Pastor
Apostolic Faith Center
Wilmington, CA 90744
Drew Wood
Executive Director
California Kids IAQ
Wilmington, CA 90744
Robert Garcia
Founding Director and Counsel
The City Project
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Jesse Marquez
Executive Director
Coalition For A Safe Environment
Wilmington, CA 90744
Ricardo Pulido
Executive Director
Community Dreams
Wilmington, CA 90744
Cynthia Babich
Executive Director
Del Amo Action Committee
Torrance, CA 90502
Mark Lopez
Executive Director
East Yard Communities for Environmental
Justice
Commerce, CA 90040
Devika Ghai
Organizer
Pesticide Action Network North America
Oakland, CA 94612
Florida
Tirso Moreno
Jane Williams
Executive Director
California Communities Against Toxics
Rosamond, CA 93560
Robina Suwol
Founder & Executive Director
California Safe Schools
Toluca Lake, CA 91610
Renee Nelson
President
Clean Water and Air Matter
Bakersfield, CA 93306
Humberto Lugo
Policy Advocate
Comite Civico del Valle
Brawley, CA 92227
Denny Larson
Executive Director
Community Science Center
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Lyle Talbot
Desert Citizens Against Pollution
Rosamond, CA 93560
Tamhas Griffith
Co-Founder
Martinez Environmental Group
Martinez, CA 94553
Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CARES
Livermore, CA 94551
Illinois
Ellen Rendulich
EJ 2020 Public Comments
107
-------
General Coordinator
Farmworker Association of Florida
Apopka, FL 32703
Director
Citizens Against Ruining the Environment
Lockport, IL 60441
Kansas Kentucky
Eric Kirkendall Heather Warman
Director Executive Director
Diesel Health Project Kentucky Environmental Foundation
Lawrence, KS Berea, KY 40303
Louisiana
Dorothy Felix
President
Mossville Environmental Action Now
Westlake, LA 70669
Maryland
Mark Brenman
Managing Member
ID ARE LLC
Kensington, MD
Sacoby Wilson
Director
Maryland Institute for Applied
Environmental Health, Community
Engagement, Environmental Justice, and
Health
College Park, MD 20740
Massachusetts
Veronica Eady
Director
Conservation Law Foundation
Massachusetts
Boston, MA 02110
Michigan
Theresa Landrum
Community Activist
48217 Community and Environmental
Health Organization
Detroit, MI 48217
Tyrone Carter
President
The Original United Citizens of Southwest
Detroit
Detroit, MI 48217
Mississippi
Charlotte Keys Howard Page
Executive Director Steps Coalition
Jesus People Against Pollution Biloxi, MS 39530
EJ 2020 Public Comments
108
-------
Columbia, MS 39429
Missouri
Patricia Schuba
President
Labadie Environmental Organization
Labadie, MO 63055
New Jersey
Nelson Carrasquillo
General Coordinator
CATA - The Farmworkers Support
Committee
Glassboro, NJ 08028
New Mexico
Eileen Gauna
Law Professor
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87106
New York
Barbara Warren
Executive Director
Citizens' Environmental Coalition
Albany, NY
North Carolina
Mike Giles
Coastal Advocate
North Carolina Coastal Federation
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Veronica Carter
President
Southeastern North Carolina
Environmental Justice Coalition
Castle Hayne, NC 28480
Barbara Jennings
Coordinator
Midwest Coalition for Responsible
Investment
St. Louis, MO 63111
Doug Meiklejohn
Executive Director
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Kathleen Curtis
Executive Director
Clean and Healthy New York
Albany, NY 12207
Allie Sheffield
President
PenderWatch & Conservancy
Hampstead, NC 28445
Omega Wilson, Environmental Justice
Consultant
Brenda Wilson, Community Volunteer
West End Revitalization Association -
WERA
Mebane, NC 27302
EJ 2020 Public Comments
109
-------
Oregon
John Krallman
Staff Attorney
Neighbors for Clean Air
Portland, OR 97296
Pennsylvania
Joe Minott
Executive Director
Clean Air Council
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Puerto Rico
Ruth Santiago
Counsel
Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc.
Salinas, PR 00751
Texas
Adrian Shelley
Executive Director
Air Alliance Houston
Houston, TX 77003
Becky Bornhorst
Downwinders At Risk
Dallas, TX
Virginia
Matt Hepler
Water and Enforcement Organizer
Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards
Appalachia, VA 24216
West Virginia
Janet Keating
Executive Director
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition
Huntington, WV 25773
Hilton Kelley
Executive Director & Founder
Community In-Power and Development
Association
Port Arthur, TX 77642
Juan Parras
Director
Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy
Services
Houston, TX
Washington
Steven Gilbert
Director
Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological
Disorders
Seattle, WA 98105
EJ 2020 Public Comments
110
-------
Myers
Sent: Tuesday, Jul^^^mCTols^lvi
To: ejstratec
Cc:
Subject: Comment on hJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
To whom it may concern,
I am making a last minute comment on the EJ Action Agenda to say that our Community of Kenmore, Washington, which
is on the north end of Lake Washington, has experienced and is still experiencing environmental INJUSTICE because I can
not figure out how to stop the injustice. We are overrun with toxins that are not being tested and yet we know they are
there. We visited the EPA in DC in July 2014 and we met with our lawmakers. We were vindicated by Army Corps tests
which confirmed that the toxins are too high for open water disposal, and yet the transportation needs of the state and
polluters' businesses trump the concerns of citizens hoping for environmental justice.
I do not know the answer, but we need somebody who has enough intelligence and enough willingness to fight the
agencies and the rich companies that build bridges, the SR 520 Floating Bridge, for example. We didn't have lobbyists,
but the concrete company did/does.
Really what we need is money to right the wrong. We shouldn't have had our environment harmed, but I assume the
powers that be assessed the population and decided we were fractionated, and not quite rich enough to fight for
environmental health and scrutiny. We didn't even have the proper laws respected in 2011 when our politicians decided
to industrialize our north end of Lake Washington. The rich worked with the agencies and city in some way that
circumvented the laws meant to protect. The people complained to no avail.
I don't know what to tell you, except that I would welcome you to make part of your plan the STORY OF KENMORE, our
GOVERNOR, our CITY STAFF, our Citizens, our Leaders (or lack thereof, as I feel, as President of our nonprofit, that I have
failed the ecology of Lake Washington). I needed the media and support. I got dabbles of it, but it is too scary to fight
the city and do it as a volunteer. We have tried, we still are trying. If EPA had a way to tell this story, maybe we'd have
the heart to write it down, because you could make an example of kenmore and the floating bridge, and the politics that
caused this. Down the road by 2020 or a bit further, we'll probably see what diseases, if any, are caused by the dioxins. I
hope I'm wrong, but I fear there will be illnesses, unless we are successful and finally figure out a way to have this area
be a superfund site.
It would help if you could tell our stories and help us achieve the health of our environment. Have a fund to visit our site
and meet the people and help us negotiate with the Cemex and Calportland and city and state and WSDOT so that this
never happens again to a suburb of Seattle where there are ESA listed species but the transportation giants planned to
use the ecology to build bridges, game the system, and pull the wool over the eyes of a disorganized community.
I still hope for success, but I see money is what guides the success.
That is unfortunate.
I think you'd have to fund a lobbyist to help the nonprofits, like ours, People for an Environmentally Responsible
Kenmore. That might help. Maybe I should have learned to write grants, but to be honest, the grant writing just doesn't
work. It takes too long.
What we need is a citizen led third party right to test comprehensively in the lake, to find the source of the toxins and
stop the barges which are causing our area to be full of asphalt and concrete. We are not supposed to be an
underprivileged community. We are a suburb, the "drive by city" that links the best and the brightest of places like
l
EJ 2020 Public Comments
111
-------
Redmond where Microsoft is with the City of Seattle. Basically, the sad thing is that a bedroom community was taken
advantage of. Its ecology was used to make a bridge. It shouldn't have happened. We reached out to EPA, but we
haven't had success. Why? I don't know. I wish I did. I will listen if you write or call.
For your agency to do its work, you need to help us write this story of Kenmore, on the shores of Lake Washington,
where the system error included a shovel ready, barge-ready project to build a bridge in an area where there were and
are dioxins, but they did it anyway, they barged and moved around the toxins without regard to the public health and
safety and they are still doing the barging and still wanting to ignore the fact that the source of the dioxins should be
found before more work continues.
That is what should happen for Environmental Justice, but we grow weary having asked and fought since 2011.
Add what we need to your plan, please.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Mooney
EJ 2020 Public Comments
2
112
-------
E C O S
THE
ENVIRONMENTAL
COUNCIL OF
THE STATES
50 F Street, N.W.
Suite 350
Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel: (202) 266-4920
Fax: (202) 266-4937
Email: ecosf3lecos.org
Web: www.ecos.org
Robert Martineau
Commissioner, Tennessee
Department of Environment
and Conservation
PRESIDENT
Martha Rudolph
Director of Environmental
Programs, Colorado
Department of Public Health
and Environment
VICE PRESIDENT
Henry Darwin
Director, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
SECRETARY-TREASURER
Dick Pedersen
Director, Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality
PAST PRESIDENT
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn
Executive Director &
General Counsel
July 14,2015
Dr. Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Via email to: ejstrategy@epa.gov
Re: Draft Environmental Justice (EJ) 2020 Action Agenda
Framework
Dear Dr. Lee:
The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) is pleased to submit this
letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) on the
Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework (draft Framework) released on
April 15, 2015. ECOS is the national, non-profit, non-partisan association of
state and territorial environmental agency leaders. The meaningful and
substantial involvement of the state environmental agencies is critical to the
successful development and implementation of federal environmental
programs. ECOS appreciates the opportunity to provide suggestions which
we believe will improve EPA's final Framework.
ECOS shares EPA's commitment to have a robust dialogue around EJ issues
and has been collaborating in various ways with the Agency in its EJ work
since before the signature of Executive Order 12898 on EJ. States also are
serious about engaging with all affected communities and people in
environmental decision-making, making decisions transparent, and finding
solutions that promote healthy and economically vibrant outcomes.
ECOS supports the draft Framework's structure, which establishes general EJ
goals for EPA for the coming years. Since the final Framework will cover
several years, we urge the Agency to continue its practice of providing
regular reports on its efforts. EPA's statement regarding the draft Framework
that "EJ 2020 is a strategy for advancing environmental justice ... It is not a
rule"1 is important. This statement should be incorporated in the final
Framework.
1 http://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/ei2020/
EJ 2020 Public Comments
113
-------
ECOS Letter to EPA on EJ2020 draft Framework
July 14,2015
Page 2 of 5
We also recommend that the final Framework reflect a commitment to continuous improvement. The
Agency and many states have made commitments to evaluate key processes and approaches to identify
ways to make them more effective and efficient. EPA's final Framework to advance environmental
justice should integrate continuous improvement principles.
Please note, ECOS' input does not supersede or alter the comments or opinions of any individual state,
as state perspectives and approaches may vary on different aspects of the draft Framework.
Specific Input on the draft Framework
I. Deepen environmental justice practice within EPA programs to improve the health and environment
of overburdened communities
A. Incorporate environmental justice in rulemaking
The Agency has developed a guidance document on how to incorporate EJ into its own rulemaking
efforts, which should be referenced here unless another guidance is contemplated.2 The final Framework
must make clear that this goal refers to EPA rulemaking, as states have their own processes for
considering environmental justice issues in their own rule development and related activities.
B. Consider environmental justice in EPA permitting
Here, the draft Framework makes clear that the Agency is referring to its own permitting processes.
ECOS members are already serving as resources to EPA on how states have found ways to meaningfully
incorporate EJ issues into the permitting process. These processes have been documented in a number of
ways.3 States are supportive of EPA's commitment and efforts to incorporate EJ into its permitting
activities and appreciate EPA's intention to enable overburdened communities to have full and
meaningful access to the permitting process and to develop permits that address EJ issues to the greatest
extent practicable.
Public participation is one of the cornerstones of EJ and many states have made public participation a
priority for their Agencies and/or implemented their own approaches to consider EJ in permitting
through policy, guidance or statutes. Some states have made significant progress in meaningful
involvement of overburdened communities and continue to focus on communicating, collaborating and
addressing issues presented by these communities.
States value public interests and concerns, and are working directly with stakeholders in communities to
provide public involvement. We support the current efforts made to develop and implement regional
plans that describe how and when regional offices will engage in enhanced outreach to overburdened
communities for EPA-issued permits.
2 http://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/resources/policy/considering-ei-in-rulemaking-guide-final.pdf
3 http://gov.uchastings.edu/public-law/docs/eireport-fourthedition.pdf; see also Dunn & Weiss, Environmental Justice in
Permitting: State Innovations to Advance Accountability, 81 Miss. L.J. 747 (2012).
EJ 2020 Public Comments
114
-------
ECOS Letter to EPA on EJ2020 draft Framework
July 14,2015
Page 3 of 5
C. Advance environmental justice through compliance and enforcement
Since states bring a significant portion (figures range to near 90 percent) of compliance and enforcement
actions, this portion of the draft Framework must also specify that EPA is referring only to its
compliance and enforcement efforts, and not those of state environmental agencies. There can be much
overlap between EPA's chosen compliance and enforcement cases and state activities. Thus, in this part
of the final Framework, we encourage EPA to specify that it will work closely with states in the
compliance and enforcement area on opportunities to leverage limited resources through coordinated
efforts in identified communities. EPA also should note that it will consult with state environmental
agencies and other stakeholders to identify overburdened communities, as states and community
organizations may in many cases already have done the groundwork to make such identifications.
D. Enhance science tools for considering environmental justice in decision-making
ECOS recommends that in the final Framework this provision refer to "science and other" tools for
considering EJ in decision-making. We recommend that EPA add language to refer to "decision-making
and other analyses." EPA has developed a number of resources, some of which are science-based tools,
some of which are decisional tools, and some of which are screening tools (e.g., EJSCREEN).
We also urge the final Framework to discuss in this section how EPA will coordinate with states on
setting research priorities and on training on the various tools, so that states can obtain the most benefit
from them and consider how the tools interact with one another. States request that they be a part of the
development process of new EJ tools so that the learning and knowledge curve is less steep and tool
development may leverage state experiences. EPA's final Framework must make clear that states' use of
EJSCREEN and any other EJ tools is optional. EPA also should note that not all tools are appropriate
for all settings (e.g., not all tools work in urban and rural areas).
ECOS suggests that the final Framework state that EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
will continue its collaboration with the Environmental Research Institute of the States (ERIS) to obtain
input on the types of new tools that would be helpful with states, and to obtain state input on science-
based tools.
II. Collaborate with partners to expand our impact within overburdened communities
As noted above, states are already working closely with communities facing a variety of environmental,
socioeconomic, and health challenges. Addressing the needs of these communities is often not the
exclusive purview of the environmental regulator. Accordingly, we recommend that in the final
Framework, EPA acknowledge that the definition of an "overburdened community" will vary from place
to place, and that the Agency will work with states, other federal agencies (see next point), and local
partners to identify these communities.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
115
-------
ECOS Letter to EPA on EJ2020 draft Framework
July 14,2015
Page 4 of 5
The federal definition of "overburdened community" articulated in Plan EJ 2014 is broad and provides
good guidance for states,4 but in some states overburdened communities may fall outside this definition.5
A. Collaborate with states, tribes, local governments and other co-regulators to share and develop
environmental justice tools and practices
ECOS supports this draft Framework goal. It is well-drafted to put a focus on the joint nature of
training, sharing, and tool development. ECOS appreciates the reference in the draft Framework to E-
Enterprise for the Environment, which embodies a joint governance approach to decision-making so
frequently referenced herein. States are pleased to see the reference to local governments, as some
decisions of concern to communities are the result of local government authority and choices, and not
within EPA or state agency jurisdiction.
B. Work with other federal agencies to advance environmental justice through the Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice
ECOS supports this element of the draft Framework as it encourages important cross-federal agency
coordination on EJ issues. Environmental regulators are unlikely to be the sole source of support for
overburdened communities. Coordination with education, housing, energy, disaster response and
emergency preparedness, and other federal agencies will be critical to developing the most effective
approaches to directing resources to communities in need.
Notably, this portion of the draft Framework mentions for the first time collaboration with the business
and industrial sectors. ECOS encourages other portions of the final Framework also to reference the
important, proactive role of business and industry to reduce impacts on overburdened communities and
to help EPA and states achieve EJ goals.
III. Demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened communities
This portion of the draft Framework discusses measurement and metrics, and also calls for the possible
identification of national programmatic efforts. ECOS appreciates that EPA plans to work with states
and others to develop these measures and programs, and urges that such language be retained and
emphasized in the final Framework.
4 "Overburdened community" is used to describe the minority, low-income, tribal and indigenous populations or communities
in the United States that potentially experience disproportionate environmental harms and risks due to exposures or
cumulative impacts or greater vulnerability to environmental hazards. This increased vulnerability may be attributable to an
accumulation of negative and lack of positive environmental, health, economic, or social conditions within these populations
or communities. (http://epa.gov/environmentaliustice/resources/policy/plan-ei-2014/plan-ei-progress-report-2014.pdf)
5 http://compliance.supportportal.com/link/portal/23002/23009/Article/34316/What-is-the-definition-of-overburdened-
community-that-is-relevant-for-EPA-Actions-and-Promising-Practices
EJ 2020 Public Comments
116
-------
ECOS Letter to EPA on EJ2020 draft Framework
July 14,2015
Page 5 of 5
IV. Related efforts: Climate and Title VI
The two "related efforts" listed in the draft Framework - climate and Title VI - appear out of place at the
end of the document. There are many related efforts that address the needs of overburdened
communities beyond these culled out, including those in the areas of drinking water protection, sewer
overflow reduction, toxics and pesticide control, and waste management - just to name a few.
The two short points also do not provide any context for the extensive activity ongoing in these areas.
For example, ECOS has been working on Title VI issues for many years, from submitting comments to
the state-EPA Title VI Compliance Workgroup, and has provided input to the Office of Civil Rights on
the strategic plan it is developing. ECOS is working on resilience and adaptation efforts with other parts
of the Agency.
ECOS recommends EPA delete the "related efforts" from the final Framework.
ECOS appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the Agency on the draft Framework. Please do not
hesitate to contact me to follow up on any of our points at adunn@ecos.org or 202-266-4929. We look
forward to further conversation with you and to seeing the final Framework.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn
ECOS Executive Director and General Counsel
Cc: ECOS Officers & Executive Committee
Bill Ehm (IA), Chair, ECOS Planning Committee
John Stine (MN), Vice Chair, ECOS Planning Committee
Conclusion
Sincerely,
EJ 2020 Public Comments
117
-------
EDF^.
ENVIRONMENTAL^^^^^
DEFENSE FUND" '
Finrt nfl tfm ways thai work
BY EMATT,
July 10,2015
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEPA, Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
Attention: Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Re: Comments on EPA's Draft Framework for the EJ 2020 Action Agenda (EJ 2020)
I. Introduction
Environmental Defense Fund ("EDF") appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's
draft framework for the EJ 2020 Action Agenda (April 15, 2015) ("EJ 2020"). EDF is a non-
partisan environmental organization with more than 750,000 members nationwide. EDF is
dedicated to working toward innovative, cost-effective solutions to environmental problems,
building on a foundation of rigorous science, economics, and law. We comment on EJ 2020 as
an environmental justice stakeholder whose work impacts overburdened communities and who
partners with environmental justice organizations on overlapping issues. Environmental justice
is at the core of EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment. Many
communities that face high risk of exposure to harmful pollutants are disadvantaged and
underserved. These communities look to EPA for protection through information on
environmental risks, enforcement of environmental laws, cooperation with state and federal
agencies, rulemakings and permitting sensitive to environmental justice concerns, and the
development of programs to address pollution. EPA has made progress in ensuring that families
across the country have access to clean water, clean air, and a healthy environment. However,
many communities are still overburdened and much remains to be done.
EDF welcomes EJ 2020 as a starting point for the agency in advancing EPA goals of
driving visible differences in communities. The framework includes important elements such as
promoting collaboration across federal agencies and enhancing scientific tools for considering
environmental justice in decision-making. Given the urgent need for full protection of human
health and environment across the country, we respectfully urge EPA to strengthen the
framework. In particular, we ask the agency to better incorporate environmental justice in
federal advisory committees, elevate port and goods movement issues as a national priority,
consider environmental justice in voluntary programs administered by the agency, advance
science related to environmental justice priorities, and set clear benchmarks and goals for
measuring progress on environmental justice issues. We offer the following specific comments
on EJ 2020.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
118
-------
II. Incorporate environmental justice in federal advisory committees,
SUBCOMMITTEES, AND WORKGROUPS
Federal advisory committees and their subcommittees/workgroups play an integral role in
advising and guiding EPA on critical matters in science and policy. A diverse array of experts
lend their time and knowledge to advancing EPA's mission and while some have deep expertise
in environmental justice, there is no institutional mechanism to ensure representation of
environmental justice perspectives in federal advisory committees. We propose developing a
stronger linkage between federal advisory committees and environmental justice participation.
Examples of federal advisory committee subcommittees and workgroups that do address key
environmental justice issues without a formalized mechanism for incorporating environmental
justice include:
• The Ports Workgroup under the Mobile Source Technical Review Subcommittee
(MSTRS). Ports and goods movement issues are a key environmental justice
issue and this workgroup is charged with providing recommendations to MSTRS
on how EPA can develop and implement a voluntary initiative to improve port
environmental performance and air quality for port communities.
• The Air Toxics Workgroup under the Clean Air Act Advisory Council (CAAAC).
Environmental justice communities often face high levels of air toxics and this
workgroup is charged with providing guidance to CAAAC on strategies to reduce
air toxic emissions and reduce risk in communities.
• The Science Advisory Board's review of EPA's Draft Technical Guidance for
Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis.
Many federal advisory committees and their subcommittees/workgroups address issues
with environmental justice implications, but may not have explicit mechanisms for incorporating
environmental justice concerns. In order to fully address environmental justice challenges
associated with these issues, however, these workgroups may benefit from EPA guidance on
how to better incorporate environmental justice perspectives.
We propose a stronger and more direct linkage between federal advisory committees and
environmental justice issues and EDF urges EPA to include a federal advisory committee
element under Section 1 of EJ 2020. We believe that EPA is best suited to determine the exact
mechanism for incorporating environmental justice in the federal advisory committee process.
III. Elevate port and goods movement issues as a national environmental
JUSTICE PRIORITY
Communities at the fenceline of ports and goods movement corridors face a multitude of
mobile and stationary emissions sources. They also often face challenges with noise, congestion,
land use, and water quality and are typically underserved. EPA has estimated that at least 13
EJ 2020 Public Comments
119
-------
million people live close to marine ports and rail yards and are exposed to diesel pollution. This
includes a disproportionate number of low-income households, African-Americans, and
Hispanics1. Diesel pollution is linked to a number of diseases including asthma and lung cancer.
EDF agrees with EPA that ports are a serious environmental justice concern and that much more
needs to be done to protect the health and environment of port communities.
Although EPA regulates individual sectors of mobile sources, heavy-duty truck engine
tiers for example, the regulatory authority over port areas is limited compared to stationary
sources. EPA has advanced a National Ports Initiative that seeks to identify how EPA can
reduce emissions at ports through a voluntary public-private program. Given the environmental
justice characteristics of many communities near port areas, the complexity of the sector, and the
known health implications of diesel pollution, port and goods movement issues should be
considered by EPA to be a national environmental justice priority.
IV. Consider environmental justice in voluntary epa programs
EJ 2020 strengthens environmental justice as part of EPA's regulatory capacity, including
rulemaking and permitting, but lacks emphasizing environmental justice in the context of EPA's
voluntary programs. Non-regulatory efforts are an important part of EPA's work as they
leverage industry partners, state agencies, and non-traditional stakeholders in sectors where EPA
may otherwise have limited engagement. Including a more formal mechanism by which
environmental justice is considered in voluntary programs will help ensure that environmental
justice isn't limited to EPA's regulatory authority, but carried through to the numerous voluntary
programs that have been successful in improving environmental outcomes.
Ports and goods movement is an example of a sector that has strong connections to
environmental justice priorities and is being addressed from a voluntary framework through the
National Ports Initiative. This effort could serve as a model on how to strengthen the
consideration of environmental justice issues in the development of voluntary programs.
As an example of an opportunity, environmental justice considerations could be more
robust within the SmartWay Program, which is a successful public-private program to improve
the environmental performance of the goods movement supply chain. Communities near the
fenceline of goods movement corridors often face environmental justice challenges and the
SmartWay Program could include environmental justice considerations that result in benefits for
communities, EPA, and industry. One idea is to add a community leadership award component
for program partners that go above and beyond the traditional SmartWay requirements. This
emphasizes the voluntary nature of the program while promoting community partnerships.
Voluntary programs are an important tool for EPA and represent an opportunity to
deepen the agency's environmental justice practice. EDF urges EPA to include a voluntary
program element under Section 1 of EJ 2020. Strengthening environmental justice elements in
voluntary programs may include communicating environmental justice results, considering
environmental justice issues in program design, or developing advisory mechanisms with
environmental justice leaders.
1 U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General. "EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air Emissions at U.S.
Ports." 4, 2009.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
120
-------
V. Set benchmarks for measuring progress on environmental justice
EDF appreciates the inclusion of Plan EJ 2014 Commitments/Accomplishments in the EJ
2020 framework. The public assessment of EPA's progress on Plan EJ 2014 promotes
transparency, accountability, and confidence in the agency and demonstrates that some progress
has been made. This model should be expanded for EJ 2020 and EDF encourages EPA to set
measurable benchmarks on environmental justice issues. Benchmarks will help drive
commitments within and outside the agency and help define which areas are making progress
and which areas may need additional support.
Benchmarking is common among private and public sectors and is increasingly seen as a
necessary tool in establishing actionable goals, assessing progress toward those goals, and
communicating results. EPA's current method of tracking commitments and listing
accomplishments is a first step and EJ 2020 is an opportunity to develop more robust
benchmarks that fully demonstrate EPA's commitment and leadership on environmental justice.
This includes identifying specific actions and strengthening overall accountability.
VI. Advancing science for environmental justice priorities
Cumulative impact research and citizen science are two tools that have been growing in
importance and relevance for environmental justice. EPA has made efforts to more fully develop
these two areas and EDF welcomes this work . Improving the understanding of cumulative
impacts is critical for a more complete assessment of the health impacts facing communities.
EPA can play a lead role in utilizing cumulative impact research when it is available and in
helping to advance the viability of this research.
Citizen science can empower community members and contribute valuable data in areas
where data collection may otherwise be difficult. EPA can help foster citizen science by
providing additional guidance on how it can be used to pursue environmental justice tactics, such
as intervening in permitting, and by showcasing best-practice models of effective citizen science.
VII. Conclusion
EDF appreciates EPA's efforts in developing a draft framework for the EJ 2020 Action
Agenda. The framework will enable EPA to further address deep-rooted environmental justice
challenges. However, we believe that more must be done to ensure that overburdened and
underserved communities are fully protected. EDF recommends strengthening EJ 2020 by
incorporating environmental justice in federal advisory committees, prioritizing port
environmental justice issues, including environmental justice concerns in EPA's voluntary
programs, better utilizing scientific tools for environmental justice priorities, and setting
measurable benchmarks to assess EPA's performance on environmental justice issues. These five
actions will ultimately contribute to EPA's goals of more fully integrating environmental justice
across the agency and making a visible difference in overburdened communities.
2 U.S. EPA webinar on "Community Air Monitoring Training." (July 9, 2015.)
EJ 2020 Public Comments
121
-------
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kim Foreman
Friday, April 24, 2015 12:19 PM
ejstrategy
EHW Region 5- Comments on EJ2020 Plan
Hello
I have spoken to some of the leadership and presented my suggestions summarized below:
• The leadership should coordinate more conversations with state and local governments regarding what EJ is and
looks like on the ground, help to develop capacity and integrate EJ principles within policy.
• I would like to see a push for inter-departmental collaborations within local government infusing EJ in policies,
the way work is done using the federal government model
• Highlight successful local programs to leverage more local support
• EPA can engage small businesses with compliance assistance as a separate activity and lay the foundation for
local organizations to work with small businesses in community
• Work closely with local cities regarding permitting notifications and how we work with communities to extend
the process
Thank You,
Kimberly Foreman, Executive Director
Environmental Health Watch
3500 Lorain Ave. #301
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
p 216.961.4646 x 104
f 216.961.7179
www.ehw.org
| s consider the environment before printing this e-mail
EJ 2020 Public Comments
1
122
-------
USEPA
Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
e i strateev@e pa. gov
July 14,2015
Dear Mr. Charles Lee:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework proposed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (the Agency) on April 15, 2015. The Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on
Climate Change (EJ Forum)' is a national coalition of over 42 community based environmental justice organizations
representing 23 different states. The EJ Forum was formed in 2008 to mobilize and facilitate a national working group of
environmental justice leaders to catalyze and inform state and federal policy, help grassroots campaigns, provide a
unified, strong voice, and support political and legislative action that will result in the development ofjust policies and
mechanisms that equitably reduce carbon emissions in all communities.
Our Members have always and continue to be heavily engaged in permitting and rulemaking actions initiated by the
Agency to provide an environmental justice perspective that is often not sought or included in Agency actions. We
engage by offering public comments and testimony, serving on multiple federal advisory committees and providing our
"on-the-ground" expertise at various Agency sponsored workshops and meetings. Consequently, our recommendations
represent the concerns of a diverse set of communities across the country.
We appreciate your efforts to work into the proposed framework some of the specific comments offered by our individual
members that were raised in one-on-one meetings prior to the release of this document. In addition to those comments,
we have some additional thoughts about goals 1 & 3 outlined in the framework, and a diverse set of general
recommendations.
¦¦,¦¦¦¦¦ ¦ ICE WITHIN EPA PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH
• EJ in rulemaking:
o Require states, as a part of their planning process, to conduct an EJ analysis to ensure that equity
considerations are used to inform planning and make sure the path forward to compliance is
beneficial to all Peoples. This should not be an option, and states should be required to provide
additional engagement opportunities - beyond the one required meeting - with interested stakeholder and
community groups. While guidance from the Agency can be useful to State Agencies, having a mandate
in the final rule that requires an analysis be conducted can provide an impetus to move in that direction.
If states refuse, than EPA must complete the analysis. We have the right as Americans to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. Without an environmental justice analysis and corresponding corrective rulings,
regulations and practices the right to life is seriously compromised and too often cut short. Statistics from
both the EPA, other federal agencies, and academia show that certain communities in proximity to
emission emitting facilities have greater health risks and higher incidences of death related to
EJ 2020 Public Comments
123
-------
environmental factors. We are talking about both a systemic change in policy making, as well as
addressing our constitutional and human rights,
o Enhance regional EJ coordinator engagement and accountability with state environmental
agencies, particularly in the rule-making and other Agency action processes. Regional coordinators
should be the connective tissue between community stakeholders and the state environmental process to
ensure the proper public participation activities are happening. The Agency should strongly consider
increasing the required amount of public engagement for rulemakings. While this might be seen as an
extra burden, in most cases, 1 meeting at the State level to accommodate all stakeholders is insufficient,
especially if true engagement is what the Agency desires,
o Guidance generated with various rulemakings - both EJ and general guidance - should be
promoted as a tool and integrated into the standard operating procedures, as well as Performance
Partnership Agreements used by state and local environmental Agencies. Regional coordinators
could help facilitate some of this knowledge transfer through meetings, conferences, webinars, etc. with
local and state environmental partners.
• Enhance science tools for considering EJ in decision-making
o Develop guidance on how citizen science and spiritual knowledge/expertise will be integrated and
used by state environmental agencies to help implement policy, provide additional data for
enforcement and compliance proceedings and to help create protective standards. The use of hand-
held monitors and NextGen monitoring and other devices are improving and being used more frequently
by stakeholders. The value of citizen data should not be overlooked or underestimated. Providing state
agencies with direction as to how to use this additional data source is needed. Along these same lines,
understanding how to incorporate the spiritual value of the earth and its resources and most prominently
the knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and Native American Peoples, and how to incorporate that into the
decision making process as an "added value' to the scientific decision making process is critical as well.
o Advancing cumulative impacts research into action is critical. While it is hard to reach the 'perfect
model' or 'perfect scientific methodology' to quantify/qualify cumulative risk. To move us out of "we
can't do", the Agency should start to utilize the frameworks/tools developed thus far, to create a process
by which decision making (i.e. permitting) intentionally considers all major/minor, permitted, mobile, etc.
sources of pollution. This goal needs to be more specific, and have an OWNER attached to it. (Possibly
the Office of Research and Development) with specific tasks as a part of a workplan. The webinar series
created by EPA staff is a great starting point in terms of documenting the progress.11 Now is the time to
put some traction and move forward with 'what we know' versus focusing using on what we do not
know.
o In the Agency's most recent 2014 Climate Change Indicators Report'", it would be helpful to infuse
EJ indicators into this next analysis. Possible 'indicators' from an EJ perspective could include
utilizing the EJ Index from EJ SCREEN and looking at national trends (depending on how often the data
is updated in this analytical tool), looking at emissions of GHG to air and how that has changed over time,
compliance and enforcement related to emissions of climate forcers, as well as developing a measure of
'climate resilience/readiness' that could incorporate multiple media. It would be a great opportunity for
the EJ Forum to provide some guidance as to what 'indicators' could be useful for the internal process.
Main Coal 3: Demons on out ut matter to « ened communities
• An evaluation of the effectiveness of Agency programming needs to be undertaken. This type of evaluation can
be useful in determining which programs have been impactful, should re-purposed or defunded. This evaluation
should be internal and external. The internal process would include creating a mechanism by which the EPA and
other Agencies in the federal family track/document - on an annual basis - how they have taken steps to integrate EJ
into their practices, as well as monies that have been used to provide staff, assistance, etc., by program. This
evaluation would be posted for public review, utilizing current reporting mechanisms (e.g., White House Council on
EJ 2020 Public Comments
124
-------
Environmental Quality or Agency accountability reports related to finance and planning. The external process could
garner feedback from external stakeholders - from community organizations, NGOs, small businesses - as to the
impact of certain Agency programs. Periodic evaluation can help inform how the Agency moves forward with
program priorities. For example, the Urban Air Toxics Program and the CARE program that was independently
evaluated and found to be a successful program that should be sustained". Currently, the CARE program is defended.
Creating an evaluation mechanism using indictors of progress, jointly developed between Agency personnel and
community members. This mechanism should be transparent and updated on an annual basis, possibly coupled with
the Agency Sustainability Scorecard that is submitted to the White House in February.
Delineating the responsible party and actions to track progress on the proposed framework is crucial. The
Action Framework should have a specific effort attached to each statement. Will each of the statements have specific
actions/tasks associated with it? For example, Under Goal 1, Section D, where it says "Advance research on
cumulative risks and impacts", it would be helpful to denote at least one specific action associated with advancing
this work. It would also help to know who (which department, individual, etc.) will be responsible for moving
forward with the identified efforts. Accountability and a point of contact is needed for community engagement.
Evaluate previous recommendations and implement them. There are numerous reports that have been generated
by many of the advisory committees and boards to the EPA as it relates to environmental justice. Undergoing a
structured scan and status of the recommendations related to environmental justice that have been proposed would be
a useful piece of information. For example, we support many of the recommendations that have not been addressed
in the recommendations submitted to the Agency from the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council on April
29, 2011 in response to EJ Plan 2014v. It is very important that we do not create too many new goals without
addressed the goals that were already set forth.
EN ERA! !
Expanding the definition of environmental justice communities. The issue has been raised regarding how
prisoners - defined as people held in prisons, jails, detention facilities, civil commitment centers and other facilities
that hold people against their will as punishment or while awaiting court-related proceedings, i.e. trial, sentencing,
deportation, etc. - are a community of concern that is being ignored. In some accounts, prisoners are confined to
places that are not meeting environmental, health and safety standards, and, in some cases, environmental conditions
that are within the facility and outside the facility, with some prisons being sited on former waste sites, flood plains
and hazards. We encourage the Agency to start a dialogue on the EJ implications on prisoner populations and
facilities.V1
Accountability and Structure.
o There appears to be an obvious difference in the amount of time and effort spent to address and engage on
environmental justice within the various Offices of the EPA. While the capacity of EJ organizations is
limited to focusing federal advocacy on generally one media (i.e. air, water, waste), that should not preclude
the Agency Offices from investing time and effort to insure that EJ is a high priority within that Office. We
are charging the OEJ, and/or other higher ranking officials that report to the Administrator to develop a
transparent method of oversight to insure that ALL offices are working to integrate EJ into the programming
and planning. At the least, developing a system - or integrating into an existing system - efforts, outcomes
for each Office - is critical.
o Where feasible, every Federal Advisory Committee should be required to have an Environmental Subgroup
as a part of structure to ensure that the recommendations from these bodies do not explicitly address EJ issues
which cross various departments, sectors, and media.
Addressing Human Rights and Civil Rights.
o Develop a strategy and workplan to address the backlog of complains relative to the Office of Civil Rights. A
conversation, webinar, convening that includes community members to understand the challenges of this
process, where it stands, how it can be used would be useful.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
125
-------
o Develop a strategy/workplan about how to operationalize how a human rights framework - the human rights
to life, health, and freedom from racial discrimination, self-determination, and meaningful participation in
governmental decisions - into Agency priorities. A recent report discusses specific actions that are needed to
address human rights, environmental justice and climate justice.™
• Building capacity for communities. Enhance the funding that is available for technical assistance for communities
for research, permitting and compliance assistance/research, etc.
• The monetization of costs and benefits on health and environmental factors needs to be integrated into the
environmental justice discussion. A set of guidelines to address how the costs of inaction will impact environmental
justice communities does not seem to be addressed anyway in the Plan. Looking specifically at the EPAs Office of
Policy - Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis™1 there is a section that addresses distributional costs and
benefits for Environmental Justice. However, we would like to suggest that the cost of 'inaction' be included. Using
health data and health cost data, based on specific actual and projected health outcomes, putting dollars and cents to
substantiate the need for certain permitting and other decisions to be made is critical.
We trust that you will strongly consider our suggestions and recommendations and we are willing to clarify our comments
or work with you to flesh out some of the ideas presented. Again, thank you for the opportunity and we look forward to
the EPA being the lead Agency to building sustainable communities and eliminating structures and processes that
contribute to environmental racism. If you have any specific questions regarding these comments, please contact Dr.
Jalonne L. White-Newsome, National Coordinator for the Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change at
(202)495-3036 or ialonne@weact.org.
With kind regards,
[Signatories]
Monique Harden
Co-Director & Attorney
Advocates for Environmental Human
Rights
New Orleans, Louisiana
Pamela Miller
Executive Director
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Anchorage, Alaska
Aaron Mair
President
Arbor Hill Environmental Justice
Albany, New York
Sarah James
Board Member/Spokesperson
Arctic Village
Fairbanks, Alaska
Miya Yoshitani
Executive Director
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
Oakland, California
Nelson Carrasquillo
Executive Director
CATA (The Farmworkers Support
Committee), Steering Committee Member
Glassboro, New Jersey
Dr. Cecilia Martinez
Director of Research
Center for Earth, Energy & Democracy
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Brent Newell
Legal Director
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Oakland, California
Hilton Kelley
Founder and Executive Director
CIDA, Inc.
Houston, Texas
Byron Ramos Guidel
Executive Director
Communities for a Better Environment,
Steering Committee Member
Oakland, California
Sharon Lewis
Executive Director
Connecticut Coalition for Environmental
Justice, Steering Committee Member
Hartford, Connecticut
Dr. Beverly Wright
Founder and Executive Director
Deep South Environmental Justice Center,
Steering Committee Member
New Orleans, Louisiana
EJ 2020 Public Comments
126
-------
William Copeland
Climate Justice Director
East Michigan Environmental Action
Council
Detroit, Michigan
Kayla Race
Policy Advocate, Green Energy/Green
Jobs Campaign
Environmental Health Coalition
National City, California
Kari Fulton
Interim Director
Environmental Justice Climate Change
Initiative
Washington, DC
Jill Mangaliman
Executive Director
Got Green
Seattle, Washington
Judith Anderson
Community Health Coordinator
Environmental Justice Action Group of
Western New York
Buffalo, New York
Michele Roberts
National Coordinator
Environmental Justice Health Alliance for
Chemical Policy Reform
Brattleboro, Vermont
Donele Wilkins
President/CEO
Green Door Initiative, Inc., Steering
Committee Member
Detroit, Michigan
Dr. Charlotte Keys
Director
Jesus Peoples Against Pollution
Columbia, Mississippi
Diane Takvorian
Executive Director
Environmental Health Coalition
National City, California
Dr. Rose Brewer
Board Chair
Environmental Justice Advocates of
Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Jessica Culley
Project Manager/
CAT A Farmworker Health and Safety
Institute
Glassboro, New Jersey
Dr. Mildred McClain
Executive Director
Harambee House
Savannah, Georgia
Tom Goldtooth
Executive Director
Indigenous Environmental Network,
Steering Committee Member
Bemidji, Minnesota
Burt Lauderdale
Executive Director
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth
London, Kentucky
Savi Home
Executive Director
Land Loss Prevention Center
Durham, North Carolina
Rev. Leo Woodberry
Director
Kingdom Living Temple
Florence, South Carolina
Dr. Antonio Lopez
Executive Director
Little Village Environmental Justice
Organization
Chicago, Illinois
Vivian Satterfield
OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon
Portland, Oregon
Jose Bravo
National Coordinator
Coming Clean
Brattleboro, Vermont
Fred Brown
Associate Director for Program
Development
Kingsley Association
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Richard Moore
Coordinator
Los Jardines Institute (The Gardens
Institute) Steering Committee Member
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Dr. Nicky Sheats, Esq
Executive Director
New Jersey Environmental Justice
Alliance, Steering Committee Member
Trenton, New Jersey
Deeohn Ferris
Executive Director
Sustainable Community Development
Group
Washington, DC
Antonio Diaz
Director
People Organizing to Demand
Environmental and Economic Rights
San Francisco, California
EJ 2020 Public Comments
127
-------
Martha Dina Arguello
Executive Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Los Angeles, Steering Committee
Member
Los Angeles, California
Tammy Bang-Luu
Associate Director
The Labor/Community Strategy Center
Los Angeles, California
Juan Parras
Executive Director
TEJAS
Houston, Texas
Dr. Robert Bullard
School of Public Affairs, Dean
Texas Southern University
Houston, Texas
Peggy Shepard
Executive Director
WE ACT for Environmental Justice,
New York, New York
I Website for the Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change, www.eileadershipfoRim.org
II Cumulative Risk Webinar Series: What we learned, EPA/600/R-14/212, July 2014, http://www.epa.gov/ncer/era/webinars/era-
web i nar-siimma rv. pdf
III Climate Change Indicators in the United States, 2014, Third Edition, http://www.epa.gov/etimateehange/pdfs/etimateindieators-fiitt-
2014.pdf
IV Putting Community First: A Promising Approach to Federal Collaboration for Environmental Improvement: An Evaluation of the
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Demonstration Program, May 1, 2009:
http://www.issnelab.org/resonrce/pntting community first a promising approach to federal_cottaboration_:for environmental J rnpr
ovement_an evaluation _of_the community action Jbr a_renewed environment_care demonstration program
v NEJAC Comments to the EPA Plan EJ 2014, April 2011,
http://www.epa. gov/environmentatiiistiee/resoiirees/piibtieations/neiac/ptan-eK nments~0511.pdf
V1 See EJ 2020 comments submitted from the Human Rights Defense Center, https://www.humaiirightsdefensecenter.org/
™ The Need for Human Rights Advocacy to Overcome Injustice: Lessons from the Environmental Justice and Climate Justice
Movement, US Human Rights Network, 2013, www.ushrnetwork.org
vm Guidelines for Performing an Economic Analysis, May 2014: http://yoseniite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568~
5Q.pdf/$fil 58-50.pdf
EJ 2020 Public Comments 128
-------
DUKE LAW
NICHOLAS SCHOOL
OF THE ENVIRONMENT
DUKE UNIVERSITY
forging a sustainable future
Ryke Longest, Director Michelle Nowlin, Supervising Attorney
Environmental Law & Policy Clinic
Box 90360
Durham, NC 27708-0360
Telephone: (919) 613-7169
Toll Free: (888) 600-7274
Fax: (919) 613-7262
June 15,2015
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEPA Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Public Comment re: Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Dear Mr. Lee:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework. The
Environmental Law & Policy Clinic is a joint project of Duke University's Law School and the
Nicholas School of the Environment. On behalf of the Clinic, we would like to thank and
congratulate the US EPA for the agency's enthusiastic commitment to the principles of
Environmental Justice. Your dedication and years of hard work are evident in Plan EJ 2014, its
associated work products and status reports. As a law clinic serving community organizations
that are often facing environmental injustices, our faculty, students, law fellows and clients have
had several opportunities to make use of the tools developed pursuant to Plan EJ 2014, including
EJSCREEN and EJ Legal Tools. We are grateful for this opportunity to comment on the draft
framework for EJ 2020.
We address several points in these comments:
1. Measurable results in overburdened communities should be the unifying goal of EJ 2020.
We recommend that EPA use EJ 2020 as an opportunity to focus on implementation and
results, rather than further planning, evaluation or tools development;
EJ 2020 Public Comments 129
-------
EJ 2020 Draft Framework Comments
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic
2. EPA can use a number of strategies to better engage states and other co-regulators in
environmental justice, particularly with regards to permitting. In particular, we urge EPA
to use the pending NC Division of Air Quality permit for Carolinas Cement Company as
a test case; and
3. EPA could dramatically improve accessibility of federal resources to support
community-based efforts for organizations representing overburdened populations.
Implementation and Results
Throughout the EJ 2020 framework and associated materials, EPA repeatedly underscores
Administrator Gina McCarthy's emphasis on making a "visible difference" in overburdened
communities, and rightly so. "Demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened
communities" is the third goal listed under the EJ 2020 Draft Framework. Rather than a goal
third in line, measurable results in overburdened communities should be the single, unifying
goal of EJ 2020.
We strongly urge EPA to view EJ 2020 not as an aspirational strategy or a decision-making
framework, but as a work plan. Under Plan EJ 2014, the Agency has clearly defined
Environmental Justice and produced an impressive number of tools to assist agency staff in
better considering EJ in their actions. EJ 2020 is the Agency's opportunity to actually put those
tools to good use, to ensure that in every EPA action environmental justice is not just being
considered, but put into action. Hallmarks of action would include timely investigation of citizen
complaints and requests for assistance.
The most important metric for evaluating the success of EPA's efforts under EJ 2014 and EJ
2020 should be quantitative decreases in health-harming pollution in overburdened communities,
and ultimately falling rates of associated health endpoints in those communities. The evidence of
a "visible difference" where Americans are experiencing environmental injustice should be
measurably reduced pollution and associated illness.
Engaging states and other co-regulators in environmental justice
Perhaps the most promising area for EPA to start making a visible difference falls under Goal I,
"Deepen environmental justice practice within EPA programs to improve the health and
environment of overburdened communities." Nearly every environmental permit issued is an
opportunity to do just that. EPA's focus on considering environmental justice in EPA permitting
decisions is well-placed; however, only a tiny fraction of permits are actually issued by EPA.
Most permits are issued by state agencies or tribal governments. Many of these permitting staffs
issued the very permits that created current Environmental Justice hotspots. It is not realistic to
EJ 2020 Public Comments
130
-------
EJ 2020 Draft Framework Comments
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic
expect to correct problems at the same level of thinking that created the problems EPA now
seeks to solve. Environmental Justice will not be considered in most environmental permitting
decisions unless EPA strongly supports - or even compels - states to do so. We recommend four
strategies to advance the engagement of states in considering and implementing
environmental justice:
• Use peer-to-peer engagement to promote enhanced public participation
We strongly support EPA's plans to continue to implement regional plans for enhanced public
participation. EPA's Promising Practices is a useful tool for states and permit-seekers, and
should be actively promoted for state permitting decisions. We would like to see EPA partner
with businesses that have successfully used the strategies enumerated in Promising Practices for
peer-to-peer outreach and education with permit-seekers, targeting those seeking to site or
expand facilities in overburdened communities.
• Require Environmental Justice training for state agency staff members and leaders
under cooperative agreements
EPA has completed mandatory training on Environmental Justice for all employees, according to
the Plan EJ 2020 Draft Action Agenda Framework. This is an excellent achievement! Many state
agency staff are in dire need of training on environmental justice as well. State agency
representatives in North Carolina, and presumably in many other states, are unclear about what
environmental justice is, why it is important, and how to consider or implement it in their jobs.
North Carolina serves as a key example here, as it no longer even has a coordinator for
Environmental Justice within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. We
suggest that EPA require all state agency staff involved in permitting and enforcement to receive
mandatory environmental justice training under the terms of their cooperative agreements with
EPA. States like PA, CT and IL, which have shown leadership in implementing environmental
justice principles, could be tapped to help provide these trainings, so that the message is
peer-to-peer and thus more likely to be well-received by states. Such an approach would also
help meet EPA's goal to "Collaborate with states, tribes, local governments and other
co-regulators to share and develop environmental justice tools and practices" (EJ 2020 Draft
Framework).
• Guide states to consider Environmental Justice and develop hooks that compel them
to do so
There are likely multiple barriers that prevent states from considering and implementing
Environmental Justice in their permitting and regulatory functions. These barriers may include a
lack of understanding of the principles of environmental justice (see previous bullet point), a
3
EJ 2020 Public Comments
131
-------
EJ 2020 Draft Framework Comments
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic
perceived lack of resources or specialized knowledge to implement environmental justice,
pressure from regulated entities to speed up regulatory processes in ways that could preclude
full consideration of environmental justice, or others. EPA should identify and address these
barriers through education and training, guidance materials, and by compelling states to
consider Environmental Justice in permitting and enforcement whenever possible, such as under
cooperative agreements or other funding mechanisms. For example, EPA could adapt the
Agency's guidance "Considering Environmental Justice in Permitting" for state use, and
provide direct assistance in using such a tool. EPA could require states to make use of the
guidance as a condition of specific funding / cooperative agreements.
• Use the Carolinas Cement Company air permit as a test case under EJ 2020 to move
a state to thoroughly consider and implement environmental justice principles in a
state permitting decision.
EPA has an excellent opportunity to help a state make considerable progress by learning
hands-on how to use the principles of Environmental Justice in permitting. In issuing a recent air
permit to Carolinas Cement Company, an endeavor that would build one of the world's largest
cement plants in an over-burdened community on the Northeast Cape Fear River, North Carolina
regulators rejected the community's many requests to consider environmental justice factors in
its permit (the Clinic served as legal counsel to one of many concerned community
organizations, PenderWatch and Conservancy, in submitting comments on the proposed permit
and making this request. Please see Appendix I for background information about this proposed
cement plant and our associated environmental justice concerns).
The NC DENR Division of Air Quality held a public hearing on the revised permit in 2013, at
which PenderWatch and several other community representatives urged the state to consider the
special vulnerabilities of a community on well water, already overburdened by legacy
contamination from present and historical polluters on the Northeast Cape Fear River. Despite
our specific requests to do so, the Division of Air Quality flatly refused to consider any
secondary impacts of the permit, from air deposition of mercury and heavy metals into an
impaired waterway, to the tremendous increases heavy truck traffic that would accompany the
opening of a massive cement plant. The hearing officer publicly belittled community members
for urging the Division of Air Quality to consider environmental justice in their permitting
decision. From the hearing officer's written report:
"Commenters appear to allege that the federal Environmental Justice policy
applies to NC DAQ's issuance of this permit. The federal policy, set forth in
Federal Executive Order No. 12898, addresses the federal government's
responsibilities only, not the State's. Therefore it is not applicable here." - NC
4
EJ 2020 Public Comments
132
-------
EJ 2020 Draft Framework Comments
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic
DENR Recommendation for Issuance of Air Quality Permit, Carolinas Cement
Company, August 29, 2013 (see Appendix II).
The Carolinas Cement Company air permit was written by Donald Van der Vaart, who was has
since been appointed Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
We strongly urge EPA to conduct a thorough review of this permit and use your authority under
the Clean Air Act and other federal laws to give Environmental Justice its due consideration in
this matter. We would like to meet with you, Mr. Lee, as well as Mr. Mustafa Ali, to discuss
this proposal. We will contact you separately with a meeting request.
Improve accessibility of federal resources to support community-based efforts
for organizations representing overburdened populations
Several past and current clients of the Clinic have been EPA grantees under the Environmental
Justice Small Grants Program. We applaud EPA's efforts to make federal resources available to
overburdened communities through grassroots organizations, and we have seen good outcomes
from the use of these resources on the ground here in North Carolina throughout the life of this
successful grant program. We also recognize that EPA has already made significant efforts to
make the EJ Small Grants Program in particular more navigable for community organizations,
and we sincerely appreciate those efforts.
However, this grants program still suffers from structural problems that can actually exacerbate
and promote the over-burdening of EJ communities, such as:
• Undue burden of paperwork disproportionate to the small amount of funding. The EJ
Small Grants Program, capped at $30,000 per award, forces minimally-staffed
community groups to use the same federal grant application and reporting system that a
university with a professional grants management staff would use to apply for a grant
worth millions;
• The Indirect Cost Rate forces an impossible choice between a too-low flat-rate overhead
(10%) that fails to cover organizational costs, and a massive paperwork burden;
• The grant requires after-the-fact reimbursement for expenses, forcing perpetually
under-funded organizations into cash flow crises. We have heard of staff at grantee
organizations actually having to float grant expenses on their personal credit cards for
months at a time - taking on interest charges personally - because of this system;
• Excessive reporting requirements out-of-proportion to the level of funding.
5
EJ 2020 Public Comments
133
-------
EJ 2020 Draft Framework Comments
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic
Thus far, the approach that EPA has taken to improve the accessibility of these federal resources
has been to provide better training and support to prospective and current grantees in using the
federal grants system. EPA has also adopted a simplified Indirect Cost Rate option (the 10% flat
rate option). These are positive steps and we appreciate EPA's consideration and work in
creating them. However, we were disappointed to read in the 2014 Plan EJ 2014 Progress Report
that work in this area is considered to be completed.
EPA's approach has sought to prepare grassroots organizations to navigate a burdensome and
unfair federal grants system, rather than making real changes in the system that would simplify
the process and remove inequities for organizations representing overburdened communities.
The grant system itself can be a barrier to grassroots access to grants and information. We
believe that simplifying the grants process would harmonize with the spirit of the 1980
Regulatory Flexibility Act, which is intended to prevent federal regulations from creating undue
economic burdens on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and non-profit
organizations, and to provide for recourse when such burdens arise.
In order for EPA to meet its goal to "Leverage federal resources to support community-based
efforts," as stated in the Draft EJ 2020 Framework, EPA must think creatively about right-sizing
the grant process for smaller-dollar grants aimed at community organizations and small
businesses. One straightforward way to do that is to delegate grant management to a third party,
or pass-through entity.
In effect, EPA could transform the EPA Small Grants Program from its current form into one
single award to a pass-through entity, to be disbursed by that entity to multiple Environmental
Justice organizations via subawards under a competitive process in compliance with 2 CFR
§200.201. The pass-through entity should be an institution with a successful track record of
grants administration, and demonstrated expertise in Environmental Justice. Such a third party
would be subject to the complex requirements of the federal grants system that are so
out-of-scale for small grantees (the requirements for pass-through entities are clearly spelled out
in 2 CFR §200.331). EPA could provide one single award to the pass-through entity, whose
duties would be to create an RFP, collaborate with EPA to select subaward recipients, disburse
funds and collect reports from subawardees. The pass-through entity's role would be to create a
grant-making process that is scaled down to a size and administrative burden that is actually
appropriate for the grant's intended recipients. Feedback from past grantees could be used to
help develop a more streamlined process.
Such a process would transfer the bulk of the administrative burden of managing EPA grants
away from the grant recipients, and onto the pass-through entity serving as a professional
manager. Environmental Justice grantees would then be able to actually use the funds disbursed
6
EJ 2020 Public Comments
134
-------
EJ 2020 Draft Framework Comments
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic
for program activities rather than for grants management. EPA would achieve greater efficiency
in the use of its grant funds by concentrating administrative costs associated with those grants
into one entity with the proven capacity to manage them effectively.
We hope that you will seriously consider re-working the Environmental Justice Small Grants
Program and other programs intended to bring federal resources into overburdened communities,
whether or not EPA pursues the specific course of action we have suggested as a remedy. Such
an endeavor would require creative thinking on EPA's part, but can be accomplished in a way
that both satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles
and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR §200 and 40 CFR §30), and is scaled
appropriately to serve overburdened communities, rather than adding to their burdens.
Thank you very much for your Agency's dedicated work to advance Environmental Justice, and
for the opportunity to comment on the EJ 2020 Draft Framework. We sincerely hope that
measurable results - reduced pollution and associated illness in overburdened communities - will
become the single, unifying goal of EJ 2020. The Environmental Law & Policy Clinic stands
ready to assist EPA in its goal to "demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened
communities." We hope to meet with you soon to do just that.
Respectfully yours,
/s/
Ryke Longest, Director
See attachments:
APPENDIX I (attached) g
Brief to EPA on EJ concerns at the proposed Titan facility, December 2014
APPENDIX II (attached) §
Recommendation for Issuance of Air Quality Permit, NC DENR DAQ, August 29, 2013
EJ 2020 Public Comments
7
135
-------
The Farmworker Association of "Florid a
Asosiyasyon Travay£ Lat6
La Asociacl6n Cainpesina
1264 Apopka Boulevard • Apopka, FL 32703
(407)886-5151 phone • (407)884-6644 fax
www.floridaf3rmworkers.org
July 13, 2015
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator
For Environmental Justice
USEPA Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Dear Mr. Lee and EPA Office of Environmental Justice:
The Farmworker Association of Florida is writing to offer input on the draft framework for the EPA
EJ2020 Action Agenda that was released on April 15, 2015 for public comment/input. We appreciate
this opportunity to share our comments, suggestions, recommendations, and concerns with you.
Farmworkers are a special and often overlooked environmental justice community. Because
farmworkers comprise a "community" that is identified by their occupation, and, in general,
oftentimes, by their mobility and their rural demographics, they are often not included in the
prevailing discussions around environmental justice. Farmworkers are a community that spans the
entire country wherever they go to perform the important agricultural work that this country - and
their livelihoods - depend upon. Yet, farmworkers are a community, because of their common
experiences, interests, concerns and exposures, most notably, their exposures to pesticides in the
workplace and, through drift and/or take home exposures, in their home environments. For this
reason, we are writing to ensure that the draft EPA EJ2020 framework includes considerations of
agricultural workers as an environmental justice community. The absence of any reference to
farmworkers and to agricultural pesticide exposure as a distinct and important environmental justice
concern compels us to write these comments, highlighting the voices of the farmworkers themselves.
Exposure to pesticides is one of the dally realities in the lives of the 2.5 million farmworkers in the
U.S. today. Given their persistent exposure to harmful pesticides, It is not surprising that thousands
experience acute pesticide illness or injury each year, and countless others suffer chronic health
problems as a result of these toxic exposures.
EJ 2020 Public Comments 136
-------
Every year, approximately 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides are applied to agricultural crops in the
United States. Pesticide exposure causes farmworkers to suffer more chemical-related injuries and
illnesses, including cancers, reproductive and developmental health disorders, than any other
workforce in the nation. EPA estimates that there are about 10,000-20,000 pesticide poisonings that
occur each year among farmworkers. In addition to pesticide exposure, farmworkers often receive
below poverty level wages, live in sub-standard housing, experience intimidation, threats and
harassment, and risk their health by performing arduous and repetitive tasks in hazardous
environments for extended periods of time.
It is critical that EPA seek Input from, reach out to, and hear the voices of farmworkers and
farmworker communities around the country in drafting and implementing its plan to address
environmental justice communities. In addition, there needs to be an open and transparent process
to reach out to farmworker communities and farmworker advocates in the U.S. to ensure that their
environmental justice concerns are heard and included in the implementation of the EPA's
environmental justice plan. A iist of our comments is below, but we feel that hearing the voices of
the farmworkers themselves is the most compelling, real, and direct way to recognize the importance
of addressing the environmental justice problems facing this diverse and chronically marginalized
community of workers.
In 2014, using a questionnaire, FWAF surveyed over 60 farmworkers in Florida to capture some of
their workplace experiences related to occupational pesticide health and safety. This included
gathering written testimony from several of the workers and, in one case, from the daughter of
farmworker parents. We feel that the firsthand accounts from farmworkers are the most compelling
case for the importance of including special consideration of farmworkers as an environmental justice
community in the EPA EJ2020 framework. Below are some of the comments excerpted from the
surveys and written testimonies. The last names are not included to protect the identities of the
workers.
Alicia (worked 10 months in agriculture and never received a pesticide training) - "Los
prlmeros dfas, me sent/a more ad a y me salieron ronchas en los brazos, Tuve que ir at
hospital,'' The first days, I felt dizzy and I got rashes on my arms. I had to go to the hospital.
Alberto (worked for 25 years in agriculture in the fields, in ferneries and in nurseries; during
that time, experienced rashes, dizziness, headaches, irritated throat, burning eyes, blurred
vision) - "Los trabajos donde se aplican qufmicos, los riesgos son muchosy la salud si em pre
est a en peligro y la seguridad es muy poca. La preocupacion es much a, pues la exposlcion de
pesticldas es un peligro muy grande y constante para los que trabojamos en los campos de
labor, nurserfa o la hoja." The Jobs where they apply chemicals, the risks are many and your
health is always in danger and there is little safety. There is much worry, since the exposure
to pesticides is a grave and constant danger for the workers in the fields, the nurseries and the
ferneries.
Augusta (worked two years harvesting tomatoes and in a nursery) - "Cuando estan
esprayando aunque se lejos hace que el aire se contamine y llega hasta donde las person as
estomos trabajando." When they are spraying, even when at a distance, the air is
contaminated and it drifts to where we are working.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
137
-------
Gabriel {worked 20 years in ferneries and nurseries, during that time, he experienced rashes,
headaches, dizziness, bloody/runny nose, burning eyes, blurred vision, and muscle cramps) -
"Cast siempre miraba a mis companeros con ronchas o las manos inchads, especialmente en la
hoja." Almost always I would see my co-workers with rashes or itching on the hands,
especially in the ferneries.
Elvira (worked in ornamental plants and nurseries for 20 years during which time she
experienced headaches, cramps, burning/watering eyes, and stomach pains and cramps) - "S(,
cada que esprayaban que era cada 3 dlas; en algunas oca si ones era diario." Yes, they sprayed
every 3 days, and on some occasions, every day.
Carme {worked in picking tomatoes, squash, watermelon, and melon) - "Maiestares, como
asco o dolor de cabeza se presenta, cuando an das pizcando. Bueno, cuando ban aplicado
pesticida, nos retiran un poco lejos. Pero, al igual de rato nos m and an al mismo. Me gustan'a
que los patrones tuvieron mas cuidado con los trabajadores que se preocupen a la saludy
seguridad de uno." Feeling bad, such as feeling nauseous or with headache, when I am
picking. Well, when they have applied pesticides, we go off a little ways. But, after a little
while, they order us to go back to doing the same thing. I would like it if the bosses took
better care of the workers and that they cared about one's health and safety.
Blanca (worked 10 years harvesting citrus and 15 years in nurseries) - "Voy a compartlr que
cuando trabajaba en la nurserfa, yo me ponfa bien mal del asthma y terminaba en el hospital.
Y ahora, que no me expongo, yo no es igual. Y antes cuando trabajaba en el campo, no habi'a
banos, ni agua para lavar la manos. Ahora, ya es diferente, mejor para nuestros companeros
de trabajo." I am going to share with you that when I was working In the nursery, I got a bad
case of asthma and ended up in the hospital. And, now that I am not exposed, it is not the
same. And before, when I was working In the fields, there were no bathrooms or water to
wash your hands. Now it is different, it is better for our farmworkers.
Mario (worked for 10 years in the fields and in nurseries and he experienced symptoms of
vomiting, dizziness, headache, excessive sweating, and blurred vision) - "No se los riesgos,
pues no reclbi ningun entrenamiento. Estaba esprayando cuando sent! estos sfntomas. Yo
estaba apiicando pesticidas y me sent(con muchos sfntomas. Aprendf que los qufmicos son
muy malos para nuestra salud. La seguridad nuestra seria mejor si no nos expusieron a
pesticidas." I don't know the risks because I never received a training. I was spraying when I
felt those symptoms. I was applying pesticides and I felt many symptoms. I learned that the
chemicals are very bad for our health. It would be better for our safety if we were not
exposed to pesticides.
Lucas (worked in agriculture for 17 years during which time he experienced symptoms of
rashes, dizziness, headache, excessive sweating, cramps, irritated/watery eyes, and stomach
cramps) — "Los pesticidas son muy peligrosos para nuestro cuerpo, pues afectan nuestro
sistema imunilogico." The pesticides are very dangerous for our bodies; they affect our
immune system.
Lupita (worked harvesting oranges for 15 years and suffered symptoms of vomiting, dizziness,
ej 2020 PuWic comments^ irritated/watery eyes) - "Si, que estaria bien que los patrones se preocupqqgn
-------
por la salud del trabajador y no que vean el asunto de salud y segurldad como un requisite del
goblerno. Desafortunadamente, el trabajador es tornado en cuenta como una herramienta
mas en lasfincas y no como un serhumano." Yes, it would be good if the bosses were
concerned about the health of the worker and not that they looked at the issue of health and
safety as just a government regulation. Unfortunately, the worker is understood to be no
more than a tool in the fields and not a human being.
Miguel - "El trabajo de la agricultura es muy pellgroso. El pellgro mas grande es la exposicidn
a qufmicos. Los que hemos trabajado en los campos de labor, nurserfas o viveros sabemos de
ese pellgro. Pues, lo hemos sufrido personalmente y hemos vlsto a algunos de nuestros
companeros afectados. Yo, Miguel, soy un campesino con mucha experiencia de 28 afios en
todo este tipo de trabajos y qulero que mis companeros no sufran de la exposicidn de
pesticidasAgricultural work is very dangerous. The biggest danger is exposure to pesticides.
Those that have worked in the fields, nurseries or greenhouses know this danger, i have
personally suffered and I have seen some of my co-workers affected. I, Miguel, am a
farmworker with 28 years of having done this type of work and I do not want my community
to suffer from pesticide exposure.
Olivia - (experienced symptoms of rashes, dizziness, headaches, excessive sweating, vomiting,
bloody nose, irritated/watery eyes, irritated throat and blurred vision) -'% los trabajadores
que estan mas al contacto con las plantas directamente. Dolor de cabeza y culpabilidadpor
no sabe que hacer con mifamilia por la ignorancia de pesticidas en los camposYes, the
workers are in direct contact with the plants. Headache and {I feel) guilty that my lack of
knowledge about pesticides in the fields may have done something to my family.
Ramon (worked 17 years in oranges in Florida and in tobacco in North Carolina; he
experienced symptoms of vomiting, dizziness, headache, burning/watery eyes) - "Si, en los
campos de tabaco es muyfrecuente que los trabajadores tienen los mismos sfntomas. Si,
cuando entramos a trabajar en unos campos de naranja y una avioneta estaba rod an do
cercaYes, in the tobacco fields the workers frequently have the same symptoms. Yes, when
we enter some of the oranges groves to work and a plan was spraying nearby.
Yolanda (worked for 25 years in the citrus industry and worked in other crops in various other
states; she experienced symptoms of headache, bloody/runny nose, irritated throat and
burning/watery eyes during her work experience) - "Si, estaba al cuidado de unas fincas de
naranja y nos pusieron a tirar un qufmico para matar la hlerba que tapa los sistemas de riego y
como una hora despues de aplicar ese qufmico, yo y mi companera experimentamos ios
sfntomas " Yes, I was working in one of the orange groves and they had us toss out a chemical
to kill the weeds that were covering the irrigation system and about an hour after we applied
the chemical, my co-worker and I experienced symptoms. "Si, necesitamos regulaciones que
esten enfocadas en la salud de los trabajadores, no en cumplimientos de requisitos. Llos danos
que los trabajadores tenemos, son a veces para el resto de la vida de ese trabajador.
Necesitamos regulaciones e implementaciones que ayuden a protegerla vida de los
campesinos." Yes, we need regulations that are focused on the health of the workers, not just
to comply with the requirements. The harm that the workers have are, at times, for the rest
of the life of the worker. We need regulations and implementation (compliance) that help to
protect the lives of the workers.
EJ 2020 Public Comments 139
-------
Selena (daughter of farmworker parents)
Dear Administrator McCarthy;
My name is Selena, i commend the efforts of the EPA on trying to update the current WPS after 20 years.
As a child of farm workers, this is very important, not only for my parents but for me as well. Seeing them suffer
for many years, [due to] the lack of protections these standards currently have, has caused me to want to speak
out. Many times, I saw them come home light headed or with blisters on their hands from the exposure to
pesticides, and it was frustrating not being able to do anything. As a family, we have suffered firsthand the
effects it [pesticides] has on future generations of these farm workers. As a result of my mother working in the
fields while pregnant, my sister was bom with asthma and learning disabilities. This was 20 years ago and little
has changed, because these consequences of pesticide exposures are things we see every day in our
communities, i want to urge that these proposed protections not be weakened in any manner but be
strengthened even more.
The idea of setting a minimum age for pesticide handlers is great, but in my opinion 16 should not be the
minimum age. The age should be set to 18.
As a teenager myself, I can say that at 16 there is no way I was mature enough to think about the
consequences of my actions and how it could affect others. Now, we throw into that handling dangerous
chemicals? A 16 year old will not be responsible to take care of themselves and others in the case of them
handling pesticides. Even with knowledge of the dangers these pesticides can cause, teenagers have this
notion of being invincible. The danger this minimum age would cause is tremendous. These kids are not fully
developed physically and long term exposures to their already vulnerable body would be devastating to their
health which would be a cost liability to them and the government.
Eliminating central posting would go against the 'right to know' of the workers. If they were exposed to these
dangerous chemicals, they have the right to know what was spread on the fields and when the adequate time is
for reentry. In case of a medical emergency, they should know what chemical was used so they can tell their
doctor so their diagnosis isn't misled. Instead, there should be work to reinforce the central posting. Most of
these farm workers are scared to ask someone directly for the information for fear of retaliations. And when the
workers make a complaint, they should have the rights as any other workers to make this complaint in
confidentiality. Many times we see the retaliations that follow a complaint. The workers are isolated and, in
extreme cases, even let go because the name was revealed.
At times, we are very forgetful; sometimes I can't even recall things i did yesterday. How do we expect farm
workers to remember things from a 15 minute video about pesticides, when this information is given every 5
years? I believe more frequent pesticides trainings should be given, and it should be given in a more effective
manner. The rights of the workers should definitely be explained in these trainings, and they should have them
done before they enter the fields or have contact with pesticides. What should be included as well should be the
type of pesticides that are going to be used and the consequences in the specific crop, as we know a lot of farm
workers migrate from state to state depending on crops.
Farmworkers bring food to our table. We owe it to them to protect them and have strong laws to ensure their
well-being. The effects of what these proposed changes will have goes beyond that of Just farmworkers, if we do
not ensure a safe and healthy environment of the work place, the consequences will fall on the farm workers'
children and even on the government. We want healthy farmworkers to help our economy and to satisfy our
daily needs of food.
These are just some of the many comments from workers that demonstrate the need for stronger
protections for farmworkers and for a framework that addresses the environmental justice issues
affecting this diverse community. In Florida, the majority of farmworkers are of Hispanic origin -
largely from Mexico and Central America, with Haitian farmworkers increasing in percentage, while
an African American farm labor force still continues in various areas of the state. Farmworker
fltreltespoftgOcMvfeHfe rural, even remote, locations, and oftentimes adjacent to fields and farms^iifo
-------
poor housing conditions, without easy access to services arid assistance. 1 have seen farmworker
homes immediately adjacent to ferneries where pesticides applied and trailer homes surrounded on
three sides by tomato fields where farmworker children play. With this in mind, and with the
farmworkers themselves identifying the problems and concerns of the community, the Farmworker
Association of Florida submits the following comments, recommendations, suggestions, and
Imperatives for addressing the environmental justice issues facing this community.
Reducing farmworkers' exposure to pesticides;
• Enforcement and compliance of the Worker Protection Standard have long been a significant
problem in agricultural communities, with the result being that farmworkers and their families
often experience hazardous levels of exposure to toxic agricultural pesticides, chemical
fertilizers and growth hormones. For example, many workers tell us that they will be asked to
sign a paper to say that they have been given a pesticide training. In some cases, there may
have been a video available, but without anyone explaining the reason for or importance of
the video and the importance to their health and safety of watching the video. In other cases,
workers do not ever see the video training that is required by the current WPS. Any plan for
the EPA EJ2020 and for the soon-to-be-released updated WPS needs to include a vigorous,
effective, broad-based, and comprehensive plan to improve compliance in the workplace and
timely and effective enforcement measures, including adequate penalties for violations that
can serve as a deterrent to unsafe workplace practices that put farmworkers health and safety
at risk.
• Enforcement and compliance must include field sanitation regulations. Reports from workers
in the field indicate that all too often, workers do not have clean bathrooms (or no bathrooms
at all), do not have access to clean drinking water, and do not have handwashing water and/or
soap and disposable towels with which to wash their hands. If workers are not able to wash
their hands before eating, they are likely ingesting pesticide residue which results in chronic
daily exposure to agricultural chemicals. Employers must be cited and fined for non-
compliance with field sanitation regulations.
• In order to accomplish greater enforcement and compliance measures, increased levels of
staffing at the national and regional levels within EPA and at the state level through the
partnering agencies, is a critical component for accomplishment of this goal. This includes the
need for greater oversight of state level programs to ensure that proper procedures are in
place and that adequate time, resources, and emphasis are allocated to ensuring a rigorous
enforcement and compliance program.
• A major stumbling block to identifying areas of non-compliance is the fact that farmworkers
are intimidated from speaking out when there are workplace violations. Job loss, fear of
being reported to immigration authorities, threats by labor contractors and supervisors, lack
of proficiency in English and other factors keep farmworkers from denouncing workplace
abuses. EPA should implement an anonymous hotline (in English and Spanish) where
farmworkers can feel free to call to report workplace pesticide problems without having to
reveal their identities.
• The majority of the farmworkers, including pesticide handlers, in the U.S. today are Spanish-
speaking immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Yet, agricultural pesticide labels are
largely only in English. Retail stores that sell residential and commercial use pesticides
generally require pesticide labels in English in Spanish to accommodate the large U.S. Hispanic
population. The fact that farmworkers - low-income, minority workers in marginalized
ej 2020^M1WRife~ do not have access to agricultural pesticide labels in English and Spanish ifcen
-------
environmental justice issue that EPA EJ2020 should include as a priority to address.
Considering the number of farmworkers In the U.S., bilingual Spanish/English agricultural
pesticide labels have the potential to be a factor impacting hundreds of thousands of
farmworkers across the country.
• Environmental justice concerns for farmworkers cannot be separated from other issues - such
as substandard housing, wage theft, lack of proper field sanitation, sexual harassment, unsafe
transportation vehicles and other issues. Hence, EPA should work collaboratively and
holistically with the Inter-Agency Task WorkGroup to address the inter-locking issues that
collectively effect farmworkers' environmental health. Therefore, EPA needs to Include
farmworker Issues within the Interagency Work Group and in all cabinet-level discussions.
• Through intensive outreach efforts to farmworkers, farmworker organizations and
farmworker advocacy organizations, EPA must reach out to hear the farmworker voices
related to the effectiveness of statewide enforcement issues and during enforcement
activities.
Farmworker Health and Safety
• A large body of scientific research exists that looks at the links between pesticide exposure
and acute and chronic health effects, EPA must do a comprehensive review of the
independent scientific literature for classes of pesticides and of specific pesticides to
assess the impacts to farmworkers' health of daily exposure both in the agricultural
workplace and in their rural homes settings and personal vehicles. Reliance on industry
studies irresponsibly discounts the vast number of studies that have increasingly shown
correlation between exposure and health outcomes
• The scientific literature review should be used to develop more health protective
measures for farmworkers in the workplace and in their homes and communities.
• Medical monitoring for farmworker pesticide handlers and applicators should be
implemented to determine baseline measures and any consequent levels of exposure. If
medical monitoring were required nationwide, agricultural workers would have less
concerns about job loss from outcomes from monitoring that identify exposure. This
could serve to increase compliance with applicator and handler standards.
« Farmworkers are more than individuals. They are families and communities. As such, EJ
protective measures should take into consideration the reproductive health of
farmworker families, childhood exposures to pesticides from residues In the home and
surrounding environment, early-life exposures of infants and toddlers, Including
exposures from drift and deposits in soil around farmworker labor camps and
community housing. Hence, monitoring efforts should include soil, water and air testing
around fields and residential areas adjacent to fields that house farmworker families.
• Farmworkers often work in a variety of crops on which various different pesticides are
used at different times and/or in combination. Currently, there are insufficient scientific
studies that study the additive, cumulative and synergistic effects on human health of
chronic exposure to multiple pesticides and pesticide mixtures. These additive,
cumulative and synergistic effects of pesticide exposure should be taken into
consideration in studies of farmworker health and safety and In regulations to reduce the
risks - such as via buffer zones - to farmworkers' health.
• The pathways of exposure for agricultural workers in the U.S. are dermal, respiratory and
ingestion. Farmworkers often have nowhere to go to eat their meals, and often eat while
ej 2020 Considering they often also do not have hand washing water and soap,itfeey
-------
can be ingesting pesticide residue on their hands and clothes. Added to dermal contact
with pesticides and inhalation of pesticide drift, the multiple routes of exposure put
farmworkers especially at risk. These multiple routes of exposure should inform the EPA's
plan to address the environmental justice concerns of this community.
« The Office of Pesticide Programs must be included in the list of EPA offices because OPP is
the office under which the Worker Protection Standard for farmworkers is located and
because other EPA policy decisions that affect environmental justice issues impacting
farmworkers would be generated from this office.
• Under the list of priorities in 2015, there is an emphasis on permitting, however, for
farmworkers the issue of significant importance is the registration of pesticides and the
protections for workers included in those registration processes, EPA must do a better job
of thoroughly studying health effects of pesticides before registering any new
agricultural chemicals. In addition, the plethora of new scientific studies on currently
registered pesticides must be taking in to consideration in the registration review process
and in the re-registration of pesticides.
• The EJSCREEN should include pesticides and other agricultural chemicals with which
farmworkers are likely to come into contact and that farmworkers and their community
representatives be included in the stakeholder engagement.
• Farmworkers should be included In discussion and planning related to climate
adaptation and resilience efforts, especially as expected continued increase in higher
temperatures are projected to have an impact on agriculture, and, hence, on both the jobs
and the health of farmworkers, including exacerbation of pesticide exposure related to
heat stress and heat exposure.
• The priorities list should include 'measurable activities to advance environmental justice in
the National Program Managers guidance.' Those measures should include living and
working conditions for the nation's 1.5 million farmworkers.
• The asset and mapping science tools for Plan EJ2020 should include mapping of
agricultural areas, pesticide use and farmworker communities and EJ training for all
employees should include training related to health and safety protections and regulation
enforcement for farmworkers.
• Banning chlorpyrifos should be an environmental justice priority for EPA. The chemical
was banned for residential use years ago because of studies on the impact of the pesticide
on toddlers and young children. The continued use of chlorpyrifos in agriculture, where
the majority of farmworker children are at risk of direct and indirect exposure to pesticide
residue in their homes, on their parents' clothes and bodies, in vehicles in which they are
transported, in their rural schools, and on the ground where they play is an environmental
injustice that impacts the next generation of youth and young adults in this country.
When chlorpyrifos is seen as an environmental justice issue, there can be no justification
for the continued use of this harmful pesticide.
Finally, the most effective role of the EJ2020 Plan related to promoting environmental justice for and
protecting the health and safety of farmworkers is for the Office of Environmental Justice to promote
the precautionary principle among other EPA offices and to include in intra-agency and inter-agency
discussions and deliberations the importance of the development and registration of less toxic
alternatives to pesticides and other environmental chemicals.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
143
-------
FWAF is a 32-year old, statewide, grassroots, community-based, farmworker membership
organization with five offices in Florida and a membership of close to 7,000 farmworkers who work in
the vegetable, citrus, mushroom, sod, fern and foliage industries. For 20 years, the organization has
conducted pesticide health and safety trainings with farmworkers to inform them about the
occupational risks of pesticide exposure. The trainings include information on how farmworkers can
take measures to try to protect themselves and their families and reduce risks to their health and
safety from exposure to agricultural chemicals. Farmworkers come to our offices with rashes and
other symptoms of pesticide exposure and with stories of abuse in the workplace. FWAF files
complaints on behalf of the workers, but in most cases, farmworkers are too afraid to speak to
agency officials for fear of losing their jobs or because of their immigration status,
Over 50% of our staff and almost all of our Board of Directors are former farmworkers themselves
and/or come from farmworker families and live in the rural and/or farmworker communities in which
we work. Many of our staff members have firsthand experience of being exposed to pesticides in
their work environments while they were agricultural workers. In addition, they have friends,
neighbors, relatives and acquaintances who have experienced symptoms of occupational exposures,
and they have received and filed complaints of workplace violations of Worker Protection Standard
and Field Sanitation regulations. They work in and are based in the communities and regularly hear
from community members about workplace conditions in the fields, greenhouses, ferneries and
mushroom plants where the workers work, in the years since FWAF began the pesticide health and
safety work, many scientific studies have been conducted that increasingly identify links between
pesticide exposure and chronic health issues for those exposed and their offspring.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Jeannie Economos
Pesticide Safety and
Environmental Health Project Coordinator
EJ 2020 Public Comments
144
-------
FARMWORKER
JUSTICE
July 14,2015
Mr. Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Dear Mr. Lee:
Farmworker Justice (FJ) and the organizations listed below submit these comments in
response to the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for public
comment on the EPA's Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework. We support EPA's
work to make a difference in environmentally overburdened, underserved, and
economically distressed communities, and urge EPA to consider farmworkers in its
environmental justice initiatives. Historically underrepresented in EPA decision making,
they face many health and environmental burdens not only at their workplaces, but also
in the rural communities where they live. Migrant and seasonal farmworkers who
cultivate and harvest labor-intensive crops on farms are especially at risk of harm from
pesticides. Protection of farmworkers and their families falls squarely within the
Agency's stated priorities of environmental justice. However, EPA's Draft EJ 2020
Action Agenda Framework does not address pesticides, which is the single largest
environmental pollutant in farmworker communities. EPA must act in a more concerted
way to address the disproportionate impact of environmental policies on farmworker
communities.
Farmworker Justice is a national, non-profit advocacy and education organization that
works to improve working and living conditions for migrant and seasonal farmworkers
and their families. Since its founding more than 30 years ago, FJ has advocated for
agricultural workers in matters before the EPA, including issues relating to pesticides that
pose unacceptable health and safety risks to farmworkers and their families and
communities.
General comments
We support the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework and the agency's commitment
to environmental justice. We urge EPA to implement the plan throughout the entire
EJ 2020 Public Comments
145
-------
agency, including in pesticide regulation decision-making, and to foster consideration and
involvement of farmworkers in the Agency's work.
However, we note that the draft framework and resources such as the EJSCREEN
completely ignore pesticide policy. Pesticide policy must be a priority for EPA. The
agency should approach its role in pesticide regulation from an environmental justice
perspective, placing particular concern on the health hazards posed by pesticides for
overburdened populations, including agricultural pesticide handlers, other farmworkers,
and their families. Furthermore, though pesticide registration does not fit easily into any
of the focus areas (rulemaking, permitting, and scientific tool development do not seem
to specifically address registration), EPA must ensure that implementation of Plan EJ
2020 extends to its pesticide-related functions.
As perhaps the most important of EPA's pesticide-related functions, the registration
process should be the first step in ensuring the safety of farmworkers and agricultural
communities. Prohibiting the use of toxic chemicals is the most effective method for
pesticide exposure reduction. Many studies show that farmworkers face significantly
higher levels of pesticide exposure as compared with the national reference sample.1
Despite wearing WPS-recommended clothing, wearing clean work clothes, and the
combination of hand washing with soap and wearing gloves, workers have been found to
have significantly high levels of exposure.2 Pesticide exposure must be curbed at the
source. The absence of specific mention of EPA's pesticide-related functions seems to
suggest that the agency does not see environmental justice as relevant to its role as
pesticide regulator. We hope this is not the case.
EJSCREEN
We support the use of EJSCREEN to screen geographic locations for overburdened
populations who are disproportionately exposed to different types of pollution. The
EJSCREEN uses 12 environmental justice indexes to measure environmental and
demographic indicators. For the environmental indicators, the EPA uses the following EJ
indexes: particulate matter, ozone, lead paint indicator, traffic proximity, proximity to
national priority list sites, proximity to risk management plan facilities, proximity to
treatment storage disposal facilities, and proximity to major direct water dischargers. For
the demographic indicators, the EPA uses the following EJ indexes: low-income,
minority, less than high school education, linguistic isolation, individuals under age 5,
and individuals over age 64.
As discussed above, we are disappointed that pesticide exposure is not included as one of
the environmental indicators that the EPA will measure in the EJSCREEN. Pesticides are
1 See, e.g.. Anita-Schwartz, Norah el al., "Where thev (live, work and) spray": Pesticide exposure,
childhood asthma and environmental justice among Mexican-American farmworkers. Health & Place
32:83-92 (2015); Acury, Thomas A. et al., Lifetime and Current Pesticide Exposure Among Latino
Farmworkers in Comparison to Other Latino Immigrants. Amer J Ind Med 57:776-787 (2014)
2 Salvatore AL et al., Occupational behaviors and farmworkers' pesticide exposure: findings from a study in
Monterey County. California. Am J Ind Med. 51(10):782-94 (2008)
EJ 2020 Public Comments
2
146
-------
heavily used in agricultural work and place farmworkers and their families in danger of
acute poisoning and long-term health effects. We recommend that pesticide exposure be
included as an environmental indicator. EPA should establish a national pesticide use
reporting system to collect information on all agricultural pesticide applications. Such a
system would allow EPA to thoroughly assess risks to human health and the environment
from pesticide exposure. However, in the interim, surrogate data based on crop surveys
should be used to include pesticide exposure as an environmental indicator in the
EJSCREEN.
The farmworker community is a classic example of an overburdened population and
satisfies many of the EJSCREEN's demographic indicators. There are approximately 2.4
million farmworkers employed on farms and ranches in the U.S. According to the most
recent National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), almost half of farmworkers are
"3
34 years old or younger, with an average annual income of $15,000 to $17,499. The
vast majority of farmworkers are immigrants and 70% of them speak Spanish as their
dominant language. We recommend that EJSCREEN include the farmworker community
as one of the target demographics for EPA's environmental justice work.
Section 1(C): Deepen environmental justice practice within EPA programs to
improve the health and environment of overburdened communities
EPA proposes to advance environmental justice through compliance and enforcement.
We support this goal wholeheartedly, as vigorous and consistent enforcement of
environmental regulations nationwide is a necessary aspect of environmental justice. In
states where compliance monitoring and enforcement actions are inadequate, populations
risk exposure to inequitable environmental and health hazards.
In December 2011, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at EPA released a report
contending that EPA does not administer a consistent national enforcement program and
that state enforcement programs are underperforming, citing EPA data indicating a high
rate of noncompliance coupled with a low level of enforcement.4 OIG concluded that the
primary cause was EPA's failure to consistently "hold states accountable for meeting
enforcement standards";5 "set clear and consistent national benchmarks";6 and effectively
n
curtail weak and inconsistent enforcement by states." In response, EPA largely agreed
o
with the overall findings that enforcement performance varied significantly nationwide.
OIG recommended, and we agree, that EPA should establish clear national lines of
authority for enforcement that include canceling outdated guidance and policies;
consolidating and clarifying remaining enforcement policies; establishing clear
3 Farmworker Justice, Selected Statistics on Farmworkers (2014) available at,
http://www.farmworkeijustice.org/sites/default/files/NAWS%20data%20factsht%201-13-15FINAL.pdf
4 U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, EPA Must Improve Oversight of State Enforcement. Report No.
12-P-0113 (Dec. 9, 2011); http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2012/20111209-12-P-0113.pdf
5 Id. at 11.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 15.
8 Id. at 21.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
3
147
-------
benchmarks for state performance; and establishing a clear policy describing when and
how EPA will intervene in state enforcement.
More recently, in May 2015, the OIG released a report which found that EPA's oversight
of states' enforcement of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
was insufficient due to "inadequate guidance and training."9 OIG also criticized EPA for
an "overall lack of records and transparency in how issues associated with state
inspections are addressed." For example, OIG noted that EPA project officers often
failed to do basic tasks such as taking notes for inspection reports or including evidence
for why they found states' enforcement actions to be appropriate.
OIG recommended that EPA develop guidance on how project officers should conduct
their oversight of state pesticide inspections and that project officers are periodically
trained on best practices. We believe that the project officer training should include an
opportunity to hear directly from farmworkers and their advocates about common
violations they experience of the Worker Protection Standard and other pesticide laws
and obstacles to reporting and compliance.
Section 11(B): Working with other federal agencies to advance environmental justice
through the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice
The Draft proposes to facilitate the active involvement of all federal agencies in
advancing federal environmental justice and community-based activities as part of the
Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJ IWG), which was
established in 1994 under Executive Order 12898. We support this goal, particularly as it
pertains to protecting farmworkers and agricultural communities from harmful pesticide
exposure, and urge EPA to work with agencies such as the Occupational Safety & Health
Administration (OSHA), the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and national research agencies to
achieve this objective.
EPA should collaborate with research agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health
and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, to obtain targeted research
data to ensure its decisions regarding pesticide registration, risk assessments and worker
safety standards are based on sound science that is free of industry influence. When
assessing risk associated with a given pesticide (or class of pesticides), one of the goals
can be to identify the exposure level that represents an acceptable level of risk.10 This is
done by comparing the expected or estimated exposure to the toxicity of the pesticide.
While sources of toxicity data include voluntary submissions by the registrants,
additional research is needed to fill the data gaps that are rampant in farmworker
occupational health issues. Unless adequate and peer reviewed studies are conducted to
9 U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, EPA's Oversight of State Pesticide Inspections Needs
Improvement to Better Ensure Safeguards for Workers. Public and Environment Are Enforced. Report No.
15-P-0156 (May 15, 2015); http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2015/20150515-15-P-0156.pdf
10 EPA, Risk Assessment Process for Tolerance Reassessment (October 8, 1999) available at
http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/trac/paper44.pdf
EJ 2020 Public Comments
4
148
-------
account for actual exposure experienced by farmworkers in real life circumstances, an
accurate assessment of risk for pesticides cannot be achieved.
Similarly, there is a glaring gap in information pertaining to the number of annual
pesticide poisonings nationwide, since there is no national reporting system for exposure-
related injuries. A partnership between the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and EPA to
track and monitor incidents of pesticide poisoning would provide much needed exposure
data. The lack of reliable statistics on pesticide-related injuries and the dearth of research
on pesticides' impact on farmworkers perpetuate EPA's refusal to limit their use due to
lack of evidence of causation of injuries and toxicity when assessing risk to human
health.
While EPA is the primary regulatory agency authorized to assess and reduce the risk of
pesticide exposure and injuries among farmworkers, farmworkers would benefit greatly
from a coordinated effort among federal agencies to implement the Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) and provide workers with comprehensive information regarding
pesticides and the associated health risks.
Section 11(C): Support transformative efforts in communities to advance
environmental justice through EPA's Community Resources Network
EPA also aims to empower communities to take action to improve their health and
environment, through community engagement and responsiveness to community
concerns. We fully support this goal and encourage EPA to work towards its full
realization.
EPA should begin a concerted outreach initiative to engage farmworkers and rural
communities in the policymaking process and consult them on the health impacts of
pesticides. EPA can include more farmworker representatives on agency advisory
committees and solicit their input on decisions that will impact farmworkers. EPA should
make meetings and materials more accessible to the majority of farmworkers, for whom
Spanish is their primary language.11 Additionally, EPA should engage in outreach to the
increasing number of farmworkers who come from indigenous communities of Mexico
and Central America, and speak Mixteco, Triqui, or other indigenous languages. These
workers experience particular hardships, including language and cultural barriers, racism,
and extreme poverty, that may compound the disproportionate impact of environmental
policies on their communities.
Because of language barriers and limited access to electronic communication, many
farmworkers cannot participate in the processes that EPA has established to receive
feedback on environmental policy decisions. Since farmworkers tend to have low-wage
jobs, they often cannot afford to buy computers. They also tend to live in substandard
housing with no internet access. However, most farmworkers use mobile technology to
access the internet. A qualitative study on the use of mobile technology among
11 Farmworker Justice, supra note 3.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
5
149
-------
12
farmworkers in California found high rates of mobile phone use. Farmworkers ranked
their mobile phone among their most important possessions and use them to talk, text,
share photos, watch and record videos, listen to music, play games, and access the
internet, among other uses. EPA should incorporate the use of mobile technology to
communicate with farmworkers, and such communication should be both culturally and
literacy appropriate for farmworkers and their family members.
Finally, it has come time for EPA to acknowledge the reality of many farmworkers'
limited English proficiency and mandate that pesticide labels be published in both
English and Spanish. Without access to information about the dangers of the chemicals
they work with every day, farmworkers will continue to suffer thousands of pesticide-
related poisonings and illnesses a year. Bilingual labels would also give mixers,
applicators, and harvesters the information they need to monitor their health impacts from
particular pesticides, and inform EPA of the dangers of particular chemicals. Farmworker
Justice, along with other advocacy groups, has petitioned EPA to require bilingual
13
labels. EPA should act quickly to implement this common-sense environmental justice
and civil rights policy.
Section IV(b): EPA's implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act through a
comprehensive, long-term Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Strategic Plan
One of EPA's most important civil rights-related functions relates to ensuring a fair and
comprehensive complaint resolution process. EPA plans to develop a comprehensive,
long-term OCR Strategic Plan to implement Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. We support
EPA's work to implement Title VI to prevent discrimination against farmworkers and
other vulnerable communities. However, EPA has a long way to go to ensure that
allegations of discrimination are promptly investigated to accurately determine whether
the civil rights laws have been violated and to provide the complainant with appropriate
relief.
For instance, in June 1999, a Title VI claim was filed, Angelita C. v. California
Department of Pesticide Regulation, by the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment,
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation,
and Farmworker Justice on behalf of Latino parents and children at 6 schools in
California, alleging that the state's Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)
discriminated against Latino school children by allowing unhealthy levels of methyl
bromide to be applied near schools populated by mostly Latino children. While EPA
determined that DPR's actions were in fact discriminatory, the Agency's subsequent
handling of case was wholly inadequate for the affected parties.
Once EPA found a violation, the Agency failed to inform the parents or their attorneys.
Nor did EPA refer the civil rights violations to the U.S. Department of Justice for
12 Simeonov, I. and Hamm, K., Use of Mobile Devices by Low-Income, Low-English Proficiency Hispanic
Consumers, session at the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting (2012) available at
https://apha.confex.com/apha/140am/webprogram/Paper269521.html
13 See 76 Fed. Reg. 17606. Petition is included in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0014.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
6
150
-------
enforcement. Instead, EPA entered into secret negotiations with DPR. The terms of that
settlement provided no relief for the children or their parents and only required additional
monitoring of methyl bromide near schools and "outreach" by DPR. In order to
effectively implement a robust and just civil rights complaint and compliance review
process, EPA must include aggrieved parties in both the investigation and settlement
process, which was clearly not done in the Angelita C case.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda
Framework. We support EPA's efforts to advance environmental justice. However, as
detailed above, there are additional policies that the Agency should adopt to carry out its
responsibilities regarding environmental justice and civil rights for farmworkers and their
families. We urge EPA to implement the plan throughout the entire Agency, including in
pesticide regulation decision-making, and to foster consideration and involvement of
farmworkers in the Agency's work.
Farmworker Justice
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Farmworker Association of Florida
Migrant Clinicians Network
Pesticide Action Network North America
EJ 2020 Public Comments
7
151
-------
Subject:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:
Harris
Sunday, July T2^m^!3^plvH
ejstrategy
Anderson, Israel
public comment for the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Dear EJ Strategy Representative;
Please accept my comments for the draft E3 2020 Action Agenda framework fPDR.
Environmental Justice is based upon the reality that there is an adverse burden for participation in policy
making activities and decisions by community members that are stressed by environmental threats. In order
for EJ to provide appropriate and meaningful assistance for community members, the basic necessities for
participation must be addressed. Assistance in assessment, organization, planning, communication, legal
interpretation, evaluation, analysis and submission of recommendations to policy makers capable of bringing
about meaningful change must all be nurtured. I was not able to obtain answers to basic questions about the
current EPA EJ program prior to the submission of this email. Availability and access to concrete resources are
vitally important to survival of grass roots organizations. Although the EPA website is amazing and overflowing
with information, it is still very difficult for community folks to even know where to begin. By establishing a
commitment to a relationship with community groups (which I believe the both the 2014 and the 2020 plans
do) constituent contact is vitally important. There are records of previous quarterly conference calls on the
website, but no mention of current activities. The National, Arkansas and Texas EJ workshops were invaluable
to me attend, but what are plans for follow up? The planning committee is a great foundation for a local
stakeholder group, but to my knowledge there has been no request for ongoing participation. Ensuring
ongoing communication at the state, region and national level with community groups, could very well be an
opportunity to provide them with access to resources that are critically necessary for their survival. So many
forces work against volunteer community group success, that whatever we can do to provide concrete
accessible resources would be a very good thing.
These are examples of two organizations that provide free access to step-by-step guidance to improving
community health. Maybe this type of resource is already available from the EPA and I just don't know about
it.
County Health Rankings and Roadmaps- http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/
Community Tool Box http://ctb.ku.edu/en
Including step by step such as provided by the two resources above, could go a long way in improving
stakeholder participation.
Additionally, participation expenses in EPA sponsored events should be prepaid by the hosting agency.
Requiring community members to bear the burden of the expense is unreasonable. The reimbursement
process now (in my experience of attending both the Texas and Arkansas EJ workshops) takes an excessive
amount of time and numerous mistakes were made by EPA staff in processing the paperwork. Agency
employees are not subjected to this treatment, neither should community members.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
152
-------
Additional funding should be made easily available and in a timely manner to support community based
organizational activities to address significant environmental concerns. Increasing community member access
to technical assistance and training resources would assist to both further the mission of EPA EJ and promote
community health and wellbeing.
Sincerely-
Emily L. Harris, MPH
Faulkner County Citizens Advisory Group
EJ 2020 Public Comments
2
153
-------
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Alessandra Jerolleman
Wednesday, July 15, 2C
ejstrategy
Environmental Justice Framework
>
Good Evening,
I'd like to submit the following comment on behalf of the First Peoples Conservation Council of Louisiana.
"We are pleased to see EPA's continued commitment to furthering environmental justice through its programs,
policies, and activities. We wish to provide the following input to the draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework: In
order to fully support environmentally overburdened, underserved, and economically distressed
communities, EPA must specifically reach out to and engage with non-Federally Recognized Tribes. There current
draft mentions the importance of coordination with Tribes multiple times, but the existing policy on consultation with
Tribes is limited to those Tribes with Federal recognition. Although the current draft does specifically reference
Indigenous Peoples, we feel that it is critical that non-federally recognized Tribes be explicitly mentioned as
stakeholders as well."
Alessandra Jerolleman, PhD, MP A, CFM
Senior Emergency Management and Hazard Mitigation Planner - JEO Consulting Group Inc. - www.ieo.com
VP Community Resilience and Hazard Mitigation - Water Works - http://www.waterworksla.com/water-works
1 Affiliate Professor - Emergency Management Department - Jacksonville State University
Regards,
i
EJ 2020 Public Comments
154
-------
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:
Gage Blasi (RIT Student)
Thursday, April 16, 2015 1
ejstrategy
Hang Ryeol Na
Public Comment on EJ 2020
>
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
Public Comment on EJ 2020
by: Gage Blasi
As a college student who has a strong interest in the Environment, I am glad to see there is a continuing
process to try to improve upon already established plans and actions about the Environment. It is especially
important to emphasize an overlooked part of the Environment, which is Environmental Justice.
To build upon the previously Plan, which was EJ 2014, is a smart idea in many ways. I like how a lot of
the work in this new plan is based off of the old one. Having the old plan to reference and show, as proof of
improvement will encourage a lot of people to change their ways. This could have a tremendous positive effect
on overburdened communities who just need that little push to get things going in the right direction again. The
only negative of basing the new plan on the old one is maybe the old plan did not have the same good result in
all regions. There could have been a few scattered negative results that will see nothing good coming from the
new plan.
Environmental Justice is such a sensitive topic because it involves races and prejudices. There must
always be precautions in place to make sure a plan is focused to divert the negatives of what racism can bring. I
believe with things mentioned in this plan like more collaboration with partners, communities will begin to see
how they can progress. The good thing about collaboration is that if positive results are shown from one case,
then others will follow suit, and a whole slew of positive integration will result.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
1
155
-------
I believe this plan is a great next step in the process of bettering Environmental Justice as a whole.
Relying on the backbone of the old plan to reinstitute a new plan will prove to be worthwhile when it comes
down to it.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
2
156
-------
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:
Guillermo Leon (RIT Student)
Monday, May 11, 2015 1:37 P
ejstrategy
>
Subject:
Hang Ryeol Na
Public comment on draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
To Whom It May Concern
As a young Mexican-American who grew up in The Bronx, NYC, the environmental justice work of the
EJ 2020 Action Agenda makes me very proud. The amount of trash, non-recycled recyclables, and
poorly maintained non-environmental infrastructure that I have witnessed and have experienced around
my local city is enormous, which undoubtedly has led to environmental degradation in my community.
Although we are proud people, we are not very environmentally aware of what is going on. This is why
I think section II, subsection C is so important and should be focused on. Using community-based,
public-private partnerships for general and location specific engagement. If the people know and are
aware we can help. Inspire us!
I am very excited to see what is implemented in overburdened communities and the achievements made
by the EPA. Hopefully my local community is reached too, but within a few years I would like to make
an impact in my local governments decision making, which as of section II, subsection A, should be
promoted with consideration of environmental justice, which would provide the greatest moral approach
to reaching sustainability in our community.
After looking over the draft I come closer to realizing that my career path may lie in environmental
policy, and would be honored to help further what the EJ 2020 Action Agenda is going to change in my
local community.
Deep Regards,
Guillermo Leon, Rochester Institute of Technology, Environmental Science(B.S.)
EJ 2020 Public Comments
1
157
-------
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hilary E. Kramer
Wednesday, July
ejstrategy
>
EJ 2020 priority
One of the most pressing issues for EPA to address in EJ2020 Action Agenda is the issue of reducing near-roadway air
pollution, and the associated health risks (dangers), for those who live, work and go to school or daycare within a mile of
a major roadway.
The documented health risks span from documented increases in asthma, ER visits, higher rates of autism, even to
childhood leukemia, and more. We also know that pregnant mothers have higher rates of preeclampsia when exposed
to certain near roadway air pollutants. We want EPA, from the top down, to develop a tangible strategy to not only
protect our citizens but to educate the most vulnerable. We need a clear strategy with clear environmental / health
results identified. We need asthma and cancer rates to go down in children. We cannot tell people to merely go indoors
when the air quality is bad outdoors because the ambient air issues can compound indoors and can be at elevated
levels.
We can address this issue using the existing Clean Air Act, and associated regulations. In EJ areas, we can require and
deploy additional near-roadway air monitoring (more than what is required by the Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, NAAQS), use existing NAAQS required State Implementation Plan development opportunities (require EJ
involvement in the State Implementation Planning process to address near roadway concerns in counties areas of the
U.S. that are not attaining the NAAQS), use tools with Transportation Conformity, require project level conformity hot-
spot analyses and more.
Addressing this national children's health emergency is the right thing to do. If EPA ignores this crisis of delays action on
an issue that disproportionately negatively impacts minorities, then this becomes another issue of environmental
racism. We must do all that we can to make tangible difference to protect the health of the most vulnerable (pregnant
mothers, infants and children) from the dangers of near-roadway air pollution.
Sent from my iPhone
l
EJ 2020 Public Comments
158
-------
: Housing Land Advocates^^*^^^^
June 4, 2015
By E-mail
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
eistrategy@epa.gov
Re: Comments on draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda framework
Dear Mr. Lee,
Housing Land Advocates (HLA) provides advocacy, education, technical assistance and
legal representation on land use matters affecting affordable housing.
Since our founding in 2004, we have worked with local governments, interest groups,
affordable housing providers, land use policy makers, and planners to ensure that state and
local housing obligations are being met.
Throughout all that we do, collaboration with other organizations has been a key
strategy. We know that the impacts of housing affordability reach far beyond the basic need for
shelter: Housing is tied to public health, racial equity, and environmental issues. Our work has
brought people together around common interests, creating a stronger voice for everyone.
HLA applauds the EPA's efforts to advance and integrate environmental justice from the
federal to local level. Undoubtedly, these efforts will positively impact environmentally
overburdened, underserved, and economically distressed communities.
Please consider the following comments to the draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda framework:
1- Include the private sector and non-profits in EPA's definition of partners.
As is, the EJ 2020 Action Agenda includes the private sector and non-profits as a resource
group but not as a group to engage for purposes of establishing best practices and new
strategies. HLA recognizes that the private sector and non-profits may already be represented
and engaged in EPA's process. However, HLA would like to point out that formally including all
stakeholders early in the process is a good way to ensure buy in to EPA's environmental justice
programs and initiatives.
2. Include more substance and guidance in the EJ 2020 Action Agenda.
The nature of strategy documents requires broad, overarching goals. To the extent
possible, HLA encourages the EPA to include more details, substance, and guidance in the EJ
Action Agenda. For instance, for each of the broad goals, the EPA could include illustrative
examples of actions that the EPA views as a means to accomplish the broader goal.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
159
-------
3. Improve communication regarding environmental justice to the community at large.
Regarding compliance and enforcement actions, the EPA plans to enhance communication
and transparency with affected communities and the public regarding environmental justice
concerns. HLA believes that this plan is very important. A communication strategy aimed at
the community at large, to the affected communities will allow other members of the
community to voice concerns on behalf of affected communities because oftentimes the
affected communities are underrepresented at the leadership and decision-making table.
Accordingly, expanding the communication target could bring moi e attention and support to an
environmental issue that impacts an environmentally overburdened, underserved, and
economically distressed community.
4. Include strategies that demonstrate community enhancement without displacement.
With regard to demonstrating progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened
communities, the EPA plans to show positive impacts of the EPA's work through community-
level results, such as revitalization and sustainability, partnerships and collaborative problem-
solving, and grass roots capacity building.. It is important to show the positive impact, and
thereby the significance, of EPA's efforts to affected communities. HLA suggests that EPA also
include strategies to demonstrate the positive impacts of EPA's programs in affected
communities. The positive impacts should include overall enhancement or improvement
without displacement of long-time residents or disruption of the affected community's existing
social network.
We hope that these comments are helpful. Thank you for your efforts to advance
environmental justice and for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
^ 1 - > ?-K 'X
Jennifer Bra^ar «
President
GSB:7107772.1 [13046.00117]
EJ 2020 Public Comments
singland4dvocates.org -
160
-------
Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
July 14, 2015 SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEPA, Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Comment on the inclusion of prisoner populations in EPA's Draft
Framework for EJ 2020 Action Agenda
Dear Mr. Lee:
The Human Rights Defense Center's (HRDC) Prison Ecology Project and the undersigned
organizations submit the following comment on the Environmental Protection Agency's EJ 2020
Action Agenda Framework.
While it is encouraging to see the EPA attempting to increase the effectiveness of Executive
Order 12898 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in protecting communities that have been
overburdened by industrial pollution, we also find that there is a significant piece missing to the
dialogue thus far: recognition of the vast number of prisoners and their families as an extremely
and uniquely overburdened population.1
The need for EJ 2020 comes from the unfortunate reality that many of the environmental permit
approvals that have taken place in recent decades, and continue today, fall into a category of
poverty discrimination policies which almost exclusively impact poor communities, with a
disproportionate impact on poor communities of color. Few industrial sectors exemplify this
more clearly than the prison industry.2
1 HRDC uses the term "prisoner" to refer to people held in prisons, jails, detention facilities, civil commitment
centers and other facilities that hold people against their will as punishment or while awaiting court-related
proceedings, i.e. trial, sentencing, deportation etc.
2 On July 9, 2015, Prison Policy Initiative released a new report on prisoner income: "Using an underutilized data set
from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, this report provides hard numbers on the low incomes of incarcerated men and
women from before they were locked up.... The American prison system is bursting at the seams with people who
have been shut out of the economy and who had neither a quality education nor access to good jobs. We found that,
in 2014 dollars, incarcerated people had a median annual income of $19,185 prior to their incarceration which is
41% less than non-incarcerated people of similar ages." Source: http://www.prisonpolicY.org/reports/income.html
P.O. Box 1151
Lake Worth, FL 33460
Phone: 561.360.2523 Fax: 866.735.7136
Paul Wright, Executive Director: pwright@prisonlegalnews.org
EJ 2020 Public Comments 161
-------
A recent report from the Prison Policy Initiative shows that, according to the U.S. Census,
blacks are incarcerated at a rate five times that of whites, and Hispanics/Latinos are nearly
twice as likely to be incarcerated as whites. It goes further to illustrate that white people are
underrepresented in every one of the 50 states' prison populations, whereas Hispanic/Latino,
black and Native Americans are consistently overrepresented in every state.3
There are over 2.3 million people incarcerated in prisons, jails, immigration detention centers
and other correctional facilities in the United States; if all of those prisoners were housed in one
location, it would constitute the fourth largest city in the nation with a population greater than
that of Houston, Texas.4
If we can recognize the problem with forcing people to live in close proximity to toxic and
hazardous environmental conditions, then why are we ignoring prisoners who are forced to live
in detention facilities impacted by such conditions?
We realize that the federal government's responsibilities are divided up among multiple
agencies, with the EPA dealing primarily in issues related to ambient pollution. As such, some
of the issues addressed below may be outside the EPA's immediate jurisdiction, but we
understand the EPA to be leading the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice and
feel that you will be able to best discern which agencies are best positioned to address the unique
circumstances of prisoner populations.5
While we cannot speak to the knowledge of all federal agencies, we do know that both the EPA
and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are well informed about the environmental impact of mass
incarceration on poor communities in general and poor communities of color in particular, and
that this impact affects both those imprisoned in detention facilities and those who are employed
in or live near them.6
The intention of this comment is to provide background on how prisoners are excluded from
environmental justice protections, both in the permitting of prisons themselves and the
permitting of other industrial facilities operating in proximity to prisons. We have also provided
a dozen examples of how and where this has manifested in various regions throughout the
country.
3 "Breaking Down Mass Incarceration in the 2010 Census: State-by-State Incarceration Rates by Race/Ethnicity" by
Leah Sakala. May 28, 2014. Source: http://www.prisoiipolicv.org/reports/rates.htiiil
4 Source: http://www.citv-data.com/topl.htnil
5 For example, EPA has a Memorandum of Understanding with OSHA:
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show document?p id=238&p table=mou
This presumably takes the Department of Labor's "Environmental Justice Strategy" into consideration:
http://www.dol.gov/asp/ei/. We found no language addressing environmental safety for the prisoner workforce.
6 While prisons themselves are sources of outdoor pollution, e.g. particulates from outdated prison boilers,
discharges of untreated or inadequately treated sewage, etc., which affect surrounding communities that also often
fit the criteria of EJ communities, that matter is not what we are addressing in this particular comment.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
162
-------
Background on the EPA and Prisons
Since 1999, the Office of Enforcement, Compliance, and Environmental Justice (OECEJ) within
EPA Region III office has conducted what they call a "prison initiative." Although this initiative
has not been very active in conducting inspections since about 2011, over the course of a decade,
EPA Region III conducted multiple investigations of conditions in prisons which resulted in a
broad spectrum of enforcement actions.7 This initiative is well-documented through articles and
press releases published online and in printed publications such as the National Environmental
Enforcement Journal.8
Over the past six months HRDC's Prison Ecology Project has been conducting extensive
research, public records requests, interviews and reviews of Environmental Impact Statements
and Environmental Assessments to understand how environmental justice criteria has been
applied to prisoner populations, given the overwhelming evidence that prisoners are
disproportionately people of color and almost entirely low-income, regardless of race. We are
disappointed to report that we have seen no information pointing to any intention of the EPA
to recognize the population of people in prison, despite the fact that they constitute the most
vulnerable and overburdened demographic of citizens in the country.
In an interview conducted by the Prison Ecology Project on February 5, 2015, EPA Region III
representative Donna Heron explained explicitly that environmental justice guidelines have not
been applied to prisoners because the EPA uses census data which does not take prisoners into
account.
We find this reason to be insufficient. We believe that data exists or could be gathered to allow
the EPA to effectively and accurately determine environmental impacts on incarcerated
populations. If the EPA's chosen data happens not to include these populations, the EPA should
seek to supplement the data for these missing populations by conducting research on what other
data sources should be included to provide the most accurate picture of the populations who will
be subject to any environmental impacts.9
We also found that prison-related permitting has often attempted to claim a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) in permitting, or worse, has alleged "categorical exclusions" that
keep these plans off the radar of public input.10 We feel that when plans are being made that
7 Until very recently, the activity of Region Ill's prison initiative was documented online, but it was removed for an
unknown reason. Some of the information previously posted online can now only be found on the Prison Ecology
Project's website: fattp://PrisonEcology.org
8 In particular, an article written by EPA inspector Garth Conner titled "An Investigation and Analysis of the
Environmental Problems at Prisons" was published in the May 2003 edition of the NEE Journal, addressing the
overpopulation of prisons and the industrial facilities operated within them. The article highlighted six separate
investigations which all resulted in a broad spectrum of enforcement activity at state, federal and local correctional
facilities.
9 HRDC is requesting further dialogue with EPA staff on this matter, as the methods used by the EPA to gather
population data, and the consistency of those methods, are currently unclear.
10 The following is a 2014 announcement of a FONSI on a 2,000-bed immigrant detention facility, before there was
even a site selected. According to the notice, "A geographical restriction associated with the RFP required the
facility to be located in one of the following states: Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, or New
York. See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2014-09-26/htnil/2014-22616.htm
EJ 2020 Public Comments
163
-------
involve the incarceration of hundreds or thousands of low-income people, for which there are
alternatives to incarcerating in the first place, this must be viewed as a significant environmental
justice impact.
The DOJ, BOP and Environmental Justice
"During the twenty years since Executive Order 12898 was issued, there have been
significant accomplishments by community leaders, Federal, state, local and tribal
governments, and others to advance this important work. Yet there is more work to be
done. Low-income, minority, and tribal Americans are still disproportionately burdened
with pollution, resulting in disproportionate health problems, greater obstacles to
economic growth, and a lower quality of life. The Department will continue to play a
vital role in making environmental justice a reality for all Americans. We welcome []
input on the Department's environmental justice activities, strategy, and guidance as
we move forward."
— Stuart F. Delery, Acting Associate Attorney General, from the DOJ's 2014
Implementation Progress Report on Environmental Justice11
The DOJ's updated guiding document on Environmental Justice Strategy contains much lip-
service to viewing EJ as a priority. In section III.C.4, "Specific Component Obligations," the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is "working to ensure that its activities are consistent with
the President's mandate [Executive Order 12898], For example, the Bureau will include
consideration of environmental justice in its environmental impact statements [EIS] under
the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]."12
During the period that EPA conducted its prison initiative in Region III, reports also surfaced
about rampant pollution and environmental health problems stemming from industrial facilities
in federal prisons nationwide. According to a 2010 report, the Justice Department's Office of
the Inspector General pinpointed "numerous violations of health, safety and environmental laws,
regulations and (Bureau of Prisons) policies" at certain prison industry programs.13
However, according to our research, the BOP has never taken its prisoner population into
consideration under NEPA's EJ guidance. This remained true as of the agency's most recent
example of a NEPA-required EIS, which was published for public comment earlier this year for
a facility in Letcher County, Kentucky. HRDC prepared a comment which, among other issues,
addressed insufficient efforts to address EJ-related concerns.14 The following is an excerpt from
HRDC's comment submitted to the BOP:
11 Source: http://www.iiistice.gov/sites/defaiilt/files/ei/pages/attachmeiits/2015/02/ll/2Q14-implemeiitatioii-
progress-report.pdf
12 Source: http://www.iustice.gov/sites/defaiilt/files/ei/pages/attachmeiits/2014/12/19/doi ei strategy.pdf
13 Source: http://www.mcclatchvdc.com/2010/ll/09/103445/whistleblower-exposed-violatioiis.html
14 The full HRDC comment on BOP's Letcher County proposal can be found here:
https://www.prisoiilegaliiews.org/iiews/piiblicatioiis/hrdc-commeiit-letcher-coiiiitv-prisoii-sitiiig-coal-miiie-site-
march-2015/
EJ 2020 Public Comments
164
-------
Under the Environmental Justice guidelines ofNEPA, and according to the EIS, the
people most probable to be in BOP custody if this facility was built are very likely to meet
the criteria for recognition as Environmental Justice communities. Inside the prison, the
racial demographics and income of prisoners can be reasonably projected to populate
the facility based on the demographics of other BOP facilities in the country.... The BOP
reports 41% percent of its population to be of non-white "minority" status,15 whereas
this racial demographic only makes up approximately 25% of the entire US population.16
The EIS also says nothing of prisoners' status as an almost entirely low-income
population.
The EIS goes on to allege that, essentially, the only EJ impact to the local community (which is
a low-income rural region of Appalachia) will be the positive economic benefits associated with
the prison. The most obvious oversight here is that the region is known to have extreme water
contamination problems due to decades of heavy coal mining operations. In fact, both proposed
sites for the anticipated BOP facility are located on abandoned mines.17
In a review of a 2010 Environmental Assessment (EA) for a state prison being turned over to the
BOP for use as a supermax prison in Thomson, Illinois, HRDC found a very similar approach to
EJ matters with respect to permitting.18 This facility, which will be used for extreme isolation
units (solitary confinement) when opened, included no mention in its permits of the anticipated
demographics which would populate the prison. It also overlooked the need to review operating
such a facility in a flood zone, less than half-a-mile from the Mississippi River, and what unique
challenges this could pose to an extremely vulnerable population likely to fit the criteria of an EJ
demographic.
Our position is that the DOJ, as a participating agency in the implementation of EJ strategy,
should require prisoner populations to be explicitly included in the EJ 2020 process.
Below are some additional examples which illustrate the need for recognizing prisoners in
environmental justice policy and implementation strategy:
• New Orleans, Louisiana jail post-Katrina - This facility became an example of how
ill-prepared county-run prisons are to handle emergency situations, sparking a report
by the ACLU on the terrible reality that unfolded for prisoners after the storm in
2005. "The prisoners inside the Orleans Parish Prison suffered some of the worst
horrors of Hurricane Katrina," said Eric Balaban, a staff attorney for the ACLU's
15 Current BOP statistics do not include specific numbers for Latino or Hispanic prisoners, though they do report
19% of BOP prisoners are citizens of Latin American countries. (A 2010 report stated that 33% are "Hispanic from
any race.") Source: http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics inmate race.isp
16 U.S. Census Bureau, "The White Population 2010." Source: lit to ://www. census. gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c201 Obr-
Q5.tx.ir
17 Complete EIS can be viewed here: https://www.prisoiilegaliiews.org/tiews/publicatioiis/dra.ft-eis-bop-prisoii-
letcher-countv-kv-2015/
18 Complete Environmental Assessment can be viewed here:
https://www.prisoiilegaliiews.org/iiews/piiblicatioiis/eiiviroiimeiital-aiidit-bops-thomsoii-correctioiial-center-2010/
EJ 2020 Public Comments
165
-------
National Prison Project. "Because society views prisoners as second-class citizens,
their stories have largely gone unnoticed and therefore untold."19
• Escambia County, Florida jail flood-In May 2014, another flood-related disaster
at a county-run jail on the Gulf Coast illustrated that very little had been done since
the lessons of Katrina to address the dangers of incarcerating people in increasingly
flood-prone areas. At the Escambia County jail in north Florida, severe rain led to
flooding in the basement of the facility that in turn resulted in a gas leak and
explosion that killed two prisoners and injured many others.20
• Chemical spill in Charleston, West Virginia - Another risk to prisoners, who are
often located in industrial wastelands where the likelihood of pollution disasters can
contaminate the water supply, was demonstrated at the South Central Regional Jail in
Charleston after a major coal-processing-related chemical spill occurred in January
2014 when a storage tank ruptured. Prisoners were affected by the water
contamination to a greater extent than many other local residents, as they were
exposed to the contaminated water for longer periods without proper notice.21
• Sing Sing Correctional Facility and the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York - A
2012 legal proceeding filed by environmental groups in the Hudson Valley of New
York during an administrative hearing of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
exposed a completely insufficient emergency evacuation plan for prisoners held at
Sing Sing Correctional Facility, again illustrating why this population fits the criteria
of an EJ demographic.22
• Rikers Islandjail, New York City - The Rikers Island jail complex has become
notorious for its location on a toxic waste landfill site where lawsuits have been filed
against the facility by employees who have become ill due to the conditions there.23
As a result of this landfill, there have been frequent methane gas explosions on the
site. In addition, the lack of an evacuation plan during Hurricane Sandy illustrated the
increased potential for disaster at this facility.
• Coal ash dump in LaBelle, Pennsylvania - Surveys and reports from prisoners at the
State Correctional Institute-Fayette have indicated ongoing problems related to
sickness among prisoners who are exposed to airborne coal dust. The prison houses
over 2,000 prisoners, was built on top of a former coal mine and sits adjacent to a
506-acre coal ash dump owned and operated by Matt Canestrale Contracting (MCC).
The dump receives ash waste from coal-fired power plants throughout the region.
19 Source: https://www.aclii.org/iiews/achi-report-details-horrors-siiffered-orleaiis-parish-prisoiiers-wak-e-hiirricaiie-
katrina
20 Source: http://www.ciiii.com/2014/05/01/iiistice/florida-iail-gas-explosion/index.htiiil
21 Source: http://storiesfromsouthcentralwv.com/resources/wv-chemical-spill-background/
22 Sources: (1) http://pbadupws.iirc.gov/docs/ML1218/ML12180A648.pdf: (2) http://www.ctearwater.org/ea/indiaii-
point-campaign/: (3) http://publiciustice.net/content/miclear-regiilatorv-coiiiiiiission-nuclear-plant-operator-near-
nvc-failed-consider-impact-sever-0
23 Source: http://www.nvdailvnews.com/iiew-vork/correction-officers-suit-rikers-island-prison-built-toxic-landfill-
causing-cancer-article-1.149319
EJ 2020 Public Comments
166
-------
Before it became a fly ash dump, it was one of the world's largest coal preparation
plants, which left over 40 million tons of coal waste. MCC recently renewed its
permit to dump 416,000 tons of coal ash per year at the site. Coal ash contains
mercury, lead, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, cadmium and thallium. "In short,
coal ash toxins have the potential to injure all of the major organ systems, damage
physical health and development, and even contribute to mortality," according to a
report by Physicians for Social Responsibility.24
• Thirteen Colorado prisons in contaminated area - Canon City is the location of nine
state and four federal prisons and penitentiaries. It's also known for longstanding
water quality problems related to the mining and processing of uranium. Liquid waste
laced with radioactive material and heavy metals was discharged into 11 unlined
ponds from 1958-1978. Those were replaced in 1982 with two lined impoundments,
and after well tests in Canon City showed contamination, the uranium mill site was
put on a national list for Superfund cleanups. Samples collected from four wells north
of the mill in October 2011, analyzed at outside labs, indicated trichloroethene
concentrations of 1,800 parts per billion, 1,200 ppb, 490 ppb and 386 ppb. The EPA
standard is 5 ppb. The wells were up to 360 times the federal health limit. "Vapors
can seep up through the soil and get into homes. Then you have not only a drinking
issue but an inhalation risk," EPA spokeswoman Sonya Pennock said. But the
cleanup isn't expected until 2027.25
• Valley Fever at Avenal and Pleasant Valley State Prisons, California - Lawsuits and
news reports have repeatedly noted that people imprisoned in areas prone to valley
fever (resulting from drought, over-development and increased temperatures) are at
elevated risk of contracting that disease due to constant exposure and abysmal
healthcare options available in prisons.26 Valley fever has claimed the lives of more
than 50 prisoners and sickened thousands of others. A federal court ordered the
removal of thousands of prisoners from the Avenal State Prison and Pleasant Valley
State Prison due to concerns about valley fever. "Medical studies have shown that
Filipinos, [BJlacks, Hispanics and people suffering from diabetes and HIV are more
susceptible to valley fever, meaning that prisoners in the Central Valley - where 16
of California's 33 adult prisons are located - are especially vulnerable. For example,
blacks comprise just 6.6% of California's general population but make up 29% of the
state's prison population."27
• Arsenic in Texas and California water supplies - This is a reoccurring story, where
prisons such as Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California and the Wallace Pack
24 Sources: (1) https://www.prisontegatnews.Org/news/2015/apr/9/report-highlights-heatth-concerns-related-coa!-
ash-dump-pennsvlvania-prison/https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/apr/9/report-highlights-health-
coiicems-related-coat-ash-diimp-pemisvtvaiiia-prison/%20: (2) http://atavistibtimes.com/poisoii-prisoni653t
25 Sources: (1) http://www.denverpost.com/ci 17811381: (2) http://www.wise-iiraiiiiim.org/umopcc.htiiit
26 Source: http://www.motherioiies.com/eiiviroiimeiit/2013/08/vattev-fever-exptained
27 Source: https://www.prisonlegatnews.Org/news/2015/iun/3/catifomia-tests-state~prisoners-vattey-fever-amid~
lawsuits-deaths/
EJ 2020 Public Comments 167
-------
Unit near Navasota, Texas are built in areas with contaminated water supplies and
prisoners are forced to endure health impacts due to these environmental conditions.28
• Prisons built on military Superfund site in California - The Victorville Federal
Correctional Complex was built on the site of one of the Weapons Storage Areas
(WSA) for the former George Air Force Base in California, Superfund ID:
CA2570024453. The DOD and Air Force did a federal-to-federal transfer of Parcel K
to the BOP, a site which contains the former South WSA. The Victorville Federal
Correctional Complex (FCC) consists of three facilities: FCI Victorville Medium I,
Medium II and United States Penitentiary-Victorville.29 A federal-to-federal transfer
was also done with Castle Air Force Base's WSA where the United States
Penitentiary (USP) in Atwater was built "on a part of the base near where munitions
were kept and where investigators from the Air Force Safety Center suspect nuclear
weapons were maintained and stored."30
• Toxic and hazardous site for immigrant detention in Tacoma, Washington - The
Northwest Detention Center, a privately-operated prison designed to house 1,575
immigrants, is adjacent to a Superfund site known as Project Area #3 of the Tacoma
Tar Pits (EPA ID# WAD980726368).31 The location is also in a designated volcanic
hazard zone.32
• Water contamination in prisons nationwide - A report published by Prison Legal
News in 2007 highlighted seventeen states, including Alabama, Georgia, Indiana,
Massachusetts, Maryland, Ohio and Washington, where water contamination in
prisons and their surrounding communities had been reported to cause problems
including illness (such as Legionnaire's Disease) and various environmental
violations.33 The report concluded that protections under the Clean Water Act may
be difficult for prisoners, as such problems are often complex, requiring water testing
and expert witnesses to prove a claim, neither of which are likely to be available to
the average pro se prisoner litigant. According to author John Dannenberg, "As the
environmental movement in the United States grows, it may be time to make the
connection to environmental degradation caused by mass imprisonment."
28 Source on arsenic: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rtilesregs/sdwa/arseiiic/index.cfm: in Texas:
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2014/09/well-water-coiitaiiiiiiated-with-arsenic-at.htiiil: in California:
Mjpi/lwww.TOtMechmi^
29 EPA Superfund Record of Decision:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0994115.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r()99
4115.pdf
30 Source: http://www.georgeafb.info/victorville-federal-correctional-
complex/http://www.georgeafbiiifo/victorville-federal-correctioiial-complex/
31 Source:
http://vosemite.epa.gOv/rl0/nplpad.nsf/0/06elc0cda0dl lfc285256594007559fd!QpenDocument&ExpandSection=-
3# Sectionl
32 Source: http://www.dociimeiitcloiid.org/documeiits/408880-siiewsroom-
P12081313010. h tml#document/p 1 /a67587
33 Source: https://www.prisoiilegaliiews.org/iiews/2007/iiov/15/prisoii-driiikiiig-water-aiid-wastewater-polliitioii-
threaten-environmental-safetv-nationwide/
EJ 2020 Public Comments
168
-------
Alternatives to Incarceration
While most of these issues present environmental justice concerns in a traditional sense of
the concept, there is another component which is an overarching matter for many if not all of
the examples listed above—the existence of alternatives to incarceration.34 The review of
alternatives is an integral piece of permitting through NEPA. When considering the value or
need for a prison, there should be a review of the ways in which a reduction in prisoner
populations would reduce or eliminate the need for expanding or constructing prisons, and
thus reduce or eliminate the resulting environmental justice concerns.
Impacts on Children
In addition, we feel that consideration of environmental justice impacts on prisoners should
extend to the families of prisoners as well, in particular those with children. Statistics show that
one in 28 children have a parent in prison—2.7 million children are growing up in households
in which one or more parents are incarcerated. Two-thirds of these parents are incarcerated for
nonviolent offenses, primarily drug offenses. One in nine black children has an incarcerated
parent, compared to one in 28 Hispanic/Latino children and one in 57 white children.35 Even
Sesame Street has taken note of the plight of children with parents in prison.36
The absence of a parent due to incarceration has a significant impact on the communities where
these children live. This factor should be considered among a review of the cumulative impacts
that affect environmental justice communities.37 And while a parent's absence may be
temporary, negative health impacts resulting from incarceration can continue far beyond a
prisoner's release date, causing additional financial and emotional hardships for families with
children.
Next Steps
For the above-stated reasons, HRDC and the undersigned organizations ask the EPA to use the
EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework to ensure that the millions of prisoners in this country
receive the protections that are intended under Executive Order 12898 and Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act.
34 Extensive examples of alternatives to incarceration can be found in the following websites: Office of National
Drug Control Policy, https://www.whitehoiise.gov/oiidcp/altematives-to-iiicarceration: American Psychological
Association, http://www.apa.org/moiiitor/iiilaiig03/alternatives.aspx: Families Against Mandatory Minimums
(FAMM), http://faiiiiii.Org/wp-coiiteiit/iiploads/2013/08/FS-Alteriiatives-iii-a-Niitshell-7.8.pdf: article from The
Guardian, http://www.theguardiaii.com/coiiimeiitisfree/2013/iiil/04/altematives-iiicarceratioii-prisoii-miiiibers
35 Source: http://www.pewtnists.Org/~/media/legacv/uploadedfiles/pcs assets/2010/CollateralCostslpdf.pdf
36 Source: http://www.sesamestreet.0rg/pare11ts/topicsa11dactivities/toolkits/i11carceration#
37 EPA's involvement in the Partnership for Sustainable Communities provides context for the EJ cumulative
impacts that we are referring to here. "Creating healthy, sustainable, and equitable communities is a priority of the
federal government. Environmental Justice plays a key role in an integrated effort that concurrently addresses
housing, environment, transportation and health issues." Source:
http://www.epa.gOv/oecaertli/eiiviroiimeiitaliiistice/siistaiiiabilitv/iiidex.html#teamei
EJ 2020 Public Comments
169
-------
HRDC would like to participate further in the EPA's EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, to
ensure that prisoners are taken into consideration with respect to environmental justice and
impacts on minority and low-income populations. Please contact me to discuss how we may do
so. For example, one of our staff can be available for a meeting in-person or via conference call,
and we can invite participation from other stakeholders and advocates in the prisoners' rights
and criminal justice reform community who are interested in this issue.
Thank you for reviewing our concerns; I look forward to further communication on this subject.
If you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Paul Wright.
Executive Director, HRDC
cc: All EPA Points of Contact for EJ 2020
Stuart Delery, Acting Associate Attorney General, DOJ
Thomas A. Webber, Chief, Capacity Planning and Construction Branch, BOP
Issac Gaston, Site Selection Specialist, BOP
This comment is endorsed by the following 93 organizations:
Abolitionist Law Center (PA)
Amistad Law Project (PA) *
Architects / Designers / Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPSR)
Bill of Rights Defense Committee - Tacoma (WA)
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
California Families Against Solitary Confinement
California Partnership
California Prison Moratorium Project
Campaign for Youth Justice (DC)
Cascadia Forest Defenders (OR)
Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CA)
EJ 2020 Public Comments 170
Sincerely,
-------
The Center for Sustainable Economy
Center for Women's Health and Human Rights (MA)
Climate Justice Alliance
Coalition for Prisoners' Rights (NM)
Columbia Legal Services (WA)
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)
Critical Resistance Los Angeles (CA)
Cross Timbers Earth First! (OK)
CURB (Californians United for a Responsible Budget)
Detention Watch Network
Dignity & Power Now (CA)
Drug Policy Alliance
Earth First! Humboldt (CA)
Earth First! Prison Support Project
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Enlace Int'l
Environmental Justice Advocates - Lewis & Clark Law School (OR)
Everglades Earth First! (FL)
Fen Valley Earth First! (MI)
Florida Institutional Legal Services (Project of Florida Legal Services, Inc.)
Florida Justice Institute, Inc
Georgia Detention Watch
Glacier's Edge Earth First! (IN)
Global Justice Ecology Project
Got Green? (WA)
Grassroots Leadership (TX)
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (NY)
EJ 2020 Public Comments 171
-------
Hudson Valley Earth First! (NY)
International CURE
Jesuit Social Research Institute
Justice for Families
Justice Now
Justice Strategies
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Longleaf Earth First! (FL)
Middle Ground Prison Reform
National Lawyers Guild
National Lawyers Guild - Lewis & Clark Chapter (OR)
National Lawyers Guild - Mass Incarceration Committee
National Police Accountability Project
National Religious Campaign Against Torture
New York City Jails Action Coalition
New York Environmental Law and Justice Project
November Coalition
Ohio Student Association
Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition (FL)
People's Law Office (IL)
Power U Center for Social Change (FL)
Prison Books Collective (Chapel Hill, NC)
Prison Law Office (CA)
Prison Policy Initiative
Prison Watch Network
Prisoners' Legal Services (MA) *
The Promise of Justice Initiative (LA)
Queer Detainee Empowerment Project
EJ 2020 Public Comments 172
-------
Page|13
Radical Action for Mountains' and People's Survival (RAMPS)
RAICES (Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services)
The Real Cost of Prisons Project
Rising Tide North America
San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper
Sentencing and Justice Reform Advocacy (CA)
The Sentencing Project
Sin Barras
Solitary Watch
Southern Center for Human Rights
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
Stories from South Central (WV)
Support Vegans in the Prison System
Sylvia Rivera Law Project (NYC)
Tar Sands Blockade (TX)
Texas Civil Rights Project
Texas Jail Project
TWAC (Trans and Women Action Camp) Cascadia
UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic
Urban Justice Center (NYC)
Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center
Vermonters for Criminal Justice Reform
Virginia Organizing
Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (DC)
Women's Council of the CA Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers
Working Narratives (NC)
350 Vermont
* Organizations that were inadvertently left off this list in our original comment.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
173
-------
IQAir appreciates the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) commitment to
environmental justice through the EJ2020 Action Agenda Framework (EJ 2020). IQAir is an industry-
leader in air purification technologies and is dedicated to helping people live longer, healthier lives
through these air quality products.
Please consider the following comments as you review EJ 2020 and create the corresponding
implementation plan.
Goal 1: Deepen environmental justice practice within EPA programs to improve the health and
environment of overburdened communities.
For goal 1, IQAir urges USEPA to consider prioritizing mitigation efforts as it pertains to educational
environments.
There is ample discussion and action related to air quality improvement as a prevention measure, as
prevention is a vital part of the solution. At the same time, some communities need immediate relief.
These populations can't afford to wait until the air quality improvements take effect. Therefore,
mitigation needs to be prioritized in highly impacted areas.
Mitigation provides immediate solutions and relieve those who suffer the largest burden of air pollution.
There are schools across the nation engulfed by terrible air quality, leaving children and school staff
exposed to air pollution, volatile organic compounds, and other lung irritants.
As children spend a substantial amount of time in school, these buildings should be safe, healthy and
promote productivity. Since 1 in 10 children suffers from asthma and asthma is the number one reason
for absenteeism of school-age children, something has to be done.
IQAir has partnered with local air quality management districts, school administrators and facility
managers to install our technology in schools across Southern California. Our filters provide the highest
air purification possible and exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District's requirements.
More efforts like these, that provide immediate relief, are essential while longer-term prevention and
abatement strategies are implemented. If not, disparate populations that already bear the burden of
poor air quality will continue to suffer.
Goal 2: Collaborate with partners to expand our impact within overburdened communities.
For goal 2, IQAir urges USEPA to not only foster collaboration with local community partners but to put
these collaborations to action. This will ensure EJ 2020 building on the groundwork laid by Plan EJ 2014.
Continue to emphasize the "meet communities where they are" approach that is highlighted under this
goal. Sharing best practices can only go so far without adequate funding and support to put these into
action.
Consider modifying the restrictions of which types of agencies are eligible for this funding as well. As a
corporate partner, we are restricted from applying on behalf of community partners and/or school
districts who would benefit from these funds. Our goal is to provide our technology to the most
vulnerable locations and support our partners in the process. Restrictions on funding for these projects
is a huge barrier when working with small, non-profit advocacy groups who do not have the capacity to
support the administration and execution of large federal grants.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
174
-------
For example, in a mitigation grant, we recommend that the following stakeholders be required when
applying for funding: advocacy group, local air quality agency, government agency benefiting from
funding, and air filtration contractor. This high-level cooperation ensures that the funding is used
properly, the project is professionally administered, and that the burdened community benefits.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
175
-------
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:
Monday, Ju „
ejstrategy
Joe James
EPA EN 2020 Action Agenda - Comments - 7/13/15
Joe James
>
Subject:
Dear EPA:
Given the fact that most communities facing EJ challenges are also distressed, with high poverty and unemployment, the
Agenda should emphasize opportunities for community members to be engaged in and employed by the functions
seeking to remediate or eliminate the EJ-causing conditions.
In addition, technologies and processes which enhance employment and business opportunities for the impacted
communities should be given some preference.
Thanks for considering this comment.
Regards,
JJJ
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph J. James
l
EJ 2020 Public Comments
176
-------
Joe Salata <¦¦¦¦¦¦>
Sent: Monday, Jun^OS^m^lS^lvl
To: ejstrategy
Subject: Environmental Justice Strategy Draft
I have reviewed the draft EJ strategy fro 2020, and have a few comments. It would be nice if EPA
could include a couple of place-based commitments, like improve environmental conditions in X, Y, or
Z communities, e.g., South Bronx, NY (not meant to single-out this community); or to expand the
commitments to outcomes expected, e.g., restore water quality standards in xx underserved
watersheds by NPDES permitting, etc. You could ask the EPA Regions to come up with some
specific place-based outcomes based on current or planned permitting or other EPA regulatory
targets, which I am sure they have but do not recognize as EJ. Thanks for the opportunity to
comment.
Joe Salata
EJ 2020 Public Comments
1
177
-------
From:
Sent:
To:
John Ray
Monday, J
com>
Attachments:
Subject:
Cc:
Lee, Charles; ejstrategy; Darling, Corbin; Nowak, April; Muriel, Jasmin; Carey, Pat; Minter,
Marsha
Greene, Nikia; Sparks, Sara; Vranka, Joe; DalSoglio, Julie; John Ray; Feldt, Lisa; Faulk,
Libby; McCarthy, Gina; McGrath, Shaun
Comments Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework-Particular Application to Montana
Office of EPA
Environmental Justice and Butte Priority Soils.docx; Environmental Justice and Butte Priority
Soils.docx; Environmental Justice and Butte Priority Soils-RMAP.docx; Butte Health Study
Ignores Environmental Justice Issues.docx
I would like to offer the following comments on the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework.
I would offer the following summary comments:
1. While concern for promoting environmental justice should permeate all of EPA's activities, often
specific actions to promote environmental justice are not part of EPA activities. I would recommend
that as part of any EPA action (for example, to remediate a site under Superfund), there be
developed a specific, concrete and detailed action plan for promoting environmental justice. (Of
course, this recommendation would pertain only to sites where there was a specific environmental
justice community.) In Butte, Montana, for example, there is a Superfund site in the middle of town
called central Butte. This area has a disproportionate number of low-income citizens and so is an
environmental justice community. The Montana Office of EPA has never addressed environmental
justice concerns in this area. Either the Montana Office of EPA doesn't know what is environmental
justice or they choose to ignore the mandate in any effective way.
2. The Draft has lofty goals and ideals but lacks specifics. It expresses pious sentiments. On the
ground, when EPA acts pursuant to a plan of action that plan of action needs a specific, concrete,
measurable and definitive environmental justice component.
3. When doing health risk assessments, EPA needs to give specific consideration to environmental
justice communities. For example, for various reasons, low-income citizens are more prone to the
effects of exposure to toxics than are the non-poor. Yet, traditional health risk assessment fails to
take this into account.
4. Specific, concrete and measurable outreach activities for reaching environmental justice
communities should be a part of all EPA plans.
5. Specific, concrete and measurable activities to include environmental justice communities should
be a part of all EPA plans. In Montana, the Montana Office of EPA has, de facto, adopted a one size
fits all approach to environmental justice activities. Ways of communicating or including, for example,
non-poor citizens may not work with low income citizens. Yet, the Montana Office makes no special
effort to include environmental justice communities. The one size fits all approach doesn't work when
it comes to environmental justice activities.
6. Certainly, in Montana, there should be training provided to make the Montana Office of EPA more
sensitive to environmental justice issues.
7. The evaluation of all EPA activities should include a specific environmental justice component.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
178
-------
Of course, all of the above would only apply if there was an environmental justice community affected
by EPA activities.
I have attached additional comments I would like to submit. One was prepared a while back, as the
remediation plan for Butte Priority Soils was being developed, but, the arguments still apply today.
Please consider these attachments as input and comment on the Draft 2020 Action Agenda
Dr. John W. Ray
EJ 2020 Public Comments
2
179
-------
Subject:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:
Patricia Schuba
Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:32 PM
ejstrategy
echeuse@earthjustice.org; Lipeles, Maxine
Draft EJ2020 Action Agenda Framework Comments - Labadie Environmental Organization
(LEO)
Please accept our organization's support for the Earthjustice comments submitted earlier today. Our
organization represents a vulnerable and disproportionately impacted community in rural Missouri near one of
the nation's largest mercury, S02 and particulate matter polluters. The Labadie Plant is the largest coal-fired
power plant in Missouri. It has no scrubbers. It has an unlined ash pond which has been leaking for decases and
will now have a large coal ash landfill in the floodplain endangering local groundwater resources.
The plant has operated in our backyard since 1973. Our county carries a heavier burden of cancer,
cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases and respiratory diseases and the power plant is by far the largest
source of environmental pollution.
Generations have grown up exposed to elevated air pollutants and potential water pollution. We are depending
on state, regional and federal regulators to expand enforcement and provide meaningful and interactive
opportunities for our community to assist in identifying risks and reporting data that can be used to better
regulate the industry. The EPA's EJ agenda implementation creates community partners but is only as good as
the outreach, education, reporting tools and attainment measurements put in place. Please see recommendations
outlined in the Earthjustice comments.
Thank you for accepting my brief comments on behalf of my neighbors and our organization. We look forward
to seeing the final framework and to working more closely with EPA in protecting our communities and the
environment.
Communities can do so much more to assist regulators. Give us that chance.
Sincerely,
Patricia Schuba
Patricia Schuba, President
Labadie Environmental Organization (LEO)
P.O. Box 112 Labadie MO, 63055
c: 636.392.0018 (NEW 3/30/15)
Drsmail@gmail.com
EJ 2020 Public Comments
1
180
-------
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lylianna Allala
Friday, June 05,
ejstrategy
Public Comment: EJ 2020
>
Dear EPA,
Reading through the draft framework, I am heartened at the thought put into inclusive strategy and community
building. I would like to urge the EPA to think of a quote that truly embodies the spirit of working in solidarity
with communities.
"If you have come to help me, you are wasting your time. If you have come because your liberation is bound up
with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
I was reminded of this quite as I specifically read the following line from the draft agenda (Sec. II C) as it seems
to insinuate an "us v. them" approach when in reality, issues of environmental justice affect us all. The success,
health, and happiness of overburdened, underserved, and economically distressed communities is predicate on
our systems and institutions not only create agendas and strategy with the intention of holistic approach but
truly embodying it.
"Promote holistic strategies that meet communities where they are and help them to achieve health,
sustainability, economic opportunity, revitalization and resilience."
I also want to urge the EPA to think from a community based strategic approach. This is to say that to create
regulations, programs, and policy that is meant to support community success, it needs to come from the
community or the grass roots NOT from a grasstop down approach. I'd also like to urge the EPA to continue to
think on how to engage the immigrant and refugee communities as well as I don't see any language specifically
recognizing this community.
Thank you for your time,
Lylianna Allala
EJ 2020 Public Comments
1
181
-------
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marvin S. Robinson, II
Tuesday, July 14, 201E
com>
ejstrategy; Moses, Althea; Brooks, Karl; Hague, Mark; Lee, Charles
EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework fr US EPA
Thank you again to the ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE and particularly for allowing and including the average
everyday people the opportunity to comment.
It is both important and very appreciated.
A.) I think, or recommend that the EJ Division and the organizations that are involved with EJ, needs to include
some sort of MARKER SYSTEM f the SUPER FUND and Non-Priority SUPER FUND SITES, similar to the National
Register of Historic Places - so that the people in our communities, what's left of them can know that regular folks
like Chicago's Hazel JOHNSON arose to the occasion to help her community and thereby STRENGTHENED the
HUMANITARIAN Conscience f our government (local, state and federal). People like her and others should NOT be
forgotten.
B.) As is true, that former president NIXON'S Administration as, I understand help to implement the EPA and those
with different persuasion need to be reminded "THOUGHT LEADERS" may be a newer term used today, however-
AMERICA is greater because of visionary decision-makers.
C.) And the inclusion of support for those in communities who arrive to inquire / complain / interrogative = about
TOXIC WASTE matters should not be just thrown into the land of the UNKNOWN and be retaliated, vindictively by
local, state and other decision makers who are resistant to helping.
Thank you for these thoughts,
Marvin S. Robinson, II
EJ 2020 Public Comments
1
182
-------
STATE OF MARYLAND
Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities
Vernice Miller-Travis,
Vice Chair
Miller-Travis & Associates
Andrew Fellows, Vice Chair
Clean Water Action
Senator Victor Ramirez
Senate
Kenneth C. Holt,
MD Department of Housing and
Community Development
Secretary David R. Craig
MD Department of Planning
Secretary Peter K. Rahn
MD Department of Transportation
Secretary R. Michael Gill
MD Department of Business and
Economic Development
Secretary Van T. Mitchell,
MD Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene
Secretary Benjamin H. Grumbles,
MD Department of the Environment
Richard Fairbanks
Baltimore City Resident
Larissa Johnson,
University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science
Stephan Levitsky,
Locust Point Resident
Director of Sustainability, American
Sugar Refining, Inc.
Merrick Moise
Companions of the Incarnation
Dr. Laurence Polsky,
Calvert County Health Department
John Quinn,
BGE
Dr. Lesliam Quiros Alcala,
UMD School of Public Health
Rebecca Rehr,
MD Environmental Health Network
Benoy Thomas,
Washington, D.C., Children and
Family Services Agency
Charles Lee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Justice
July 6, 2015
Dear Mr. Lee,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on EPA's Draft EJ 2020 Action
Agenda Framework. The Maryland Commission on Environmental Justice and
Sustainable Communities (CEJSC) analyzes and reviews what impact State laws,
regulations, and policy have on the equitable treatment and protection of communities
threatened by development or environmental pollution, and determines what areas in the
State need immediate attention. Moreover, the Commission assesses the adequacy of
statutes to ensure environmental justice, and develops criteria to pinpoint which
communities need sustaining. We commend the EPA for monumental efforts towards
achieving environmental justice (EJ) and the EJ 2020 Framework represents one more
step in this process. We have the following comments for you to consider as you move
forward:
As you consider EJ in EPA permitting, consider issuing guidance for states.
Maryland has long attempted to incorporate EJ into permitting, without success.
Federal guidance may help in these efforts.
As you advance EJ through compliance and enforcement, consider providing
financial assistance for states to do the same.
As you enhance science tools for considering environmental justice in decision-
making, hold EPA accountable for finalizing their Framework for Cumulative
Risk Assessment, which has been in draft format since 2003. Further, until there
are concrete methods, the EPA should issue guidance on how to consider
cumulative impact in decision-making. We know that real world exposure
happens through many pathways and many chemicals at once, and throughout a
lifetime. While the EPA has done a fine job explaining why it is important to
consider cumulative impacts, it has not issued guidance on how.
As you seek to engage business and industry, consider supporting states as they
also employ these strategies. The Maryland Department of the Environment is
convening a cumulative impacts working group to convene a diverse group of
stakeholders to find solutions to address cumulative impacts and exposures on
overburdened communities.
Support meaningful community engagement and participation in federal, state,
and local actions.
We look forward, also, to your goals of full implementation of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act, as this is a topic we have taken up as a Commission in the past.
In conclusion, we would also congratulate your office on the recent rollout of EJ
Screen and look forward to an upcoming information session on the tool. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Maryland Commission on Environmental Justice & Sustainable Communities
EJ 2020 Public Comments
Maryland Department of the Environment
1800 Washington Blvd • Baltimore, Maryland 212130
410-537-3812 • 410-537- 3888 (fax)
-------
My 14, 2015
Via electronic mail
Mr. Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Administrator for Environmental Justice
U.S. EPA Headquarters, Mail Code: 2201A
William Jefferson Clinton Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20460
ei strate g v @ epa. gov
Dear Mr. Lee,
The undersigned organizations and individuals submit these comments on the
Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") draft Environmental Justice ("EJ") 2020 Action
Agenda Framework ("Draft Framework"). We appreciate the EPA's commitment to continuing
its efforts to address environmental justice in the United States and we believe that, through its
actions over the next five years, EPA has the ability to assist Maryland and other states to more
effectively address environmental injustice within their borders. Specifically, EPA can provide
this assistance in the following ways:
1. Assisting states and other stakeholders to identify overburdened communities
by developing publicly available community-level datasets for important
health outcomes, such as asthma and low birth weight, and by incorporating
updated information from the National Air Toxics Assessment into the
EJSCREEN tool;
2. Encouraging the collection of accurate ambient air quality data in
overburdened communities at the appropriate scale or unit of analysis;
3. Developing tools for addressing environmental justice in permitting by
providing a method to conduct cumulative impacts analyses, providing a
method for assessing local effects of mobile source pollution, providing
guidance on translating health impacts analyses into improvements for
communities, and encouraging meaningful public participation in state
permitting decisions; and
4. Encouraging greater public access to environmental information.
I. Summary of Environmental Justice Efforts In Maryland
Addressing environmental injustice in Maryland is a major priority for the undersigned
groups and individuals. Citizens throughout the state deserve the right to healthy communities
where residents can breathe clean air, grow food in soil free from contamination, and access
1
EJ 2020 Public Comments
184
-------
clean water for drinking and recreation. However, certain communities in Maryland are located
near a disproportionate number of polluting facilities. For example, the industrialized
neighborhoods near the Port of Baltimore have long been home to a large number of polluting
facilities and are exposed to pollution from mobile sources like passenger cars, tracks, trains, and
ships. When viewed in light of the City's socio-economic straggles and high asthma rates, as
discussed in more detail below, this raises serious concerns about the need for truly clean and
sustainable development in these areas. Similarly, in the communities located near Sheriff Road
in Prince George's County, citizens have long been requesting state action, including cumulative
impacts review, to address local pollution and respond to high community asthma rates.
Recently, Maryland communities and environmental organizations have been working on
legislation to address the cumulative impacts of multiple air pollution sources on disadvantaged
communities. At the same time, the Maryland Department of the Environment ("MDE") has
responded to community concerns by commencing a cumulative impacts workgroup, to provide
information and obtain stakeholder input. As stated on MDE's website:
Multiple aspects of the environment in which we live, learn, work and play
impact our health. The traditional approach of governmental agencies/policy
makers responsible for protecting public health and the environment is to focus on
one factor at a time. For many years, the State, the environmental justice
movement, civic leaders and local communities have advocated for the
consideration of multiple exposure and cumulative impacts in environmental
policy and decisions.1
Despite the near-unanimous agreement2 by stakeholders in Maryland that it is timely and
important to begin assessing the cumulative impacts of multiple pollution sources on
overburdened communities, the primary challenges to conducting this kind of a review remain
technical in nature. The greatest challenge appears to be the lack of a tool for assessing the
entire health burden, including air, water, and soil pollution as well as socio-economic and other
non-chemical stressors, on individual communities. Advocates in Maryland have established
what we believe to be an appropriate and useful "geographic scoping tool" for identifying
communities in which such a cumulative impacts review should be conducted for air pollution
1 MDE, Cumulative Impact Workgroup,
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/CrossMedia/EnvironmentalJustice/EJinMarylandHome/Pages/Cumulative_l
mpacts . Workgroup.aspx (last visited June 1, 2015).
2 See Cumulative Impacts Bill: Hearing on S.B. 693 Before S. Comm. on Educ., Health and the Env't, 432nd Sess.
(Md. 2015)(statemenl of Dr. Clifford Mitchell, Director of the Environmental Health Bureau in the Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene), available at
http://mgahouse.maryland.gov/house/play/91d5689af8e84c2e965d57062f06b892/7catalog/03e481c7-8a42-4438-
a7da-93ff74bdaa4c&playfrom=24275460. See also Attachment A, Letter of Information from MDE to the
Honorable Maggie Mcintosh and Members of the Environmental Matters Committee (Mar. 5, 2014)(regarding
HB1210, a bill requiring cumulative impacts assessments).
2
EJ 2020 Public Comments
185
-------
permits.3 However, EPA could help us to refine and better this tool by encouraging greater
public access to community-level health and pollution data.
In summary, the EPA can help states like Maryland overcome these challenges by
providing technical tools and guidance that address gaps and by providing incentives or
requirements for states to take action to protect overburdened communities.
II. EPA Should Assist States and Other Stakeholders to Identify Overburdened
Communities
One of the challenges in our experience crafting cumulative impacts legislation has been
developing a method of identifying overburdened communities. This is an essential piece of any
plan to address environmental injustice in the real world, in which state and federal agencies
have limited resources to devote to environmental protection. Government agencies can use
these limited resources to improve conditions in overburdened communities by providing
additional protections or enhanced public participation opportunities in the permitting process
and by prioritizing inspections and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with
environmental laws. State and federal agencies can also prioritize granting other benefits in
overburdened communities, including green jobs opportunities and eligibility for EPA pollution
reduction grants such as under the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA).4 EPA should
provide guidance on how to identify the overburdened neighborhoods in which these resources
are most needed and would provide the greatest benefit.
We very much appreciate that EPA is in the process of making a new mapping tool,
EISCREEN, available to the public and that, within a few years, this tool should provide a
method for some assessment of community exposure to pollution as well as important
demographic information. However, at present, this tool falls short of what is needed to identify
3 This tool identifies overburdened communities, called "protected communities," using the best localized data
available. To be considered a protected community, the area must be a zip code in which the rate of individuals
enrolled in Medicaid or participating in the Women, Infants and Children supplemental food program is above the
state median. Additionally, that zip code must have a life expectancy rate below the state median or a percentage of
low birth weight infants above the state median. Finally, in order for the state to conduct a cumulative impacts
analysis on an overburdened community, a new or modified facility must be either a minor or major source of air
pollution seeking an air permit to construct and within XA or 1 mile, respectively, of a school, child care facility,
elderly care center or community recreation center. See H.B. 987,431st Sess. (Md. 2014), available at
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2015RS/bills/hb/hb0987F.pdf. While the indicators in this tool do not directly relate to
air pollution, they are important in that they are stressors that reduce one's ability to respond to or recover from
additional exposure to chemical stressors.
4 EPA can also work with the Interagency Workgroup on Environmental Justice to make sure that other federal
agencies contribute resources that address environmental injustice and environmental health disparities in
overburdened communities. This could be helpful to agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Sustainable Communities Program within the
Department of Health and Human Services. For example, it could help DOT to identify where to focus mitigation
efforts for communities who live near heavily trafficked roadways or communities in Baltimore impacted by goods
movement activities near the Port.
3
EJ 2020 Public Comments
186
-------
the communities on which agencies should focus limited resources. As an initial matter, EPA
notes that the tool should be used only as a first step in the process of identifying environmental
justice communities.5 While we understand that there may be political pressure for EPA to avoid
providing a method of identifying environmental justice communities, we believe that it is
essential that EPA use its technical expertise to provide agencies and the public with some
method - be it a mapping tool or written guidance -of identifying overburdened communities.
Some of the undersigned groups expect to submit more detailed comments on
EJSCREEN during the comment period on that tool. However, below we briefly discuss two
ways in which EPA could fill existing information gaps and improve EJSCREEN.
A. EPA Should Help to Develop Community-Level Datasets for Important Health
Outcomes like Asthma and Low Birth Weight
A key information gap that we encountered in our work on cumulative impacts
legislation in Maryland is also a data gap in EPA's EJSCREEN tool. This gap is the lack of
community-level and community-specific data on health conditions that increase individual
vulnerability to pollution. In Maryland, data on asthma rates is publicly available at the county
level only.6 Thus, when trying to evaluate the Maryland neighborhoods that would most benefit
from reduced air pollution, the public is in the dark with respect to one of the most important
indicators of population sensitivity to air pollution. As an example, California, which has the
most advanced "screening tool" in the country for identifying environmentally stressed
communities, uses zip code level data on asthma emergency department visits, reapportioned to
census tract-level data, as one of two health indicators of sensitive populations (the other is low
birth weight).7 However, such a tool could not be implemented in Maryland because of the lack
of publically available asthma data.
The dearth of community-level information on asthma is especially concerning to
residents and advocates in Maryland because the data that are available show that Maryland's
asthma rates are higher than national averages,8 and that the highest rates occur in Baltimore
City, which has a number of socio-economically distressed communities.9 According to the
most recent state report on asthma, Baltimore City has the highest asthma rates in the state as
5 EPA, EJSCREEN Environmental Justice Screening Tool, available at
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014- 10/documents/ejscreen_102914.pdf.
6 The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) has represented that it possesses sub-county
level data on asthma but that this information has not been made available to the public due to privacy concerns.
7 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), California Communities Environmental
Health Screening Tool, Version 2.0 (CalEnviroScreen 2.0) Guidance and Screening Tool at 99-100, October 2014,
available at http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/pdf/CES2QFinalReportUpdateOct2Q14.pdf.
8U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Asthma in Maryland, http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/stateprofiles/asthma_in_md.pdf
(last visited May 26, 2015).
9 See generally Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance, Vital Signs 13: Work Force and Economic
Development (Spring 2015), available at http://bniajfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/VS13_Workforce.pdf. The
Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance also has several maps on its website showing concentrations of various
socio-economic stressors in Baltimore City, which you can find at http://bniajfi.org/mapgallery/.
4
EJ 2020 Public Comments
187
-------
measured by emergency department visit rates (the Baltimore City rate is almost three times the
state average), average mortality from asthma (the Baltimore City rate is over twice the state
average), and current prevalence in adults.10
There are also data gaps with respect to information on low birth weight in Maryland.
While information is available on rates of babies bom at low birth weight for zip codes with a
population of 5,000 or more, this information is not available for zip codes where the population
does not meet this threshold." This population threshold effectively excludes many rural areas
from any analysis that requires low birth weight data.
It is extremely important that local-level data on key health outcomes be included in any
tool that effectively identifies overburdened communities. If the tool or method is assessing
health effects of air pollution, then the availability of data on asthma - which dramatically
increases a population's susceptibility to air pollution12 - is especially critical, particularly for
health disparity populations. We understand that this information may currently be omitted from
EJSCREEN because that tool incorporates only nationally consistent datasets. If the lack of
nationally consistent local data on asthma and low birth weight is the reason that these indicators
are not used in EJSCREEN, then we urge EPA to work with partners to develop such nationally
consistent datasets. In addition, we also request that EPA (1) encourage the gathering and
compilation of community-level data on key indicators of community health, including asthma
and low birth weight; (2) encourage state and federal health agencies to make this data publicly
available; and (3) incorporate this data into EJSCREEN.
B. EPA Should Incorporate Information from the National Air Toxics
Assessment ("NATA") Into EJSCREEN As Soon as Possible and
Keep This Information Up to Date
We were pleased to learn during EPA's recent webinar on EJSCREEN that, in 2016, EPA
will be incorporating into EJSCREEN information from an important resource: EPA's National
Air Toxics Assessment ("NATA"). NATA, which allows assessment of health risks from toxic
air pollution at the census tract level, is the only nationally available resource of which we are
aware that allows any direct assessment of the effect of air emissions on community health.13
10 Maryland DHMH. Asthma in Maryland 2011 at 62 (August 2011), available at
http://phpa.dhmh.rnaryland.gov/rnch/Docurnents/AsthmaJn_Maryland-201 l.pdf.
11 For more information about availability of data on low birth weights, please see DHMH's page on Health
Enterprise Zones at http://dhmh.maryland.gov/healthenterprisezones/SitePages/elligibility.aspx.
12 American Lung Association, Making the Connection - Asthma and Air Quality (May 1, 2013)
http://www.lung.org/about-us/our-impact/top-stories/making-the-connection-asthma-and-air-quality.html (last
visited June 2, 2015); see also EPA, Asthma and Outdoor Air Pollution, available at
http://www.epa.gov/ainiow/asthma-flyer.pdf.
13 EPA, National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), http://www.epa.gov/airtoxics/natamain/ (last visited May 26,
2015).
5
EJ 2020 Public Comments
188
-------
It is important that NATA information be as current as possible. The most recent
available version of NATA was produced in 2011 and uses emissions information from 2005.
Up until 2011, EPA was updating NATA every three years, each time using data that is
approximately six years old. We understand, and greatly appreciate, that EPA is planning to
publicly release the next NATA update early in the fall of 2015, using 2011 emissions data
(instead of the older set of 2008 emissions data).14 We strongly urge EPA to hold to its projected
timetable for updating NATA (early fall of 2015) and incorporating it into EJSCREEN (2016)
due to the important and unique nature of the information provided by this tool. We also
respectfully request that, after this information is incorporated into EJSCREEN, EPA continue to
keep the NATA information as current as possible by updating it based on the most recent
available emissions information from the National Emissions Inventory.
III. EPA Should Encourage the Collection of Accurate Ambient Air Quality Data In
Overburdened Neighborhoods
As stated above, once overburdened communities are identified, state and federal
agencies will know in which communities they might focus limited resources. One critical,
though sometimes expensive, resource that can be allocated to overburdened communities is
ambient air quality monitors. Ambient air quality data is the basis for many important decisions,
including the kinds of air pollution controls required at new or expanding local plants. EPA
should take steps to encourage additional ambient air quality monitoring in overburdened
communities and should ensure that this data is of sufficient quality to be considered by
regulators and other decision makers.
Many communities in areas where pollution sources are clustered close together have no
information at all about the concentrations of pollution in their air because there are no air
quality monitors in these neighborhoods. For example, in Maryland, the industrialized Curtis
Bay community in Baltimore City has a zip code (21226) that repeatedly ranks as the top zip
code in the state for industrial plant emissions when using EPA emissions databases. Using the
2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), this zip code has the highest emissions in Maryland
for fine particles (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides (NO*), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and
ammonia, and it is in the top three zip codes in the state for emissions of carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and coarse particulate matter (PM10). It is also consistently the top zip code in the
state, and among the top 85 zip codes (top 1 %) in the country, for point source toxic emissions
using EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and subject to significant traffic from sources of
diesel exhaust such as trucks and trains. Yet a fine particle monitor located in this zip code was
removed in 2008 and the closest state-run air quality monitor is now over four miles from the
Curtis Bay community.
14 We received this information via a May 27, 2015 email from Ted Palma in EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS).
EJ 2020 Public Comments
189
-------
This is also the case in the Sheriff Road community in Prince George's County,
Maryland. This community exists across the street from an industrial park in which three or more
crushers operate and from which hundreds of tracks make trips on a weekly basis. The local
health department conducted a survey of the residents in the area and found that approximately
20% had asthma, which is double the state average of adults who had asthma in 2009.15
Residents of this area have been requesting state assistance since at least 2006 to limit the
number of polluting facilities sited in this area or provide enhanced review of new proposals.
The closest air quality monitor to this neighborhood is also approximately four miles from the
community.
We understand and appreciate that EPA is beginning to address the need for additional
ambient air monitoring through its Next Generation ("NextGen") Monitoring program, under
which it is developing new sensor technology that could possibly be used by citizens to gather
their own data. Promotion of citizen science is important, and we applaud EPA for this effort.
However, it is our understanding that much of the sensor technology being considered in the
NextGen Monitoring program may not produce data that decision-makers will consider reliable.
It is critical that communities that spend time and resources on a citizen air quality monitoring
project are not left, at the end of the project, with data that will be quickly dismissed by decision-
makers. This is of particular concern in the context of fine particle pollution, for which small
differences in concentrations can have significant health effects,16 yet EPA's current monitoring
requirements are very complex, indicating that it may be difficult for citizens to gather accurate
data.17
Additionally, it is important that EPA not abdicate its responsibilities by means of citizen
monitoring. It is the job of the EPA, state agencies, and local governments to protect the health
and safety of the US population, particularly overburdened communities and citizens. It is not
the job of residents of overburdened communities to do this. These citizens already bear many
burdens including pollution and non-chemical stressors. The over-utilization of citizen scientists
may lead to more social inequities and injustice for those overburdened, underserved, and in
many cases with less power and voice.
EPA's goal should be to help communities gather data that reflects the quality of the air
that residents are breathing and on which officials can rely when making decisions. It would be
ideal if it were possible to do this using emerging and inexpensive technology. However, if it is
necessary to increase the more expensive, regulatory-grade monitoring in order to obtain
accurate information on the quality of the air in overburdened communities, then EPA should
15 U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Asthma in Maryland, available at
http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/stateprofiles/asthma_in_md.pdf.
16 See C. Arden Pope et al, Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-Term Exposure to Fine Particulate
Air Pollution, 287 JAMA 1132 (2002).
17 See e.g. 40 C.F.R. 40 Part 50, Appendix L.
7
EJ 2020 Public Comments
190
-------
encourage or require this, especially if limited resources for monitoring can be focused on
communities that are overburdened with air pollution and have poor health outcomes.
As an example, the EPA recently expanded the network of NOi monitors across the
country near heavily trafficked roadways. The EPA should consider doing the same for
overburdened communities with federal reference method monitors for PM2.5. Since many
communities are impacted by multiple pollutants, it would be helpful if the EPA made provisions
to site multi-pollutant monitors that can measure both criteria air pollutants and select hazardous
air pollutants, such as those captured by the TRI database.
IV. EPA Should Develop Tools for Addressing Environmental Justice in Permitting
In the Draft Framework, EPA proposes to "consider environmental justice in EPA
permitting." As an initial matter, we strongly urge EPA not to limit the scope of this objective to
EPA permits. In Maryland, and many other areas of the country, state agencies issue permits for
almost all polluting facilities pursuant to authority from EPA. Therefore, EPA should consider
its relationship with states to be a critical piece of this objective and should issue guidance or
requirements on environmental justice in permitting that can be followed by states. In addition,
below we suggest four specific and concrete ways in which EPA can further this goal. The first
is by developing a method for conducting a "cumulative impacts analysis," i.e. an analysis of the
combined effects on a community of a proposed pollution increase when combined with existing
chemical and non-chemical stressors affecting that community. The second involves fixing an
important gap in current air pollution permitting requirements by providing a method for
assessing the local health effects of mobile source pollution associated with a new or expanding
facility. The third is by issuing guidance on how health effects assessments can be translated into
concrete improvements for communities. The fourth is by encouraging meaningful public
participation in state permitting decisions.
A. EPA Should Provide a Method for Conducting a Cumulative Impacts Analysis
' 1 n i > ulliiiiliiiiu&uj n
The most significant challenge in developing a strategy to protect overburdened
communities in Maryland has been in determining how to measure the impacts of a particular
proposed action in combination with other chemical and non-chemical stressors that affect the
same community. Ideally, this method would allow an agency to consider the entire pollution
load from a new or expanding facility for all media (air, water, and soil pollution) when
combined with existing pollution across all media (air, water, and soil) and all non-chemical
stressors, such as poverty and health outcomes that increase sensitivity to pollution. EPA has not
prescribed any method for conducting this assessment and a constant refrain in the Maryland
legislative process over the past year has been that "the science does not yet exist."18 We urge
18 Attachment A at 1.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
8
191
-------
EPA to be a champion in this area and to develop the science on cumulative exposure, effects,
impacts, and risk.
While we recognize that conducting a multi-media analysis is extremely complicated, we
request that EPA develop guidance for analyzing cumulative impacts from air pollution, which -
in the absence of drinking water contamination - most accurately illustrates real-world exposures
particularly for vulnerable, overburdened, and health disparity populations, and most directly and
predictably affects human health. This guidance could be applied most easily in overburdened
communities as a supplement to the New Source Review program under the Clean Air Act. The
New Source Review program already requires an ambient impacts analysis for new "major"
sources or "major" expansions of existing facilities. However, EPA's guidance should provide a
method for analyzing the potential combined effect of all air pollutants that will be produced by a
new or expanding facility, in contrast to the current practice of analyzing individual pollutants
one at a time. It should also provide a method for considering the proposed new air pollution
burden in combination with existing pollution from major sources, minor sources, and pollution
from mobile sources like cars and tracks.19 Finally, the guidance should explain how to account
for existing non-chemical stressors, such as race/ethnicity, high crime rates, poor food access,
limited medical infrastructure, segregation, and poverty, in the analysis.
B. EPA Should Provide a Method for Assessing Local Effects of Mobile Source
Emissions in Permitting
In the absence of guidance on conducting a full cumulative impacts analysis for air
pollution, EPA can still help to fill in key gaps in permitting of new air pollution sources.
Mobile sources, such as trucks, trains, and ships, produce the same pollutants that are emitted by
many large power plants. In addition, mobile sources frequently produce diesel pollution, which
contains significant levels of fine particles" and was recently recognized by the World Health
Organization as being more carcinogenic than second-hand cigarette smoke." However, under
the Clean Air Act, agencies may issue permits for new or expanded industrial sources without
including almost all mobile source emissions22 in air quality assessments.23 In other words,
19 We recognize that this kind of an analysis is required at times, but a full ambient impacts analysis involving
modeling is required only after a number of different thresholds have been met, it is never required for minor
sources or "synthetic minor" sources, and, most importantly, it is still performed on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis
without considering the effects of other pollutants emitted by the same facility.
20 EPA Region I, Diesel Exhaust and Your Health, at http://www.epa.gov/regionl/eco/diesel/health_effects.html
(last visited May 26, 2015).
21 McNeil, Jr., Donald J., W.H.O. Declares Diesel Fumes Cause Lung Cancer, New York Times (June 12, 2012),
available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/health/diesel-fumes-cause-lung-cancer-who-says.html.
22 There is law requiring that certain ship emissions must be considered in New Source Review.
See e.g. EPA New Source Review Workshop Manual ("NSR Manual") at A. 18 ("As a result of a court decision in
NRDC v. EPA, 725 F.2d 761 (D.C. Circuit 1984), emissions from vessels at berth ("dockside") [sic] not to be
included in the determination of secondary emissions but are considered primary emissions for applicability
purposes."). However, we have never seen these considered in any permit reviews.
"3 40 C.F.R. §52.21.
9
EJ 2020 Public Comments
192
-------
when an agency permits a new facility, it must undertake some evaluation of the air pollution
from the facility itself, but it is not required to consider in any way the effects on nearby
communities of diesel trucks and trains that serve that new plant no matter how many track and
train trips may be required for the plant's operation.
In recent conversations with Maryland state agencies, we were informed that, even if
assessment of mobile source pollution were legally required in permitting, it would be
impossible to model the local impacts of mobile sources because of air quality modeling
limitations. We respectfully request that EPA, under Sections LB (permitting) and ID (scientific
tools) of the Draft Framework, develop a tool or methodology for including mobile source
pollution in the air quality analyses required under the Clean Air Act New Source Review
program. While we recognize that this is not legally required, this tool should be available to
agencies that desire to perform such an analysis for permits where significant additional mobile
source pollution is proposed in already overburdened and/or unhealthy communities.
C. EPA Should Provide Guidance on Translating Health Impacts Analyses into
Improvements for Communities
EPA should also provide guidance on how to use the data and conclusions obtained from
the impacts assessments described above into improvements for communities. This guidance
should include suggestions for incorporating the results of a cumulative impacts analysis into the
permit for the new or modified facility to reduce its adverse effect on the neighborhood.
Suggested permit improvements should include reductions in emissions and methods for
mitigating negative effects of pollution. Permit conditions could also include methods for
reducing pollution from diesel trucks, dirt roads, and dust-producing equipment, like crushers.
D. EPA Should Encourage Meaningful Public Participation in State Permitting
Decisions
The minimum requirements for public participation under environmental statutes often
fall short of providing overburdened communities with a meaningful opportunity to participate in
agency permitting decisions. For example, the Clean Air Act provides that citizens may request
a public hearing on a permit for a new pollution source and may submit written comments on the
state's proposed permit conditions.24 However, citizens frequently do not learn about these
opportunities because written notices are published in the back of a newspaper and sent to a list
of people who previously requested, in writing, to receive permit notices. This has proven
insufficient to provide real-world notice to communities about projects of interest in Maryland in
a number of instances.
24 40 C.F.R. §51.161; 40 C.F.R. Part 124.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
10
193
-------
We appreciate the guidance that EPA has issued on promoting environmental justice and
ensuring meaningful community engagement in the permitting process." Specifically, EPA has
correctly acknowledged that residents and permit applicants often both benefit when an applicant
goes above and beyond minimum requirements to provide information in a way that is accessible
to the community and to obtain input from multiple community stakeholders." Unfortunately,
we have seen very few, if any, instances in Maryland in which any of EPA's recommendations
for enhanced public participation have been adopted. Therefore, we encourage EPA to use its
oversight authority and other incentives to encourage states to promote these participation
techniques when they issue permits.
V. EPA Should Encourage Greater Public Access to Environmental Information
Communities cannot meaningfully participate in official decision-making without access
to relevant information. In Maryland, it is sometimes difficult to obtain public documents from
the various state and local agencies that have information related to environmental matters.
Public records requests are sometimes ignored or unfulfilled for months, associated fees are
prohibitively expensive, or responses are produced in paper format when electronic documents
are available.
While Maryland recently passed legislation that may address some of these issues, EPA
should provide additional assistance by developing guidance on how states can increase
transparency and provide the public with better access to information. Such guidance could,
among other things, encourage states to make important documents and environmental data
available online and to provide fee waivers when overburdened communities seek environmental
information under public records laws. Specifically, the EPA could require as part of the Title ¥
and New Source Review permitting process that application documents and draft permits be
available online. Either the delegated state or the applicant could maintain the website containing
these materials. This requirement would supplement the current requirement that permit
applications and draft permit materials must be available at a public location.27 In addition,
considering that overburdened communities may be identified based on socio-economic need, it
is unlikely that such a community would be able to pay significant, if any, fees for information.
Fee waivers should, therefore, be granted for environmental information when the materials
requested will benefit the entire community.
A community cannot participate in public review processes in a meaningful way if it does
not have adequate access to information about the subject of a permit or regulation. EPA should
25 See e.g. EPA Activities to Promote Environmental Justice in the Permit Application Process, 77 Fed. Reg. 38051
(June 26, 2012), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2Q12/Q6/26/2Q12-l56Q5/epa-activities-to-
promote-environmental-justice-in-the-permit-application-process.
Id.
2140 C.F.R. §51.161.
11
EJ 2020 Public Comments
194
-------
issue guidance that will assist states in providing the public with increased access to this
information.
VI. Environmental Justice in Land Use
While the EPA has compiled a list of laws that could be used to address EJ in land use
legislation, it would be more useful for EPA to compile suggestions for incorporating EI into
land use laws. For example, the Sheriff Road community mentioned above challenged a zoning
decision which allowed the construction of a concrete batch plant. As part of the decision, the
county agreed that the new facility would not have a negative effect on "the neighborhood."
However, the defined "neighborhood" did not include any residents in the area, even though
some homes were located a little over 500 feet from the site of the proposed facility. EPA could
provide guidance that, if implemented, would ensure that communities are considered in land use
decisions.
VII. Conclusion
Through our collective experiences, we have come to identify some of the more difficult
challenges in addressing environmental justice policy. Our comments reflect that experience and
respectfully request that EPA take a leadership role in addressing these obstacles. Thank you for
considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Progressive Cheverly
2309 Belleview Ave
Cheverly, Maryland 20785
http://www.progressivecheverly.org/
Thelma Boyd-Nash
Larry Bannerman
Turner Station Conservation Teams, Inc.
Baltimore County, Maryland
https://sites.google.com/site/tumerstationconservationteams/
Gregory Sawtell
Leadership Organizer
United Workers and Free Your Voice
2640 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
12
EJ 2020 Public Comments
195
-------
Dante M. de Tablan
Executive Director
The Ben Franklin Center for Community Schools
1201 Cambria Street, Room 104
Baltimore, Maryland 21225
Dr. Sacoby Wilson
Assistant Professor
Epidemiology and Biostatistics
Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health
School of Public Health
University of Maryland - College Park
255 Campus Dr.
College Park, Maryland 20740
Dan Smith
Public Policy & Advocacy Director
Anacostia Watershed Society
The George Washington House
4302 Baltimore Avenue
Bladensburg, Maryland 20710-1031
Tim Whitehouse
Executive Director
Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility
325 East 25th Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Rebecca Ruggles
Director
Maryland Environmental Health Network
2 East Read Street, 2nd Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Emily Eisenrauch
Staff Attorney
Environmental Law Clinic
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
500 W. Baltimore Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Andrew Galli
Maryland Program Coordinator
Clean Water Action
1120 North Charles Street, Suite 415
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
13
EJ 2020 Public Comments
196
-------
Josh Tulkin
State Director
Maryland Sierra Club
7338 Baltimore Avenue #102
College Park, Maryland 20740
Leah Kelly
Attorney
Environmental Integrity Project
1000 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
EJ 2020 Public Comments
14
197
-------
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Melvin M. Lusterio
Friday, April 17, 20
ejstrategy
Comment on Draft EJ2020 AAF
>
Dear EPA admin,
The Good Force be with you!
The Draft EJ2020 Action Agenda Framework must conform to God's plan which is Paradise Regained ( e.g.
Planting more Paradise Garden Flowers on parks & recreational areas, planting of fruit-bearing trees on
uncultivated lands, a sustainable cleaner protected environment, free water of life & more...). By doing these,
we are going to have a safer & abundant environment for us & for our children's future.
Live forever & prosper! Alleluia! Amen!
Truly yours,
Melvin "Yahweh" M. Lusterio
*
u
EJ 2020 Public Comments
1
198
-------
BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
TIM JACOBSON
President
Boscobel
ARLEN CHRISTENSON
Founding President
Madison
DAN COLLINS
Treasurer
Milwaukee
JIM GOODMAN
Worse woe
DANIEL IDZIKQWSKI
Milwaukee
WILLIAM H. LYNCH
Milwaukee
HELEN SARAKINOS
Madison
MELISSA SCAN LAN
Founder
Norwich, VT
KELLY PARKS SNIDER
Madison
GORDON STEVENSON
Secretary
Black Earth
STEPHANIE TAI
Madison
STAFF
KIMBERLEE WRIGHT
Executive Director
BETSY LAWTON
Senior Counsel
TRESSIE KAMP
Staff Attorney
JIMMY PARRA
Staff Attorney
SARAH WILLIAMS
Staff Attorney
STACY HARBAUGH
Communications and
Outreach Coordinator
JODI HABUSH SINYKIN
Of Counsel
COMMUNITY
1!H
Midwest
Environmental
Advocates
G /M idwestE nvi ro ri m enta lAd vocates
Q IM idwest Advocate
July 14, 2015
Office of Environmental Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 2822T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Via email: ejstrategy@epa.gov
Re: Comment on Draft Framework for Environmental Justice 2020
Midwest Environmental Advocates (MEA) appreciates the opportunity to submit
comments to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regarding the draft
framework for Environmental Justice 2020 (EJ 2020). MEA is a non-profit
environmental law center in Madison, Wisconsin, that provides legal and
technical assistance to communities and families working for clean air, clean
water, and clean government. MEA supports EJ 2020's use of environmental
justice principles to improve the health of our communities and the environment,
and we applaud the framework's commitment to work with state partners to
ensure better results for overburdened communities like tribal nations.
I. The EPA's commitment to centering environmental justice in
policymaking and enforcement will help communities facing threats to
their health and groundwater.
First, the EPA should deepen its commitment to centering environmental justice
in enforcement and policymaking decisions by protecting the health of
communities experiencing environmental degradation. The EJ 2020 draft
framework includes the goal of "demonstrating progress on outcomes that matter
to overburdened communities," specifically by using enforcement and compliance
actions to advance environmental justice goals. Draft Framework at 2. The EPA
has described health and sustainability as two central elements of "environmental
justice." See Plan EJ 2014 at 2. Communities in Wisconsin and across the country
share these goals of health and sustainability, and the EPA's commitment to them
can lead to incredible results.
One such community is Kewaunee County in northeastern Wisconsin, whose
water supply is under threat from agricultural pollution from concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs). Kewaunee County currently has the highest cattle
density, the highest CAFO density, and the second-highest number of CAFO
EJ 2020 Public Comments 199
-------
animal units in the state of Wisconsin. See Petition for Emergency Action Pursuant to the Safe
Drinking Water Act, from Midwest Environmental Defense Council et al to the EPA, October
22, 2014, at 4. These CAFOs have become a substantial risk to public health in Kewaunee
County as manure contaminates the groundwater with nitrates and bacteria like E. coli. See id., at
7-22.
Although local authorities have failed to protect Kewaunee County's water, the EPA's
environmental justice mission can make the difference that state authorities have not. Under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA), the EPA has the authority to pursue a wide range of remedies
to protect public health, such as orders to modify manure application processes, modify waste
storage practices, or halt the disposal of pollutants contributing to the public health risk. See EPA
Memorandum, Final Guidance on Emergency Authority under Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (Sept. 27, 1991). In 2014, MEA partnered with Kewaunee County citizens and
activists to petition the EPA to use its SDWA authority to protect Kewaunee County's water and
health. Cases like Kewaunee County show the powerful potential of the EPA's commitment to
environmental justice principles.
II. By strengthening the EPA's commitment to working with Native partners, EJ 2020
can lead to more robust protection for tribal nations and surrounding non-Native
communities.
A key part of the EJ 2020 framework is the effort to strengthen the EPA's relationship with tribal
nations. The draft framework calls for a commitment to the well-being of "overburdened
communities," including Native communities, and repeatedly lists tribal nations as an important
partner for EPA action. See EJ 2020 Draft Framework at 2-3.
A renewed focus on the environmental well-being of tribal nations would be particularly
meaningful in Wisconsin, where Native nations have repeatedly faced threats to their water, their
health, and their economies. Most recently, a proposed swine CAFO in Northern Wisconsin
would house over 26,000 swine near the shores of Lake Superior. Lee Bergquist, Proposed Hog
Megafarm Causes a Stir in Bayfield County, MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL, June 27,
2015. Many residents, particularly local tribes, raised concerns about the impact this proposed
CAFO would have on the drinking water, specifically citing the potential for algae blooms from
phosphorus runoff. Id.
Citing tribal concerns about the size of the CAFO and its proximity to drinking water, the EPA
agreed to review the draft permit for the proposed CAFO. This review is an example of how an
environmental justice framework translates to tangible results. By listening to tribes, and
centering Native communities in the analysis of environmental justice, the EPA is taking action
to protect Wisconsin water and Wisconsin communities. Making this framework central to our
analysis will lead to a sharper focus and quicker action on the environmental threats that
communities like Wisconsin tribes face.
2
EJ 2020 Public Comments
200
-------
MEA thanks the EPA for the opportunity to comment on EJ 2020. MEA supports the principles
contained in the draft framework and looks forward to translation of these principles into action
and results for communities in Wisconsin and across the country.
Sincerely,
/s/
Evan Gorelick
Midwest Environmental Advocates
Law Clerk
612 W. Main Street, Suite 302
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 251-5047 ext 9
EJ 2020 Public Comments
3
201
-------
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brooks, Ned (MPCA)
Tuesday, July 14, 2015 7:11 PM
ejstrategy
EJ 2020 Comments
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on EPA's draft EJ 2020 Framework.
As Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Commissioner John Stine stated in his post to EPA's EJ in Action Blog, addressing
inequities so that all citizens can pursue health and fulfilling lives is one of our most important jobs in public
service. EPA's strong leadership is important and has been influential in helping to strengthen complementary efforts in
Minnesota.
The MPCA is very supportive of EJ 2020 overall and in particular the framework's emphasis on collaboration with states
and other co-regulators. We believe that this will help to further strengthen our individual efforts and our joint work
with EPA. While we share many of the same goals, we bring different strengths and resources to bear that complement
each other.
With respect to Goal II. "Collaborate with partners to expand out impact within overburdened communities," I would
like to acknowledge the benefit of guidance documents, best practices and tools that support our state efforts to
integrate environmental justice into our work and recommend that EPA continue to expand on tools that can facilitate
more comprehensive and deeper work to reduce disparities in exposures, access, health and livability.
I look forward to working with EPA colleagues on this challenge.
Ned Brooks
Environmental Justice Coordinator
651-757-2557
Mwwwta Pollution Control Agency
Our mission is to protect and improve the environment and enhance human health.
l
EJ 2020 Public Comments
202
-------
Moving Forward.
Network
Charles Lee 7/14/2015
Deputy Associate Administrator for Environmental Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
lee.charles@epa.gov
Re: Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework Comment Letter
Dear Mr. Lee:
The Moving Forward Network (the Network) thanks the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for the opportunity to provide comments on EPA's Draft EJ 2020 Framework, and
for extending the deadline for us to do so. We also thank you for providing a webinar on the
Draft EJ 2020 Framework to our members, and for EPA's recent release of EJ Screen—an
important tool for identifying localized cumulative impacts.
The Moving Forward Network is a national coalition of community-based organizations,
advocates, scientists, researchers, faith-based organizations, and others committed to reducing
the public health harms our country's freight transportation system creates. The Network is
comprised of approximately 38 organizations and academics in 18 states, including New York,
New Jersey, California, Illinois, Kansas and Texas, where large ports, rail yards and other freight
corridors reside. Importantly, Network members include individuals who live in and work
directly with environmental justice communities. Accordingly, the Network has a personal stake
in how EPA develops its EJ 2020 plan, and makes the following recommendations:
1. EJ 2020 should identify reducing air pollution from the national freight
transportation system (e.g., ports, rail yards, busy truck corridors and distribution
centers) as a top priority
The Draft Framework (section III.C) requests input on "critical nationwide program areas
that matter to overburdened communities on which [EPA] should focus national attention."
Freight-related air pollution meets this standard. Diesel emissions from our freight system
present a national environmental justice crisis.
Nearly a decade ago, EPA recognized that more than 13 million people (3.5 million of
whom are children) live near major marine ports or rail yards, and that these individuals are
disproportionately low-income communities of color and susceptible to increased health risks
EJ 2020 Public Comments
203
-------
Moving Forward Network
2 | P a g e
from air pollution.1 These figures do not include the approximately 45 million individuals who
live within 300 feet of a highway2 or close to large distribution centers where diesel emission
sources congregate. Moreover, these facilities and corridors are expected to expand in the
coming decades, potentially affecting even more individuals, and contributing to violations of
clean air standards and creating toxic hot spots. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates
that "imports [are] expected to grow more than fourfold and exports expected to grow more than
sevenfold over the next 30 years."3 Ports and industries are investing billions to expand their
infrastructure to accommodate this expected growth.4
Conventional cargo movement relies on diesel powered ships, trucks and trains that emit
dangerous particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides, exposure to which results in a wide range
of adverse health effects, including increased rates of asthma, cardiovascular disease, heart
1 Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2008, March).
Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine
Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder, EPA420-R-08-001, p. 2-57. Retrieved from http://
www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190-0938.
2 See Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), EPA (2015, May 22). Near Roadway Air Pollution and
Health. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nearroadway.htm.
3 Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) (2012, June 20). U.S. Port and Inland
Waterways Modernization: Preparing for Post-Panamax Vessels, p. iii. Retrieved from http://
www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/portswaterways/rpt/
June_20_U.S._Port_and_Inland_Waterways_Preparing_for_Post_Panamax_Vessels.pdf.
4 Ibid, p. xvi.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
204
-------
Moving Forward Network
3 | P a g e
attacks, strokes, premature death, low birth weight, and premature birth.5 In June 2012, the
International Agency for Research on Cancer, a part of the World Health Organization, classified
diesel engine exhaust as carcinogenic to humans after determining that there was "sufficient
evidence that exposure is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer."6 Moreover, major
freight operations are happening in counties that already violate federal clean air standards. The
American Association of Port Authorities has identified nearly 40 U.S. ports that reside in
counties that are in non-attainment of federal ozone and PM 2.5 standards.7
In addition to posing a nationwide environmental justice problem, air pollution from
freight operations would greatly benefit from comprehensive national solutions. EPA is uniquely
positioned to adopt standards that will benefit all communities near freight facilities.
Furthermore, while some states and ports have undertaken meaningful diesel reduction measures,
emissions standards for heavy duty trucks, marine vessels and locomotives often remain outside
the legal authority of states and ports. National standards, therefore, are critical to achieving
5 Kuenzli, N., Jerrett, M., Mack, W.J., Beckerman, B., LaBree, L., Gilliland, F., Thomas, D., and Hodis, H.N.
(2005). Ambient Air Pollution and Atherosclerosis in Los Angeles. Environmental Health Perspective, 113, p.
201-206; Miller, K.A., Siscovick, D.S., Sheppard, L., Shepherd, K., Sullivan, J.H., Anderson, G.L., and Kaufman,
J.D. (2007). Long-term Exposure to Air Pollution and Incidence of Cardiovascular Events in Women. New England
Journal of Medicine 1(356), p. 447-458; Hoffman, B., Moebus, S., Mohlenkamp, S., Stang, A., Lehman, N.,
Dragano, D., Schmermund, A., Memmesheimer, M., Mann, K., Erbel, R. and Jockel, K.H. (2007). Residential
Exposure to Traffic Is Associated With Coronary Atherosclerosis. Circulation, published online. DOI: 10.1161 /
CIRCULATIONAHA. 107693622; Pope, C.A., Muhlestein, J.B., May, H.T., Renlund, D.G., Anderson, J.L., and
Home, B.D. (2006). Ischemic Heart Disease Events Triggered by Short-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air
Pollution. Circulation, 114, p. 2443-2448; Schwartz, J., Slater, D., Larson, T.V., Person, W.E. andKoenig, J.Q.
(1993). Particulate Air Pollution and Hospital Emergency Room Visits for Asthma in Seattle. American Review of
Respiratory Disease, 147, p. 826-831; Jerrett, M., Burnett, R.T., Ma, R., Pope, C.A., Krewski, D., Newbold, K.B.,
Thurston, G., Shi, Y., Finkelstein, N., Calle, E.E. and Thun, M.J. (2005). Spatial Analysis of Air Pollution and
Mortality in Los Angeles. Epidemiology, 16, p. 727-736; Mustafic, H., Jabre, P., Caussin, C., Murad, M.H.,
Escolano, S., Tafflet, M., Perier, M.C., Marijon, E., Vernerey, D., Empana, J.P and Jouven, X. (2012). Main Air
Pollutants and Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical
Association. All Rights Reserved. (JAMA),307(7), p. 713-721; Wellenius, G.A., Burger, M.R., Coull, B.A., Schwartz,
J., Suh, H.H., Koutrakis, P., Schlaug, G., Gold, D.R. and Mittleman, M.A. (2012). Ambient Air Pollution and the
Risk of Acute Ischemic Stroke. Archives of Internal Medicine, 172(3), p. 229-234; Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (2012, August). Understanding Particulate Matter: Protecting Public Health in the San
Francisco Bay Area, Draft. Retrieved from http://www.baaqmd.gOv/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/
Plans/PM%20Planning/UnderstandingPM_Draft_Aug%2023.ashx; Ritz, B., Wilhelm, M. and Zhao, Y. (2000). Air
Pollution and Infant Death in Southern California, 1989-2000. Pediatrics, 118, p. 493-502; Ritz, B., and Wilhelm,
M. (2003). Residential Proximity to Traffic and Adverse Birth Outcomes in Los Angeles County, California, 1994-
1996. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111, p. 207-216; Wilhelm, M., and Ritz, B (2005). Local Variations in CO
and Particulate Air Pollution and Adverse Birth Outcomes in Los Angeles County, California, USA. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 113, p. 1212-1221.
6 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), World Health Organization (WHO) (2012, June 12). 1ARC:
diesel engine exhaust carcinogenic, p. 1. Retrieved from http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2012/pdfs/
pr213_E.pdf.
7 American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) (2013). Port Communities in Non-Attainment Areas for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Retrieved from http://www.aapa-ports.org/Issues/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1278.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
205
-------
Moving Forward Network
4 | P a g e
demonstrable improvements in air quality across the entire country and throughout the national
freight system.
2. EPA can achieve its EJ 2020 Framework goals by identifying freight-related air
pollution as a top priority and undertaking specific actions to curb those emissions
The Draft Framework articulates the following three goals: (1) deepen environmental
justice practice within EPA programs to improve the health and environment of overburdened
communities; (2) collaborate with partners to expand our impact within overburdened
communities; and (3) demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened
communities. The Network supports each of these goals. The following actions will help EPA
achieve each of them within the context of reducing air pollution from the freight transportation
system;
* After identifying freight-related air pollution as a priority in EJ 2020, EPA should direct
each of its ten regions to identify and prioritize actions in communities maximally
exposed to or affected by goods movement-related facilities and activities. EPA's EJ
Screen, a review of recent scientific literature on diesel exhaust, and collaboration with
community partners will be key to this process.
* EPA should foster regular meetings in each region with environmental justice
communities adversely affected by freight-related air pollution, and identify short-term
and long-term goals that address the unique needs of each community while aiming to
clean-up the freight system as a whole.
* EPA should expeditiously begin the rulemaking process for regulations that will directly
reduce emissions from goods movement sources, including but not limited to new engine
standards for locomotives, heavy-duty trucks, ocean-going vessels and cruise ship
terminals. These standards should require the development and widespread use of zero-
emission technologies.
* EPA should ensure states are effectively addressing freight pollution in their state
implementation plans (SIPs). In non-attainment regions heavily impacted by freight
emissions, EPA must ensure that SIPs include all reasonably available control measures
for freight sources.
* EPA should issue guidance on diesel emission reduction measures for freight sources to
facilitate the development and use of zero-emission technologies, and underscore the
importance of reducing such emissions in connection with addressing pollution in
nonattainment areas.
* EPA should advocate for environmental justice, mitigation and transparency in the
permitting process (e.g., NEPA process) for major freight infrastructure projects,
especially for those projects proposed in communities identified as already
disproportionately impacted by freight and/or in nonattainment areas.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
206
-------
Moving Forward Network
5 | P a g e
Over the course of the next year, the Network will be expanding upon each of these
recommendations because of the vital importance of these public health threats facing millions
throughout the nation. Our hope is to forge a long-term partnership with the Agency to tackle
freight pollution once and for all. EJ 2020 provides a ripe opportunity to solidify this
partnership.
Thank you for considering our comments. If you have any questions, please contact
Angelo Logan at alogan@oxy.edu or (213) 258-5157.
Sincerely,
Angelo Logan
Moving Forward Network
Melissa Lin Perrella
Natural Resource Defense Council
Deborah Kim Gaddy
Clean Water Action (NJ)
Jesse Marquez
Coalition for a Safe Environment
Juan Parras
Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services
Eric Kirkendall
Diesel Health Project, Inc.
Jesse N. Marquez
Coalition for a Safe Environment
Bruce Strouble
Citizens for a Sustainable Future, Inc.
Andrea Hricko, MPH
Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California
EJ 2020 Public Comments
207
-------
Moving Forward Network
6 | P a g e
Adrian Martinez
Earthjustice
Martha Matsuoka
Urban & Environmental Policy Institute
Occidental College
David Bensman
Rutgers University School of Management & Labor
Joel Ervice
Regional Asthma Management & Prevention (RAMP)
Howard Page
Steps Coalition
Skip Mikell
Charleston Community Research to Action Board
Humberto Lugo
Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.
Mark Lopez
East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice
Adrian Shelley
Air Alliance Houston
Sylvia Betancourt
Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma
Ana Baptista
The New School
Margaret Gordon
West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project
Penny Newman
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
EJ 2020 Public Comments
208
-------
Moving Forward Network
7 | P a g e
Vernell Cutter
Georgia Research Environmental Economic Network, Inc.
Jessica Hendricks
Global Community Monitor
Gisele Fong
End Oil, Inc.
Rev. Earl W. Koteen
Sunflower Alliance
Saleem Chapman
Clean Air Council
Joseph Delia Fave
Ironbound Community Corporation
Amy Goldsmith
Coalition for Healthy Ports
Rebecca Saldana
Puget Sound Sage
MFN Allies:
Fernando Losada
National Nurses United
Don Anair
Union of Concerned Scientists
Omar Muhammad
Low Country Alliance for Model Communities
Denny Larson
Community Science Center
EJ 2020 Public Comments
209
-------
Moving Forward Network
8 | P a g e
Bahram Fazeli
Communities for a Better Environment
Drew Wood
California Kids IAQ
Ricardo Pulido
Community Dreams
Pastor Alfred Carrillo
Apostolic Faith Center
cc: Matthew Tejada
EJ 2020 Public Comments
210
-------
A strategy for advancing environmental justice, such as EJ 2020 aims to do, must not ignore the millions
locked away in U.S. prisons.
I am writing to tell you I support the comment filed by Human Rights Defense Center's Prison Ecology
Project. Along with the 90 other organizations which signed on to this letter, I ask that you include ask
that the EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework includes language which can ensure that prisoners in this
country receive the protections that are intended under Executive Order 12898 and Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act.
Thank you.
Christina tsao
Elizabeth Jennings
Nicholas Segal-Wright
Separate submissions with the above language were
recieved from the listed individuals.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
211
-------
June 15, 2015
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Lee:
The National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) is writing to provide
comment on the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Justice 2020 Action Agenda
Framework. NACCHO represents the nation's 2,800 local governmental health departments.
These city, county, metropolitan, district, and tribal departments work every day to protect and
promote the health and well-being of all people in their communities.
NACCHO appreciates the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) work to protect the health
and environment of environmentally overburdened, underserved, and economically distressed
communities, as stated in the Environmental Justice (EJ) 2020 Action Agenda Framework.
NACCHO recommends the following in response to the EPA EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework:
1. A uniform community assessment process should be integrated into the framework.
The framework should integrate more community engagement during the initial scoping
stages of a project to help produce tangible action items and solutions that reflect the
priorities of affected communities. Community engagement is especially crucial in
federal projects to ensure integration of local and community priorities. A uniform
community assessment process, such as the Protocol for Assessing Community
Excellence in Environmental Health (PACE-EH), is recommended. The PACE-EH process is
designed to improve decision making by taking a collaborative community-based
approach to generating an action plan that is based on a set of priorities that reflect
both an accurate assessment of local environmental health status and an understanding
of community values and priorities. The philosophy and methodology offered in PACE-
EH incorporates the notion that environmental health is protected and improved most
effectively when it is defined, understood, and acted upon locally.
2. The framework should include on-going mandatory training in environmental justice
practice for all employees agency-wide.
To achieve the intended goals of the EPA EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, it is
important to ensure that mandatory training in environmental justice practice for all
EJ 2020 Public Comments
212
-------
employees agency-wide is provided on an on-going basis. On-going training will ensure
that the future workforce will be well-trained in environmental justice and culturally
competent to work with diverse communities. Cultural competency is a core domain of
the Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals. The Core Competencies reflect
foundational skills desirable for professionals engaging in the practice, education, and
research of public health and help strengthen the public health workforce.
3. The framework should include language about mandating environmental justice
decision-making at the local, state, and national levels to be public and transparent to
affected communities.
Environmental justice decision-making at the local, state, and national levels should be
made public and transparent to affected communities so that analysis of potential
health impacts of policies and activities throughout the process is understood,
minimized, and equitably distributed.
NACCHO appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EPA EJ 2020 Action Agenda
Framework. As an essential governmental public health partner, we look forward to continuing
to work with EPA to realize the goals of the framework. NACCHO's Environmental Health
Committee convenes monthly and would welcome the opportunity to engage in dialogue with
EPA leadership on the framework. If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Li, Director
of Environmental Health, for further information at 202-507-4242 or ili@naccho.org.
Sincerely,
LaMar Hasbrouck, MD, MPH
Executive Director
EJ 2020 Public Comments
213
-------
NACWA
A f. Ir.i* Commitment to America's Waters
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
PRESIDENT
Karen L Pallansch
Chief Executive Officer
Alexandria Renew Enterprises
Alexandria, VA
VICE PRESIDENT
Adel H. Hagekhalil
Assistant Director
Bureau of Sanitation
City of Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA
TREASURER
Raymond J. Marshall
Executive Director
Narragansett Bay Commission
Providence, Rl
SECRETARY
Cathy Gerali
District Manager
Metro Wastewater
Reclamation District
Denver, CO
PAST PRESIDENT
Julius Ciaccia, Jr.
Executive Director
Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District
Cleveland, OH
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Ken Kirk
June 11, 2015
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Justice (22G1-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Lee:
The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) appreciates this
opportunity to provide comments on EPA's draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework.
NACWA is the advocacy voice for the nation's publicly owned wastewater and
stormwater utilities, and our nearly 300 utility members nationwide are working on
the front lines of environmental protection every day to ensure clean water. On
behalf of our members, we are pleased to provide this vital municipal perspective on
the draft Framework and environmental justice (EJ) issues in general.
NACWA members are committed to advancing EJ, and many are already including EJ
considerations in how they manage their utilities and interact with their
communities. This is especially true regarding low income and economically
disadvantaged populations within their service areas. Utilities are also actively
embracing EJ as a central component of the Utility of the Future concept, which is a
blueprint created by the municipal clean water community to encourage more
innovative thinking about how utilities serve their communities. NACWA is
supportive of EPA's EJ efforts and applauds the Agency for proposing the draft EJ
2020 Framework. However, NACWA believes the Framework - and EPA's EJ efforts
overall - must include a greater focus on the very significant financial capability and
affordability challenges that communities all across the nation are facing, especially
low-income urban populations.
Clean water and stormwater utilities will be required to spend hundreds of billions of
dollars in the coming decades to address a variety of clean water challenges
associated with wet weather, nutrients, biosolids management, and stricter water
quality standards. These expenditures are the direct result of federal environmental
mandates under the Clean Water Act (CWA), often implemented as part of federal
consent decrees or enforcement orders. In addition, utilities have an obligation to
operate and maintain current assets - e.g., the necessity to maintain, replace and
upgrade existing infrastructure. These costs are not discretionary as they reflect the
National Association of
Clean Water Agencies —— - _______
1816Jefferson Place, NW p 202.833.2672 f 202.833.4657
Washington DC 20036-2505 www.nacwa.org • mfo^nacwa.org
EJ 2020 Public Comments 214
® ^ wvuui
-------
NACWA Comments on EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
June 11,2015
Page 2 of3
cost of doing business for a utility. As a result, many utilities - especially those with large EJ populations - are
finding it difficult to afford the increased water and sewer rates necessitated by their existing obligations
coupled with new environmental mandates. This is particularly true in the wake of the Great Recession, from
which many communities are still struggling to recover economically.
NACWA raised similar points with EPA in our 2010 comments on the Agency's draft Plan EJ2014. Our
concerns remain as valid today as they were then. However, since 2010, a number of NACWA members have
conducted extensive demographic and economic surveys of their service areas and now have much better data
to quantify the disproportionate impact that rate increases required by CWA mandates are having on
economically distressed EJ populations.
These studies have demonstrated that clean water rates as a percentage of median household income (MHI) -
which is the indicator EPA looks at to determine affordability - can vary widely among segments or individual
communities in a given service area. For instance, one set of data suggested that, while the percentage of MHI
for monthly clean water bills in the top income quintile could range between .74% and 2.98%, the range for the
same bill in the bottom income quintile was between 2.60% and 10.42% of MHI. That is a significant and very
concerning difference in affordability between the top and bottom income brackets, and highlights the
disproportionate economic burdens being placed on economically distressed communities.
NACWA raises this affordability concern not as an excuse to avoid making needed clean water investments, but
instead to emphasize the unfortunate but all too real flip side of federal clean water mandates that many
communities are struggling to address. On the one hand, EPA has indicated the regulatory and enforcement
CWA requirements being imposed on many communities are in part to address environmental concerns
disproportionately impacting EJ populations. But on the other hand, it is those very same EJ populations that
are most often economically distressed and least able to afford the significant rate increases that follow, bearing
a disproportionate percentage of the cost for the overall community.
This is a contradiction with respect to EJ priorities that, NACWA respectfully submits, EPA has not yet resolved.
While EPA has taken important and very helpful steps in recent years to provide communities more flexibility
in meeting CWA requirements through the Integrated Planning Framework and related Financial Capability
Framework - for which NACWA is grateful and applauds the Agency - more work must be done in recognizing
the EJ considerations involved in financial capability and affordability issues. This is particularly true with
respect to requirements around federal consent decrees, which are more often than not the largest single drivers
of large-scale, costly investments by clean water utilities.
Specific to the draft EJ2020 Framework, NACWA suggests two targeted changes that could more directly
incorporate concepts of community financial capability and affordability in the document without altering its
overall intent. First, NACWA recommends that the first goal of the Framework be expanded to read as follows:
"Deepen environmental justice practice within EPA programs to improve the health and environment of
overburdened communities in a manner that recognizes the financial challenges facing economically distressed
populations." (New language in italics). Similarly, NACWA suggests the first bullet under subsection C of the
first goal be reworded as follows: "Continue to advance environmental justice goals comprehensively through
targeting, case development, and resolution of compliance and enforcement actions in overburdened
EJ 2020 Public Comments
215
-------
NACWA Comments on EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
June 11,2015
Page 3 of 3
communities, taking into accountfinancial capability and affordability challenges facing low-income and economically
distressed populations."
Beyond the Framework, NACWA encourages EPA to pursue additional efforts to include financial capability and
affordability concerns for low income populations in the Agency's EJ efforts, especially those created by EPA's
own clean water environmental mandates to local governments. As part of this effort, NACWA strongly
suggests EPA include a representative from the municipal clean water utility community on the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC). Having an individual from this key stakeholder group on
the NEJAC would provide the council with valuable insights from the municipal clean water sector. NACWA
has nominated a number of its members for seats on the NEJAC in recent years, and is hopeful a municipal
utility representative can be seated on the NEJAC soon.
NACWA appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on the draft EJ2020 Framework and
appreciates EPA's effort on EJ issues. If you have any questions about these comments or would like to discuss
them further, please don't hesitate to contact me at ngardner-andrews@nacwa.org or 202/833-3692.
Sincerely,
Nathan Gardner-Andrews
General Counsel
CC: Ken Kopocis, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
EJ 2020 Public Comments
216
-------
Executive Committee
Region 1
Bill Thompson
Chairperson
Penobscot Nation
Region 2
Angela Benedict-Dunn
Secretary
Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
Region 4
Katie Tiger
Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians
Ralph McCullers
Poarch Creek Band of Indians
Region 5
Brandy Toft
Vice-Chairperson
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
Bryan Hoover
Lac Du Flambeau Tribe
Region 6
Craig Kreman
Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma
Jeremy Fincher
Sac and Fox Nation
Region 7
Joseph Painter
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
Matthew Malimanek
Santee Sioux Nation of Nebraska
Region 8
Randy Ashley
Confederated Salish & Kootenai
Tribes
Linda Weeks Reddoor
Fort Peck Assiniboine-Sioux
Tribes
Region 9
Wilfred J. Nabahe
Colorado River Indian Tribe
Region 10
Kevin Greenleaf
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
Twa-le Swan-
Abrahamson
Spokane Tribe
Alaska
Rosalie Kalistook
Treasurer
Orutsararmuit Native Council
Sue Flensburg
Bristol Bay Native Association
May 18, 2015
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460
Subject: NTAA Input on the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Dear Mr. Lee:
The NTAA is a member-based organization with 94 principal member Tribes. The
organization's mission is to advance air quality management policies and programs,
consistent with the needs, interests, and unique legal status of Indian Tribes and
Alaskan Natives. As such, the NTAA uses its resources to support the efforts of all
federally recognized Tribes in protecting and improving the air quality within their
respective jurisdictions. Although the organization always seeks to represent
consensus perspectives on any given issue, it is important to note that the views
expressed by the NTAA may not be agreed upon by all Tribes. Further, it is also
important that EPA understands interactions with the organization do not substitute
for government-to-government consultation, which can only be achieved through
direct communication between the federal government and Indian Tribes.
NTAA generally supports the EPA's recognition of environmental justice (EJ)
concerns within Tribal communities as well as the imperative to ensure fair and
equitable treatment and meaningful involvement of all peoples, particularly
overburdened indigenous communities. Regarding the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda
Framework, NTAA agrees with many of the assertions presented by EPA and the
general need to develop clear EJ protocols. NTAA has provided comments below to
address improvements to the framework to better protect and advance environmental
justice for Tribes communities throughout the nation. NTAA respectfully encourages
EPA to seriously consider and incorporate these several improvements prior to
issuing the final Framework.
NTAA's comments are submitted in an effort to help EPA implement this important
policy.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
217
-------
Specific Guidance for States on Incorporation of EJ Principles in Federal Programs
The Framework's focus is primarily on deepening the practice of EJ within the EPA programs and
offices, and only one section of the Framework addresses EPA's efforts to have other governments
follow the EJ principles. This is a shortcoming because the Framework does not recognize that
most of the implementation of federal environmental laws is done by the States and by Tribes who
have been granted "Treatment as a State" (TAS). We believe that those federal programs that EPA
has approved for other governments to administer should be required to follow the same EJ
principles that EPA would follow if EPA were to administer the program through direct
implementation.
Section II. A is on the topic "Collaborate with states, Tribes, local governments and other co-
regulators to share and develop environmental justice tools and practices." This section of the
Framework expects that collaborating, engaging in joint learning, and sharing with states, Tribes,
and local governments will enhance how those governments integrate EJ into how they administer
their programs. We believe that EPA should take stronger steps to ensure that the federal programs
it approves to be administered by the states and other government partners include clear
requirements to meet the same goals and principles of EJ as EPA follows. By doing so, the agency
can ensure that the Framework indeed meets the stated objective to "advance environmental justice
through [EPA's] programs, policies, and activities."
It is clear that EPA is responsible for administering all of the federal environmental laws nationally
unless a state or Tribe submits a program that meets the federal laws' requirements and EPA's
standards and regulations or is more stringent. There are some federal programs that cannot be
delegated to the states, such as setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under
the Clean Air Act (CAA), which are promulgated by EPA. The CAA requires states to designate
air quality control regions and submit state implementation plans (SIPs) that are designed to meet or
exceed all of the NAAQS and other air quality management requirements that EPA has
promulgated.1 If a state submits a SIP that is disapproved by EPA, then Section 110(c) of the
CAA2 requires EPA to establish a federal implementation program (FIP) to properly regulate air
quality. The CAA similarly requires EPA to designate air quality areas if the state fails to submit
an approvable plan,3 and for EPA to designate areas as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable
for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter (PM10) if the state fails to submit an
approvable list.4
If EPA must directly implement these statutory requirements because the partner government fails
to submit an approvable program, EPA will administer the program itself and follow the EJ
principles that it has adopted in its EJ policies. For example, EPA must approve state programs to
issue air quality permits to major stationary sources under Title V of the CAA.5 Issuing appropriate
permits for the construction and operation of major stationary sources of air pollution is an integral
1 In the case of Native American tribal lands and reservations, where SIPs do not have effect, EPA's regulations provide
that EPA "Shall promulgate without unreasonable delay such [FIP] provisions as are necessary and appropriate to
protect air quality." 40 CFR 49.11(a)
2 42 USC 7410(c)(1)
3 42 USC 7407(d)(l)(B)(ii)
4 42 USC 7407(d)(4)(A)(ii)
5 42 USC 7661
EJ 2020 Public Comments
218
-------
step to attaining or maintaining the air quality goals of an area in which the source will be located
and the air quality in downwind areas and emissions may disproportionately affect EJ populations
near or downwind of the facility. EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 70 describe all the requirements
of a state program in order for EPA to approve the state's Title V permit program. If a state
program or a Tribe with TAS has not been granted full approval of its program under 40 CFR 70.4,
then EPA must directly implement Title V under 40 CFR Part 71.6 Again, if EPA must issue
permits under 40 CFR Part 71, it will follow its EJ principles and policies.
So, EPA is ultimately responsible for how the federal environmental statutes and regulations are
administered by the states, and in the absence of an approved state program, EPA will administer
those environmental programs, following the principles of EJ that are part of EPA's policies and
practices, in accordance with Executive Order 12898. From that perspective, it makes sense that
the state programs administered on behalf of EPA should follow the same EJ principles that EPA
would follow. A state that runs a federally approved program should have an EJ program
(procedures and protocols) that meet the requirements of EPA's EJ policies, or adopt a process that
meets the objectives of EPA's EJ policies. It is especially important, in light of the federal
government's trust responsibility to Native American Tribes, that state programs incorporate the
principles of the 2014 EPA Policy onEJfor Workingwith Federally Recognized Tribes and
Indigenous Peoples when administering a federal statute with a program approved by EPA.
EPA already has regulations in place that govern public participation at 40 CFR Part 25 for certain
programs, and which directs states, interstate, and sub-state agencies how to provide for public
participation in the implementation of certain programs under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Yet the requirements that EPA has imposed under these regulations do not require the state
agencies to provide for implementation of those programs in a manner that meets the principles of
EPA's EJ policies or procedures. The CAA provides authorities where EPA could establish a
requirement that a state applying for program approval must show it has a program that meets the
EJ principles in EPA's EJ policies. For example, Sec. 110(a)(2) of the CAA,7 requires that an
implementation plan can only be approved by EPA if the state shows that it adopted the
requirements "after reasonable notice and public hearing." Another CAA authority, Sec. 165(a)(2)8
requires that a permit may not be issued by a state to major emitting sources until it has held a
public hearing and provided for submission of written comments. EPA can establish requirements
for applicants under these statutory authorities that would embody EPA's EJ principles.
The NTAA recommends that EPA make a commitment to evaluate all delegable federal programs
for how those programs could be strengthened by requiring that a state or other government partner
applying to administer the program must include a demonstration of how it will administer the
program in a manner consistent with the principles of EJ that are articulated in EPA's EJ policies.
One first step is that EPA can amend its public participation rules at 40 CFR Part 25 to provide that
the special attention to Environmental Justice. For example, 40 CFR 25.4(2) directs state, interstate
and sub-state agencies to identify segments of the public likely to be affected by agency decisions.
It would be appropriate for EPA to also specifically identify environmental justice populations,
6 40 CFR 71.4(a)
7 42 USC 7410(a)(2)
8 42 USC 7475 (a)(2)
EJ 2020 Public Comments
219
-------
such as Tribes and Indigenous Peoples. Another step that EPA can take for amending Part 25
would be to clearly direct that its requirements apply to many other federal programs which do not
yet have EJ or public participation procedures that embody EJ principles.
Training for EPA Staff in Cultural Competency Principles
In order to meaningfully advance EJ in Tribal communities, EPA staff must fully understand the
cultural dimensions of Tribal lifeways insofar as they relate to unique vulnerabilities and sources of
resilience. Conversely, it is imperative that Tribal partners understand the procedures and workings
of the EPA as it administers and oversees the implementation of federal environmental laws. The
Framework notes that in 2014, EPA staff completed mandatory EJ training. NTAA applauds EPA
for developing mandatory EJ trainings and would strongly encourage an extension of this training
to encompass cross-cultural competency for EPA staff working with Tribal communities.
In 2013 the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) submitted
recommendations to EPA in response to the Working Draft of the "EPA Policy on Environmental
Justice for Tribes and Indigenous Peoples". Subsequently in 2014, EPA Administrator Gina
McCarthy issued the finalized EPA "Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally
Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples". The NEJAC recommendations had included an
amendment to Principle 79 which would serve to improve the Policy by promoting effective cross-
cultural competency. NEJAC stated that "outreach and training of Tribes and indigenous
stakeholders to enhance their understanding of EPA's roles, responsibilities, and corporate culture
is needed." It is unclear whether the NEJAC recommendations ultimately informed the subsequent
or final iterations of the Policy. Nonetheless, NTAA agrees that if Tribes are meant to fully and
successfully participate in EPA processes related to environmental justice, they must be given an
opportunity for training on EPA culture. In turn, EPA staff training in Tribal culture competence
must be incentivized and encouraged. The benefits of effective cross-cultural competence training
will rapidly become apparent as EPA staff and their Tribal counterparts are tasked complex issues
that arise from the unique cultural practices and customs of tribes and the way that these practices
may influence susceptibility to harm from environmental degradation (e.g. reliance on specific
pollutant-sensitive plant species for traditional practices; consumption patterns of fish that are
unsuitable for high rates of consumption due to contamination).
Cross-cultural competence should include guidance on fundamentals of identifying and interacting
with Tribal communities (e.g. indigenous peoples from outside of the United States), and methods
of identifying culturally relevant information when dealing with Tribes. NTAA recommends that
EPA staff work with Tribal leaders to finalize what specific culturally-relevant material should be
included within cultural competency trainings.
The development of formalized cross-cultural competence training is especially important at this
point in time, when EPA is grappling with high turnover of senior management and staff that
9 Principle 7 states that: "The EPA considers confidentiality concerns regarding information on sacred sites, cultural
resources, and other traditional knowledge, as permitted by law. The EPA acknowledges that unique situations and
relationships may exist in regard to sacred sites and cultural resources information for federally recognized tribes and
indigenous peoples.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
220
-------
possess great institutional knowledge and may have already had longstanding relationships with
Tribes in their respective regions. EPA regional staff, who interact most with Tribal communities,
leadership, and staff would benefit tremendously from well-designed, required cultural competency
training. Similarly, Tribal staff should be afforded the opportunity to participate in cross-cultural
competence training so that they can better understand EPA workings and methods of navigating
through complex Agency processes.
Agency-Wide Commitment to Considering Vulnerabilities/Disproportionate Impacts to
Tribes, Native American and Alaska Natives During the Rulemaking Process
As the EJ 2020 Framework recognizes, it is very important to incorporate environmental justice
into rulemaking. As described in the comments above, one important step is for those rules that
govern what a state or government must include in a federal environmental program for EPA
approval is to demonstrate its program meets the principles of EPA's EJ policies and guidance. A
second important step is to ensure that EPA's rule writers and analysts fully consider the EJ
principles while preparing EPA regulations that will be implemented by EPA itself.
We recognize that EPA has been in the process of preparing the Technical Guidance for Assessing
EJ in Regulatory Analyses (Technical Guidance), with the most recent draft issued in 2013. This
can be a very useful guide for EPA rule writers and analysts. However, a brief review of the draft
Guidance finds that it could be updated to fully reflect the principles in EPA's EJ policies. For
example, while the draft Guidance refers to Indian Tribes in various places, Section 3, Contributors
and Drivers to Potential Environmental Justice Concerns, states "Minority, low-income and
indigenous populations experience greater exposure and disease burdens that can increase their risk
of adverse health effects from environmental stressors." Minority and Indigenous Populations are
defined in Section 2.2 to include Native American and Native Alaskans among other types of
indigenous peoples. However, Indian Tribes are not often specifically mentioned in the sections
that follow. The Technical Guidance could be updated to specifically refer to the 2014 EPA Policy
on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples,
and ensure that the principles in that EJ policy are incorporated into the Guidance.
Section 3 of the draft Technical Guidance covers the reasons why EJ populations may be
disproportionately susceptible to adverse health effect from exposures, and so the draft Technical
Guidance guides EPA analysts to evaluate the potential health and environmental effects on EJ
populations that could result from the regulations that are being prepared. However, our recent
review of EPA's proposed rule to revise the ground-level ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS)10 found that the analysts and rule writers had missed an important
disproportionate impact to the health of Native Americans and Alaska Natives, perhaps because the
analysts and rule writers did not have a final Technical Guidance to follow. Native Americans and
Alaska Natives and their children, suffer from the lung disease of asthma at nearly twice the rate of
the general U.S. population. The studies and analyses for the proposed rule identified that ozone
affects a significant number of plant species that are important to Indian Tribes for traditional and
subsistence purposes as well as many other trees and plant species. This information was used to
support lowering the secondary NAAQS to better protect public welfare. However, the
disproportionate effect of ground-level of ozone on the human health of Native Americans due to
i° 79 pR 75234-75411, Dec. 17, 2014
EJ 2020 Public Comments
221
-------
their higher incidence of asthma was not covered as an important consideration in proposing to
revise the primary NAAQS. For this reason, the NTAA commented on the proposal and asserted
that EPA should adopt the lowest standard reviewed on the proposed rule of 60 ppb, rather than
adopt a standard in the 65-70 ppb range as proposed, in order to provide the greatest protection to
the disproportionately affected Native populations. We noted in our comments that the final section
of the Preamble to the proposed rule that addresses Executive Order 12898 writes that the proposed
action "will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health." Further on, the proposal writes that the revised ozone
standard will increase public health protection, and cites the Regulatory Impact Analysis as the
basis for that conclusion. While we concur will the science, which suggests that a lower standard
will increase public health protection, we believe that a standard higher than 60 ppb will have a
disproportionate impact on Native Americans and Alaska Natives and their children. We strongly
encouraged EPA to adopt the lowest standard that was discussed in the proposal so as to best
protect the Native American and Native Alaskans who have a higher incidence of asthma than the
general population.
In summary on this point, we urge EPA to finalize the Technical Guidance quickly, incorporating
the suggestions made above. We also urge that EPA ensure that its analysts and rule writers are
fully trained in EPA's EJ principles and the Technical Guidance, and learn all of the steps that are
to be considered when evaluating the EJ implications of regulations that are being prepared.
The NTAA is pleased to provide the aforementioned comments regarding the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA)'s Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework. Please contact us if you
have any questions or need clarification.
Conclusion
On Behalf of the NTAA Executive Committee,
Bill Thompson, Chairman, NTAA
EJ 2020 Public Comments
222
-------
July 14, 2015
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework (June 15, 2015)
Submitted via e-mail - July 14, 2015
to eistratesyia),epa. gov
Since 2010, NCA has been Oregon's only non-profit organization dedicated to reducing urban air
toxics and other air pollution that puts Oregonians' health at risk. While Oregon is generally
perceived as having clean air, national and state data put our city in the highest risk category for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, the 188 air toxics that are emitted by industry, diesel engines, and
motor vehicles. These are known to cause many adverse health effects like cancer, heart disease,
upper respiratory problems, and asthma.
A study released in 2010 by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality showed that
higher concentrations of air pollution are present in Portland Metro area census tract with
higher populations of color and low income communities. In addition, Multnomah County
Health Department's 2014 report on racial and ethnic health disparities in the region, found that
census tracts that had at least 15% of total tract population identifying as Black/African
American, Asian/Pacific Islander, or Latino had an estimated two to three times higher median
levels of diesel particulate matter than census tracts with 90% or more non-Latino White
populations. County data also notes that these same populations are suffering higher rates of
disease associated with air pollution including: asthma, cardio vascular disease, pre-term births
and low birth weights.
The persistent problem of air pollution in Portland, while well documented by state regulators, is
not publicly well understood or recognized, in a large part due to state and federal reliance on
NAAQS standards to define general air quality in a region. NCA recognizes that individuals who
live in non-attainment areas are at great risk, but we believe that a significant number of people
in the US still are at danger from air pollution, even when they live in areas that meet NAAQS
standards, such as the Portland Metro region. Many of these people live in hotspots and urban
environments with significant levels of Hazardous Air Pollutants that are not well monitored or
accounted for. NCA has taken the lead on educating community members and leaders on the
sources, risks and solutions to the most dangerous air pollution, and believes this experience can
help inform federal regulators on how they can better assist EJ communities:
• EPA should move EJ Screen and C-Ferst beyond modeling and studying and provide clear
and effective pathways for citizen science to impact decision making. When these
modeling tools indicate elevated risk for a community, the burden of proof should be
shifted to sources of air pollution, or local regulators, to prove that emissions do not cause
excess harm to the health and well-being of people who live in the affected area.
Neighbors for Clean Air | PO Box 10544 | Portland | OR | 97296
EJ 2020 Public Comments
223
-------
• EPA should provide an approved protocol for measuring Diesel Particulate.
• Diesel Exhaust continues to pose a significant threat to EJ communities. Therefore, EPA
should elevate EJ as a priority criteria for granting DERA funding, ensuring that no project is
funded unless it can demonstrate real progress in reducing disparities or benefiting minority
contractors.
• EPA should direct states to consider EJ and cumulative effects when permitting existing
sources.
NCA appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's EJ 2020 plan. It is essential that the
agency provides leadership and direction to realize progress needed to reverse the damage of
disparate impacts and avert the accumulation of risk posed by the threat of climate change on
these already over-burdened communities.
With kind regards,
Mary Peveto
President
Neighbors for Clean Air
Neighbors for Clean Air i PO Box 10544 i Portland i OR i 97296
EJ 2020 Public Comments
224
-------
Comments on:
The Draft EJ 2020 Environmental Protection Agency
Action Agenda
Submitted By: New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance
Date: 7/14/15
Prepared By:
Nicky Sheats, Esq., Ph.D.
Director, Center for the Urban Environment,
John S. Watson Institute for Public Policy of Thomas Edison State College
EJ 2020 Public Comments
225
-------
Introduction
One of the stated goals in the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework (EJ 2020) is to
"Demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened communities." The New
Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA) agrees that this is a critical goal and
believes that a specific outcome on which EJ 2020 should focus is achieving a
measurable reduction in the amount of pollution in communities overburdened with
pollution and in environmental justice (EJ) communities.1 EJ communities are more
vulnerable to detrimental health impacts caused by pollution due to troubling
vulnerabilities associated with race and income in our nation2 and many EJ communities
are also overburdened communities (see below).
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should develop substantive
policies that will achieve needed reductions in pollution. These comments offer several
policies developed by NJEJA and its allies that would achieve such reductions and that
are examples of the types of strategies EPA should adopt or create.
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is also briefly discussed as a mechanism that could
not only protect EJ and overburdened communities from additional pollution but that
could also be used to reduce existing pollution.
1 When we refer to EJ communities we mean communities Of Color and low-income communities.
2 See Blank, R. M., 2001. "An Overview of Trends in Social and Economic Well-Being, by Race," in N. J.
Smelser, W. J. Wilson, and Mitchell, F. (eds.), America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences,
Volume 1 (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2009), pp. 21-39; S.J. Jones (ed.), The State of
Black America 2008 in The Black Woman's Voice, (N.Y.: National Urban League, 2008); R.D. Bullard,
G.S. Johnson and A.O. Torres 2011. Environmental Health and Racial Equity in the United States,
Building Environmentally Just, Sustainable and Livable Communities. (Washington, D.C.: American
Public Health Association Press, 2011).
1
EJ 2020 Public Comments 226
-------
These comments are being submitted by NJEJA, the only statewide New Jersey
organization that addresses environmental issues and is a majority Of Color in both its
leadership and membership.3
Outcomes
One of the primary community outcomes that should be a focus of EJ 2020 is the actual
reduction of the pollution load borne by EJ and overburdened communities since this
pollution can have a negative effect on the health of community residents. For example,
particulate matter air pollution alone has been estimated to cause 200,000 premature
deaths in the United States every year.4 It is also well known that EJ communities have
been found to have a disproportionate number of environmental hazards sited in their
borders5 and to face disproportionate exposures to pollution, particularly air toxics.6
3
The NJEJA mission statement reads as follows: "The New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance is an
alliance of New Jersey-based organizations and individuals working together to identify, prevent, and
reduce and/or eliminate environmental injustices that exist in communities of color and low-income
communities. NJEJA will support community efforts to remediate and rebuild impacted neighborhoods,
using the community's vision of improvement, through education, advocacy, the review and promulgation
of public policies, training, and through organizing and technical assistance."
4 Caiazzo, F., Ashok, A., Waitz, I.A., Yim, S.H.L. and Barrett, S.R.H. "Air pollution and early deaths in the
United States. Part 1: Quantifying the impact of major sectors in 2005," Atmospheric Environment 79
(2013), pp. 198-208.
5 United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. Toxic Waste and Race in the United States: A
National Report on the Racial and Socioeconomic Characteristics in Communities with Hazardous Waste
Sites, New York, (1987); Mohai, P. and Saha. R. "Racial Inequality in the Distribution of Hazardous
Waste: A National-Level Reassessment," Social Problems 54, No. 3 (2007): 343-370; Bullard, R.D.,
Mohai, P., Saha, R., and Wright, B., Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty 1987-2007: Grassroots Struggles to
Dismantle Environmental Racism in the United States (Cleveland, OH: United Church of Christ Justice and
Witness Ministry, 2007); California EPA. Cumulative Impacts: Building a Scientific Foundation,
(Sacramento, Calif.: California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment, 2010).
6 Wernette, D.R., and Nieves, L.A. "Breaking Polluted Air." EPA Journal 18 (1992), p. 16; Jarrett, M.,
Burnett, R.T., Kanaroglou, P., Eyles, J., Finkelstein, N, Giovis, C. and Brook, J.R., "A GIS-environmental
justice analysis of particulate air pollution in Hamilton, Canada," Environment and Planning A 33, No. 6
(2001), pp. 955-73; Houston, D., Wu, J., Ong, P. and Winer, A. "Structural disparities of urban traffic in
Southern California: implications for vehicle related air pollution exposure in minority and high poverty
neighborhoods," Journal of Urban Affairs 26, No. 5 (2004), pp. 565-92; Pastor, M., Jr., Sadd, J.L., and
Morello-Frosch, R. "Waiting to Inhale: The Demographics of Toxic Air Release Facilities in 21st-century
EJ 2020 Public Comments
227
-------
EPA must develop strategies that will have a measurable impact on this outcome. Several
such policies are discussed below.
Substantive Policies that Reduce Pollution in EJ Communities
EPA should develop, with the input of the EJ community, policies that will result in a
measurable reduction in the pollution load of EJ and overburdened communities. While
EPA has at times emphasized increasing community participation in EPA processes and
the need for EJ analyses and mapping it has placed less of a priority on creating
substantive policies that would actually reduce pollution in EJ and overburdened
communities. For example, while NJEJA applauds the development of EJSCREEN we
also strongly urge EPA to attach substantive policies to this tool to provide pollution
protection and reduction for communities.
Community participation and EJ analyses are necessary but not sufficient to protect
communities. EPA needs to move beyond them and create policies that will improve the
quality of life in EJ and overburdened communities by reducing pollution loads. The
creation of these policies should also be an integral part of EJ 2020.
California," Social Science Quarterly 85 (2004), pp. 420-440; Pastor, M., Morello-Frosch, R. and Sadd,
J.L., "The Air is Always Cleaner on the Other Side: Race, Space, and Ambient Air Toxics Exposures in
California," Journal of Urban Affairs 27 (2005), pp. 127-148; Ash, M., Boyce, J., Chang, G., Scoggins, R.
and Pastor, M. "Justice in the Air: Tracking Toxic Pollution from America's Industries and Companies to
Our States, Cities, and Neighborhoods (Amherst, Mass.: Political Economy Research Institute, 2009.; and
see California EPA, cited above in note 5.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
228
-------
Below we provide a description of several policies developed by NJEJA and allies that
would accomplish this goal and that EPA should adopt and emulate.
Cumulative Impacts
The issue of cumulative impacts should receive more attention than is currently given to
it in Draft EJ 2020. Cumulative impacts, multiple pollutants emitted by multiple sources
of pollution in a community that combine with social issues to create negative health
impacts, is a significant issue in many EJ and overburdened communities across the
country.7 EPA needs to develop a substantive policy that protects EJ and overburdened
communities from cumulative impacts.
NJEJA has developed such a policy. The NJEJA strategy would identify EJ and
overburdened communities and protect them from additional pollution while decreasing
existing pollution. It would protect neighborhoods from additional pollution by not
issuing new pollution permits in overburdened and/or EJ communities unless the
proposed new facility can show it would not increase the amount of pollution emitted in
the community. It could accomplish this by either demonstrating it would not emit
pollution or by offsetting existing pollution emissions in that community. The policy
would reduce existing pollution in the community by not renewing a pollution permit for
a facility unless it can demonstrate that it will reduce pollution emissions in the
community. It can show this by either demonstrating that it will reduce its own pollution
7 National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Ensuring Risk Reduction In Communities With
Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risks/Impacts (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2004); California EPA, cited above in note 5; Morello-Frosch, R., Zuk,
M., Jarrett, M., Shamasunder, B. and Kyle, A.D. "Understanding The Cumulative Impacts of Inequalities In
Environmental Health: Implications for Policy," Health Affairs 30 No. 5 (2011), pp. 879-887.
4
EJ 2020 Public Comments 229
-------
emissions or by offsetting existing pollution emissions in that community. The policy
would also provide incentives to improve "quality of life" issues in these communities
such as open space and the availability of fresh, affordable, food. EJ and/or overburdened
communities could be identified through the use of EJSCREEN or tools similar to
California's8 or New Jersey's9 cumulative impacts screening tools.
This policy was presented to EPA previously by NJEJA in comments submitted in
response to an EPA request for suggestions on how to address cumulative impacts. Those
comments and a short policy memorandum describing the policy are attached.
Clean Power Plan
NJEJA; the Center for Earth, Energy and Democracy; WEACT; the Center for Race,
Poverty and the Environment; the EJ Leadership Forum on Climate Change and their
allies have all called for the Clean Power Plan to mandate carbon dioxide emissions
reductions from power plants in and near EJ communities as a way of ensuring these
communities receive greenhouse gas co-pollutant reductions that will improve their
health. It would be preferable if co-pollutant reductions were maximized within the
constraints provided by the carbon dioxide emissions reduction goal, but even if this is
not the case EJ communities would benefit from the incidental co-pollutant reductions
that accompany the carbon dioxide emissions reductions. EPA has touted the co-pollutant
reductions that will be generated by the Clean Power Plan but there is nothing in the
current version of the proposed rule that guarantees a certain amount of co-pollutant
8 Information on California's tool can be found at: http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/ces2.html.
9 Information on New Jersey's screening tool can be found at:
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/ej/docs/ejc_screeningmethods20091222.pdf.
EJ 2020 Public Comments 230
-------
reduction will reach EJ communities and no analyses that even estimates how much co-
pollutant reduction will reach EJ communities.
If the Clean Power Plan rule mandated emissions reductions in and near EJ communities
this would reduce the existing air pollution burden on EJ communities and achieve the
reduction in pollution that we are advocating in these comments. This policy is explained
in more detail in comments on the Clean Power Plan that were previously submitted by
NJEJA to EPA. Those comment are attached.
Title VI
Title VI of the 1964 Civil rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq, is not, of course, a policy
to be developed by EPA but an existing law of the United States. It can be used to not
only address existing disparate pollution burdens associated with race but also to
affirmatively protect Of Color EJ communities from disproportionate amounts of
pollution or to ensure that they receive a fair share of environmental benefits. For
example, several attorneys associated with the EJ community have suggested that Title
VI could be used as legal justification for mandating emissions reductions for EJ
communities under the Clean Power Plan. However, Title VI claims have been handled
poorly by EPA10 and EJ 2020 needs to ensure that EPA fully repairs its ability and
intention to enforce Title VI.
10 Deloitte Consulting LLP. Final Report: Evaluation of the EPA office of Civil Rights (Washington, D.C.
Deloitte Consulting LLP, 2011).
EJ 2020 Public Comments 231
-------
Conclusion
NJEJA urges EPA to make reducing pollution in EJ and overburdened communities an
outcome that is a focal point of EJ 2020. EJ 2020 should also emphasize developing
substantive policies that will achieve this outcome and NJEJA is eager to discuss any
ideas contained in these comments with EPA.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
7
232
-------
A
NEW MEXICO
WIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
July 13. 2015
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator
for Environmental Justice By electronic mail
Office of Environmental Justice (ejstraxegy (dVpa.gov )
11 S Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue. NAY
Washington, D C 20460
Re. Draft RJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Dem Mr Lee;
1 write for the New Mexico Environmental Law Center ("the Law Outer") to comment
on (lit- Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework {"Draft EI 2020 Framework") prepared bv the
11 S Environmental Protection Agency ("the EPA"). Although we appreciate the EPA making
this Draft EJ 2020 Framework available for comment, we have serious concerns about the
manner in which the Draft EJ 2020 Framework was prepared and about the means used by the
EPA to solicit public input. We also have concerns about the scope of the Framework because it
appears to be limited to EPA implementation of programs. We therefore urge that the Draft EJ
2020 Framework be made available in a more- comprehensive manner for public comment that it
be expanded to include other entities that implement EPA programs, and that it be revised based
upon the comments that are received.
In addition, the Law Center is joining in the comments on the Draft EJ 2020 Framework
that are being submitted by the New York office of Earthjustiee, and the Law Center hereby
incorporates those comments by reference
introduction
This conuneiti eoveis four area» First, by way of introduction, ii piovides information
about the work of the Law Center and its qualifications to comment on the Draft EJ 2020
Framework, Second, this comment explains why the EPA's preparation of the Framework was
inappropriate and why the EPA's methods of soliciting public input on the Framework are
inadequate, particularly with respect to involving and obtaining input from individuals and
organizations in the communities that are most likely to be subjected to environmental hazards.
Third, this comment points out that that the Draft EJ 2020 Framework fails to provide for the
involvement of communities thai are most likely to be impacted by environmental contamination
in die decisions and the work called for by the Framework Finally, thi s com men! explains whv
limiting the scope of the Draft EJ 2020 Framework to EFA implementation of programs is a
pamcularh bad idea as (his time
1405 Luisa Street, Suite 5, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87506
Phone (505) 989-9022 Fax (505) 989-3769 nmelc@nmelc.org
EJ 2020 Public Comments 233
Printed on elemental chloiine tree. 100% recycled post-consumer, recycled paper
-------
I TJie Law Center is qualified to comment on the Draft E,f 2020 Framework.
The Law Center is a non-profit public interest law firm. The Law Center provides free
and low-cost legal services for protection of communities and the environment. For the past 20
years a significant majority of the Law Center's legal services have been provided to
communities in New Mexico whose residents are predominantly low-income and people of
color. Residents of many of these communities are being impacted or are threatened by multiple
environmental hazards.
One example of our work is our representation of residents of the predominantly Navajo
communities of Crownpoint and Church Rock, New Mexico, in their effort to prevent proposed
in situ leach mining of uranium that would contaminate (with uranium) the ground water aquifer
that is the residents" side source of drinking water Another example of the Law Center's work
is our efforts to address pollution in the South Valley of Albuquerque, where we have been
involved in struggles concerning a construction and demolition debris landfill thai adversely
affects South Valley residents, and air quality issues throughout Bernalillo County, including the
South Valley. One of the main issues to be addressed with regard to air quality in Bernalillo
county is the effect of multiple sources of air pollution.
The Law Center also has worked in the southern New Mexico community of Chaparral,
where we represented a local group in its effort to prevent the siting of a new solid waste landfill
next to the community. One argument against the proposed siting of the landfill is that the
community is already impacted by several other waste and industrial sites. Finally, we also are
counsel for about 80 people in an effort to prevent the proposed extraction of 54,000 acre feet of
ground water per year from an area west of Socorro, New Mexico because extraction of that
amount of ground water would deplete the wells on which they depend for water,
These are just a few examples of the communities in which the Law Center has worked
where residents are subjected to risks of environmental degradation. The Law Center also has
worked on state-wide issues affecting such communities b\ lobbying the New Mexico
1 egislature, working on state-wide regulations, and engaging in efforts such as the drafting and
adoption of the New Mexico Environmental Justice Executive Order The following comments
are based upon the Law Center's experience working in all of these arenas
II. The Draft F:J 2020 Framework does not include adequate provisions for participation b>
members of environmental justice communities.
A. ElPA's development of the Draft EJ 2020 Framework has not provided adequately
for participation by environmental justice community members
1 The Draft EI 2020 Framework is an environmental policv.
The F.PA's own definition of environmental justice includes participation by all people in
the development of environmental policies. The definition states that environmental justice is:
the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of ail people regardless of race,
2
EJ 2020 Public Comments
234
-------
color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation.
and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
EPA website, Environmental Justice home, page 1.
The Draft EJ 2020 Framework covers the EPA's strategies for improving the health and
environment in overburdened communities. To this end, the Draft EJ 2020 Framework sets forth
three goals They are to.
1 Deepen environmental justice practice within EPA programs to improve the health and
environment of overburdened communities;
2. Collaborate with partners to expand [EPA'sj impact within overburdened communities,
and
3. Demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened communities
Each of these goals includes policy elements designed to promote environmental justice
in overburdened communities. Separately and together, these goals and the more specific
objectives within each goal constitute environmental policies. Despite that, the EPA's
preparation of the Draft EJ Framework and the EPA"s mechanisms for obtaining input on the
Draft EJ Framework fail to provide for input by affected communities.
2. The Draft EJ 2020 Framework was prepared without adequate
involvement by impacted communities.
Even though the Draft EJ 2020 Framework is an environmental policy, the EPA prepared
the Plan without input from residents of environmental justice communities As far as we know,
F'PA made public its preparation of the Draft EJ 2020 Framework only after i he Draft was
prepared, presumably internally. We are not aware of any EPA efforts to inform members of
environmental justice communities that the EPA was developing the Draft EJ 2020 Framework
In addition, as far as we know the EPA did nothing to solicit input from the members of those
communities about the principles that should be addressed in the Draft EJ 2020 Framework or
the strategies that should be utilized to implement those principles. On the contrary, the EPA
sought input from members of environmental justice communities only after the Draft EJ 2020
framework was prepared. That is inappropriate; it means that environmental justice community
members are able to comment only after decisions have already been made
3• The methods used by the EPA to solicit input on the Draft EJ 2020
Framework are inadequate
Moreover, the methods that the EPA is using to obtain input on the Draft EJ 2020
Framework will preclude environmental justice communities from providing that input. It is our
understanding that the EPA has solicited comments through two media. The first is publication
in the Federal Register of the invitation to comment at a meeting of the National Environmental
Justice Advisory Council, and the second is through announcements sent by electronic mail and
provided on the EPA's internet website. Neither of these methods of soliciting comments is
likely to reach residents of environmental justice communities.
3
EJ 2020 Public Comments
235
-------
a. Publication in the Federal Register wilt not reach residents of
environmental justice communities,
The Federal Register is a publication that is read almost exclusively by attorneys,
employees of regulatory agencies, analysts for regulated industries, and advocacy groups It is
seldom, if ever, read by members of the general public, and it is even less likely to be read by
residents of environmental justice communities. The residents of those communities usually do
not have access to the Federal Register. Moreover, even if they do have that access, the demands
of their jobs and daily lives are such that they are not likely to have the time to track down and
read the Federal Register.
b. So 1 icjta|ion P.f.comnients by electronic means will not reach
environmental justice community residents
A notice soliciting comments that is published on the EPA internet website and by
electronic mail is also very unlikely to reach many residents of environmental justice
communities for two reasons. The first reason is that the electronic mail information about
soliciting comments and concerning processes for submitting comments is in written English
Many residents of Hispanic, immigrant, and Native American communities affected bv
environmental injustice do not read English, and information provided in written English only
therefore does not provide effective notice to them.
The second reason is that many residents of environmental justice communities do not
have access to electronic means of communication. In a report issued in May 201 3 {"Computer
and Internet Use in the United States: Population Characteristics", U.S. Census Bureau, May
201 J, available at www.ci'iisus.gov hhes computer ), the U.S. Census Bureau reported that in
201 1 only 58.3° o of Hispanic households had household internet access, and only 56.9% of
African-American households had household internet access A/., Table 1, p 4 For the same
year, the Census found that only 54.4% of Htspanics and only 60,3% of African-Americans
accessed the internet from a location other than their homes. M, Table 2. p 5. These numbers
indicate that at least 40% of Htspanics and at least 39% of African-Americans do not have
internet access (and therefore access to electronic mail or the EPA internet website) either in
their homes or elsewhere For that reason, none of those individuals will be able to access the
EPA's solicitation of comments that was distributed electronically.
Moreover, other people of color are similarly unlikely to be reached by the EPA's
electronic request for comments The Census does not provide internet access data for American
Indian, Alaska Native, Native FInwaiian. and Other Pacific Islander populations because of the
small sample size of those four populations in the Census's October 2011 Current Population
Survey (hi, note 7, p 2.), but at least two of those groups are likely to have very limited internet
access. American Indians and Alaska Natives often live in areas where infrastructure either does
not exist or is very limited, and there are large areas of some of the states in which those
populations reside in which there is no electricity. Alaska, Arizona, and New Mexico are
examples of this.
4
EJ 2020 Public Comments
236
-------
Finally, the Census also indicates that low-income populations are less likely to have
internet access than arc populations with more substantial economic means. Only 56.7% of the
people living in households with an annual income of less than $25,000 have internet access in
their homes, and only 40.8° • advertisements in local newspapers.
i. - notices given to community groups and displayed in public facilities such as
community centers and libraries, and
u radio and television announcements, particularly in areas such as Native
American reservations where the predominant languages may not he written.
B. The Draft EJ 2020 Framework does not provide for participation by members of
overburdened communities.
'fhc Draft EJ 2020 Framework recognizes that degradation of health and environment in
ov erburdened communities must be addressed by the ERA. Unfortunately, the Draft EJ 2020
Framework does not provide for the involvement of those communities' residents in EPA efforts
to address environmental degradation in their communities.
1, Hie Draft EJ 202,0 Framework recognizes that F.I1 A must add)ess
environmental degradation in environmental justice communities.
Each of the three goals of the Draft EJ 2020 Framework addresses adverse impacts on
health and the environment in overburdened communities. This theme is repeated in specific
objectives within the goals. For example, the first goal includes objectives such as testing tools
for including environmental justice into EPA permitting, continuing to promote environmental
justice in overburdened communities through targeting and other means, and considering impact
on overburdened communities in developing various approaches to environmental degradation.
Draft EJ 2020 Framework, sections I.B, 1 C As another example, the third goal includes
objectives such as using measures that demonstrate outcomes in communities and showing
positive outcomes in communities Draft EJ 2020 Framework, sections UFA, lli.B Moieover,
the Draft EJ 2020 Framework makes clear that members of overburdened communities must be
involved in these efforts.
5
EJ 2020 Public Comments
237
-------
2. The Draft EJ 2020 Framework purports to recognize the need to include
residents of overburdened communities in environmental justice efforts.
There are several points in the Draft EJ 2020 Framework at which the EPA purports to
make involvement of overburdened communities' residents in decision-making a priority. For
example, the first goal includes objectives such as continuing to implement plans to enhance
public participation and enhancing communication and transparency with affected communities
Draft FJ 2020 Framework, sections IB, 1 C. Similarly, the second goal's objectives include
identifying opportunities for public participation and leveraging federal resources to support
community-based efforts Draft EJ 2020 Framework, sections II.B, 11.C. Finally, the objectives
listed in the third goal include ensuring EPA accountability in communities and developing
indicators of progress through collaborative processes with communities. Draft EJ 2020
framework, sections 111.A, I1I.D.
3. The Draft FJ 2020 Framework fails to provide ft>i_ meaningful
involvement of overburdened community residents
Despite these assurances of EPA's commitment to working on environmental justice
issues and with overburdened communities, the Draft FJ 2020 Framework contains no specific
information about how residents of such communities will be involved in this work Moreover,
there is nothing to indicate what specific forms of communication the EPA proposes to use to
involve tesidents of overbuidened communities. Specifically, the Framework savs nothing about
particular forms of communication that are more likely than electronic means to be effective in
overburdened communities Some of these forms of communication are listed on page five
above, but there is no indication in the Framework that any of them or any other non-electronic
means of communication are being considered by EPA. This is a critical issue because, as has
been pointed out above, many residents of overburdened communities do not have the means to
access electronic information. The EPA's continued reliance on electronic information and
electronic means of communication therefore means that those residents will be unable lo have
access to information that affects their health and environments,
111 Hie.L)raft EJ 2020 Framework fails to address the need for environmental iustice in EPA
programs that a re implemented by other agencies
A. Ma ny programs that impact overburdened communities aie not administered bv
the EPA.
Although the Draft EJ 2020 Framework calls for collaboration and working with other
federal agencies, Tribes, and states, it does not propose to impose mandatory requirements on
those other entities. This limitation will have the effect of severely limiting the effectiveness of
the Draft EJ 2020 Framework for two reasons.
First, there are other federal agencies whose programs have significant impacts on the
residents of environmental justice communities, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Transportation. The
Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Transportation are often involved in projects
such as waterways, roads, and airports that directly affect the residents of environmental justice
6
EJ 2020 Public Comments
238
-------
communities. The Department of Energy and the Department of Defense have many facilities
(hat are located adjacent to or near environmental justice communities. These include military
installations and national laboratories such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory' in New
Mexico, which is surrounded by four Native American Pueblos.
Second, more than 90% of the programs that are delegable to the states are administered
by them and not by the EPA. "Ecos Green Report", Status of State Environmental Agency
Budgets, 2009-201 i, August, 2010, Environmental Council of the States, p. 2, These programs
include those designed to implement statutes such as the Clean Air Act. the Clean Water Act,
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, whose implementation is likely to have an
impact on environmental justice populations.
B hi states like New Mexico, overburdened communitjesjire noLbeingpiotecjed In
the agencies that administer EPA programs.
New Mexico is an example of a state in which 1he EPA programs administered by the
state government are not protecting either overburdened communities or the environmental
resources on which they depend. New Mexico's Governor, Susana Martinez, was elected
following a campaign during which she proposed to eliminate environmental protection
legulations tn order to create jobs. Since she was elected and re-elected, Governor Martinez's
Administration has taken drastic steps to eliminate regulations that had been adopted by New
Mexico state agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to protect ground water from the
impacts of oil and gas drilling and the impacts of copper mining, and to require energy efficiency
in the construction of new buildings
In addition to these statewide efforts to eliminate regulations designed to protect the
environment, the Martinez Administration has taken positions with respect to site-specific issues
that are inconsistent with the emphasis throughout the Plan on protecting overburdened
communities from environmental degradation. For example, the administration that was in
office prior to Governor Martinez's election determined that a New Mexico air quality permit
was required for the air emissions from the Helena Chemical Company plant in Mesquite, New
Mexico, a community that has been adversely affected by air pollution and contamination of
ground water. That position was reversed by Governor Martinez's Administration As another
example. Governor Martinez's Administration has asserted that a ground water discharge permit
issued to a uranium mining company for discharges into an aquifer in Church Rock. New
Mexico remains valid even though the deadline for renewing the permit passed several decades
ago. Church Rock and the communities that surround it have all been severely impacted by
uranium mining in the past, and the residents of those communities are overburdened with the
pollution that has resulted from that mining.
These statewide and site-specific efforts by the Martinez Administration demonstrate that
the EPA's measures designed to protect overburdened communities must be applied not just to
the EPA, but also to the oilier entities that implement EPA programs. The Draft EJ 2020
Fiamework therefore must be expanded to include these other entities
EJ 2020 Public Comments
239
-------
Conclusion
EPA must change the manner in which it communicates and proposes to communicate
with the residents of overburdened communities and the methods by which EPA proposes to
involve those residents in environmental justice efforts, EPA must also apply the goals and
objectives of the EJ 2020 Framework to the other entities that implement EPA programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EJ 2020 Framework, Please do
not hesitate to contact me if you have questions about this comment or about the Law Center and
its work.
Yours truly,
4
/ , / / - /
* /"'/•' //•
Douglas lUeiklejohn
Executive Director
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
1405 Luisa StteeL Suite /'*5
Santa Fe, N.M 87505
Telephone; (505) 989-0022
Facsimile. (505) 080-UbO
Electronic mail dmeiklejohn(«)nmelc.org
EJ 2020 Public Comments
8
240
-------
NPCR
New Partners For Community Revitalization
June 30, 2015
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEPA, Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Lee:
New Partners for Community Revitalization (NPCR) is pleased to respond to the Environmental
Protection Agency's invitation to comment on the Draft Environmental Justice 2020 Action
Agenda Framework.
NPCR was created as a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization in 2002. It emerged out of the multi-
year policy debate that surrounded the passage of brownfields legislation in New York State.
NPCR was quick to recognize that low and moderate income neighborhoods and communities
of color were most often and most egregiously burdened with undeveloped and blighted
brownfields and, at the same time, were least likely to have existing organizations with the
expertise and mission to develop programs and policies to address the brownfield remediation
and reuse needs specific to their communities. In brief, seeking Environmental Justice within
the framework of brownfield redevelopment and renewal was a founding goal of NPCR.
NPCR applauds EPA's recognition of the importance of Environmental Justice through its 2014
Environmental Action Agenda and is greatly encouraged by EPA's continued commitment to
this need. We are supportive of all the major areas of effort outlined in the 2020 Action
Agenda Framework — clarity about, and sensitivity to, EJ in rulemaking, permitting,
enforcement; improving collaboration among and between public agencies, stakeholders,
businesses and local communities; and defining, collecting and reporting on metrics that are
valid measures of community-level results of environmental remediation and compliance.
However, we are somewhat concerned that the term "brownfields" does not appear in the
Framework except in the list of 2015 priorities, where EPA wished to make "Further efforts to
make equitable development an integral part of EPA's Smart Growth, Brownfields, and climate
adaption and resilience efforts."
We respectfully submit that brownfield redevelopment, if properly planned and managed, is a
NPCR 90 State Street, Suite 1009, Albany, New York 12207 UULLUULLUULLLU
EJ 2020 Public Comments
241
-------
June 30, 2015
2 of 2
critical and effective means of rectifying a legacy of unjust siting of environmentally risky
facilities at a time when those with little power had little leverage over zoning regulations or
municipal decision-making. We therefore suggest that one area of the framework should be
strengthened by specifying the exact mechanism to ensure that communities are involved in
addressing a fundamental community issue: Environmental Justice in the context of brownfield
redevelopment.
NPCR was a driving force in the passage of New York State's first brownfield legislation and
successfully advocated for a nation-leading element within that legislation - the New York State
Brownfield Opportunity Areas Program (BOA). BOA provided State funding to local economic
development agencies and community based organizations to assemble and facilitate local
advisory committees with members from all sectors - residents, businesses, stakeholders and
government agencies. BOA planning built consensus for a brownfield redevelopment plan
based on area-wide needs and market potentials as well as community needs and desires - a
potent combination that attracted the public and private investments needed for area-wide
brownfield revitalization. Community-based planning precedes and in many ways can simplify
the permitting, regulatory and compliance challenges that EPA rightfully recognizes as critical to
address on the path towards obtaining and sustaining environmental justice.
We therefore urge you to include a straightforward recommendation as part of your
Environmental Justice 2020 Action Agenda Framework, perhaps in the context of the
Community Resource Network: "Support the development of community-based, consensus-
driven, area-wide plans for brownfield redevelopment and revitalization."
Thank you,
Val Washington
President, NPCR
Richard Werber
Chair, Policy Committee, NPCR
EJ 2020 Public Comments
242
-------
ZACHARY W. CARTER
The City of New York
Law Department
KATHLEEN CHANDLER SCHMID
phone: (212) 356-2314
fax: (212)788-1619
email: kschmid@law.nyc.gov
Corporation Counsel
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007
June 15,2015
By Email to: ejstrategy@epa.gov
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Comments on Draft EPA Environmental Justice 2020 Action Agenda
Framework
The New York City Law Department, on behalf of the City of New York ("City")
hereby submits the following comments in response to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's ("EPA") Draft Environmental Justice 2020 Action Agenda framework1
("Draft Agenda"), which was issued for public comment on April 15, 2015.
Recognizing that equity and environmental conditions are inextricably linked; that
a community's proximity to environmental hazards may translate into poor health, loss of wages,
and diminished quality of life; and that low-income communities have historically been burdened
with a disproportionate share of environmental risk, the City has taken significant steps to make
decisions about facility placement, infrastructure investment, and the allocation of community
benefit funds based on environmental justice concerns. Through One New York: The Plan for a
Available at http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/ej2020/draft-
framework.pdf (last visited June 4, 2015).
To Whom It May Concern:
EJ 2020 Public Comments
243
-------
Strong and Just City ("OneNYC"),2 the City had established both substantive and procedural
goals and policies to advance environmental justice and improve the quality of life in low
income communities. See OneNYC at 164. The Draft Agenda complements the City's
determination to strengthen public participation to ensure that local knowledge and goals are
accounted for in planning and permitting efforts and actions.
The City supports and welcomes EPA's efforts to improve its environmental
justice programs and to assess the impact of its actions on individual communities overburdened
by environmental exposures. EPA's efforts to introduce more transparent, rigorous, and
consistent approaches to integrating environmental justice concerns into its decision-making;
facilitate community and stakeholder involvement in EPA actions; and develop scientific tools to
track progress, will enhance the agency's efficacy in addition to ensuring that the concerns of all
communities are accounted for.
EPA has expressed its intent to consider the consequences to environmental
justice resulting from its permit approval and enforcement actions. One way in which EPA may
directly and markedly reduce the burden imposed on environmental justice communities is to
specifically address the impact of increased water and sewer rates. EPA's embrace of its
Integrated Planning Framework3 and recent work on affordability4 reflect a welcome recognition
of the importance of prioritizing investments in meeting burdensome Clean Water Act regulatory
requirements to achieve the greatest water quality benefits while ensuring that drinking water
and sewer service are affordable to all. Unlike other local services that are funded through
progressive tax structures, water rates in New York - and in most states in the nation - are based
on rate payers' water use, and therefore increases in water rates to pay for Clean Water Act
compliance measures have a direct and disproportionate effect on low income communities. The
Draft Agenda should explicitly acknowledge the importance of strategic prioritization in
implementing Clean Water Act compliance measures.
The City also believes that the Draft Agenda would benefit from identifying a
mechanism to distribute printed versions of documents provided to communities via the
"Resources for Communities" web portal and EJSCREEN tool in order to reach communities
without internet and stakeholders who are infrequent internet users, providing greater access to
materials in multiple languages, and developing mobile and social media-based tools for
2 Available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/onenyc/downloads/pdf/publications/OneNYC.pdf (last
visited June 4, 2015).
3 See, e.g., EPA, Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Plans, available at
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/Integrated-Municipal-Stormwater-and-
Wastewater-Plans.cfm (last visited June 8, 2015).
4 See, e.g., EPA, Affordability Considerations, available at http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/
sustain/affordability.cfm (last visited June 8, 2015).
2
EJ 2020 Public Comments
244
-------
community involvement. The City also looks forward to continuing its involvement in EPA's
integration of environmental justice into its rulemaking and compliance guidelines.
The City hereby submits these comments for EPA's consideration. Thank you
again for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely yours,
Kathleen Schmid
Senior Counsel
Environmental Law Division
New York City Law Department
cc: Meredith Jones, General Counsel, New York City Economic Development Corporation
Nilda Mesa, Director, Mayor's Office of Sustainability
Robert Orlin, General Counsel, New York City Department of Sanitation
John Rousakis, General Counsel, New York City Department of Environmental
Protection
Daniel Zarrilli, Director, Mayor's Office of Recovery and Resiliency
EJ 2020 Public Comments
3
245
-------
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
= Of errvrronrnonmi Justice
625 Broadway, 14th FSoof, Albany, New York 12233-1500
P (5181402-8556 I F; (518) 402-9018
July 14, 2015
Mr. Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEPA, Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Lee:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on EPA's EJ 2020 Action Agenda
Framework. We appreciate the great deal of effort EPA has put into crafting such a detailed
plan and for soliciting feedback from us. The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation has a long history of collaboration with EPA, and the Office of Environmental
Justice supports this framework, especially since we often look to EPA as a model for best
practices while carrying out our environmental justice initiatives in New York.
Below are a few thoughts for your consideration;
Green Infrastructure
As you look to promote climate adaptation, resilience and greenhouse gas reduction co-
benefits, we suggest you incorporate job training and green infrastructure into this plan. Also,
there is a need for residents in EJ communities to have input into Gl implementation. These
goals are aligned with efforts underway by the Center for Watershed Protection out of
Maryland.
Since we are looking to create a green infrastructure jobs training/certification program
in NY, it would be helpful to have partners we could tap into that have similar goals and could
support us through funding, research, guidance, etc. Establishing such a program will help us
equip residents in EJ communities with a different set of job skills to make them more
marketable, fulfill a need for qualified workforce for this growing field that has especially
ascended since major storm events have hit our state and encourage
developers/contractors/municipalities to implement Gl to help deal with storm water
management and climate change issues.
> KtA crfik departfripnt >~>f
_ ¦ Envircntiept-ji
CcnsTvation
EJ 2020 Public Comments
246
-------
2.
Research
As you develop and implement a cross-cutting Environmental Justice Research
Roadmap and research on cumulative risks and impacts, we would like to ensure that we have
access to this research when it is complete.
EJ Outside of Permitting
As we looking to make sweeping changes within our own EJ policies and procedures,
we would like to see EPA consider incorporating EJ in other areas outside of permitting like
remediation.
More Details
V¥e would like to better understand and have more details on the following aspects of the
framework:
• How do you plan on incorporating EJ in rulemaking?
• How do you plan to engage the community in a way that empowers residents to help
their own community?
• Regarding the plan to engage business & industry to promote sustainable practices
beneficial to both business and communities, we would like to see more information on
this as it develops so that we could possibly utilize this on a local level (either
incorporate it into our existing Operation ECO-Quaiity Program or develop another
program around this). We would like to get examples of sustainable practices for
businesses.
• Regarding EPA demonstrating progress on outcomes, we would like to get examples of
how you plan on measuring outcomes of your work and how you plan to show positive
impacts. This could help us incorporate such metrics in NY.
• As part of new and ongoing program work, what other environmental justice tools will
we have access to?
• Under "collaborate with partners to expand our impact within overburdened
communities'", you want to work with states and others to promote consideration of EJ in
our collective decision-making. Can you give examples of where there has been
collective decision making in the past?
We sincerely look forward to working with you, especially on your goal to collaborate
with partners to expand your impact within overburdened communities. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lisa DeJesus, Acting Director
Office of Environmental Justice
EJ 2020 Public Comments
247
-------
North Carolina Environmental Justice
Network
P. O. Box 2951
Rocky Mount, NC 27802
252-314-0703
Email: nceinetwork@email.com. Web: www.ncejn.org
Comments on Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. June 15. 2015
Submitted via e-mail - July 14, 2015
to ejstrategy@epa.gov
NCEJN appreciates the support of US-EPA officials who are working for environmental justice.
We recognize that building a democracy that supports human dignity requires partnerships with
people of goodwill in all sectors of society. We recognize that our shared goal of environmental
justice will not and cannot be granted by those who now profit from the exploitation of people of
color and low income people, and that nothing short of self-determination for all people is
needed to bring about environmental sustainability and health for all. These goals are urgent for
the future of our planet because the ability of the wealthy to avoid the immediate consequences
of environmental destruction by displacing them on the poor allows them to recklessly burn
fossil fuel, make war, and destroy the ecosystems that sustain human life.
Environmental injustice in the United States occurs in the context of extreme inequalities in
wealth and power. According to a University of California report, in 2010 the top 1% of the US
population owned 42% of non-home wealth and the top 5% owned 72% of non-home wealth; the
bottom 80%) owned less than 5%. Average white non-home wealth was almost 20 times more
than African-American and 70 times more than Latino. These inequities threaten prospects for
democracy and environmental justice.
As part of the federal government, US-EPA is responsive to the interests of campaign
contributors, lobbyists, and members of Congress who vote on EPA's budget. Despite corporate
public relations efforts to paint EPA as a threat to business, we recognize that part of the
agency's function is to issue permits that help protect polluters from being held accountable for
damages to health and the environment that disproportionately impact people of color and low
income communities. Like other federal and state regulatory agencies, EPA has close ties with
the industries it regulates and considers their interests more than those of communities that are
negatively impacted by industry practices. While mainstream environmental groups also
influence EPA, they overwhelmingly represent the interests of constituents who do not live in
communities directly impacted by environmental injustice.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
248
-------
EPA's EJ2020 Action Agenda Framework must be evaluated in the context of these limitations
on EPA as an institution. We support EJ2020's goal of influencing the agency's rulemaking,
permitting and enforcement. We support EJ2020's goal of enhancing science. We support
efforts to raise the profile of EJ issues within the agency and beyond as a necessary part of
building a movement for change.
At the same time we recognize that EPA's policies may provide little relief in a government
dominated by corporate interests. EPA does not have the authority to regulate many
environmental threats. Its science is influenced by industry and it funnels public funds through
industry trade associations. These structural limitations impede the agency's ability to advance
EJ.
For example, since 1997 North Carolina residents have called on the EPA to help relieve them
from exposure to livestock feces and urine in the densest area of hog production in the nation.
Many of these residents did not know the extent of the pork industry's influence on EPA. While
scientific evidence of the health and environmental damages caused by industrial livestock
production mounted, neighbors continue to suffer from water pollution, toxic gases and particles,
and the stench of animal waste. In 2014 the state re-permitted over 2,000 facilities that collect
hog waste in open pits and spray it into nearby fields, disproportionately located in communities
of color, leading NCEJN to join a civil rights complaint asking EPA to require the state to
implement regulations that would protect approximately one million people who live within
three miles of a re-permitted facility.
How will EPA's EJ2020 goals impact the outcome of this and other civil rights complaints? If
EJ is a priority for EPA administrators we would expect the strongest action to remedy the
decades-long suffering of people who live beside industrial hog operations that pollute their air
and water, reduce their health and quality of life, and undermine their human dignity. Although
we hope that our complaint will help promote protection of impacted communities in North
Carolina and all over the country, we do not expect EPA to be able to do this alone. The agency
needs powerful and effective community partners that understand the roots of environmental
injustice and are committed to people's enforcement to be able to achieve its EJ2020 goals.
For this reason we welcome EJ2020's call to partner with "overburdened communities" as long
as partnerships promote the ability of communities to organize and protect themselves from
environmental injustices perpetrated by coalitions of state and corporate actors. Partnerships that
provide photo opportunities and rhetoric about inclusiveness are harmful if they do not change
the balance of power towards democracy and self-determination for all communities.
Partnerships that only involve a few individuals, without the involvement and mobilization of the
broader communities impacted by environmental injustice, threaten efforts to bring about
environmental justice.
One serious omission from the draft EJ2020 framework is recognition of the role of structural
racism in perpetuating environmental injustice. The term "race" is absent from the document.
How can EPA seriously address environmental civil rights complaints if it avoids discussion of
race, which provides the legal grounds for federal remedies under the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The profound consequences of hundreds of years of wars against Native Americans, slavery,
EJ 2020 Public Comments
249
-------
segregation, voter suppression, and continued exclusion of occupations dominated by people of
color from basic labor protections, are central to understanding and correcting current
environmental injustices. The historical roots of NCEJN's civil rights complaint are evident in
the overlap of the locations of the industrial hog operations re-permitted in 2014 and the
proportion of the state's population that was enslaved in 1860.
We ask our EPA partners to recognize the extent to which environmental injustice has been built
into the laws, economics and culture of our country. This means environmental justice is not
attainable without addressing the unfinished business of movements for civil and human rights,
including equal access to education, public services, courts, voting, safe workplaces and
communities free from state violence. Government agencies cannot effectively advance EJ
without promoting movements outside of government that will shift power from corporations
and the state to communities and workers impacted by injustice. In its EJ2020 plan, EPA should
commit to coordinating with popular movements to strengthen their ability to bring about
environmental, social and economic justice. One tool should be a People's Bill of Rights that
expands and protects the ability of communities impacted by environmental justice to protect
themselves from environmental degradation and lack of access to the resources and amenities
required for public health.
We also recognize that funding from the state, foundations, and other institutions of the wealthy
can coopt and undermine movements for justice. Therefore, we assert that funding alone,
without a fundamental change of commitment, may do more harm than good because it makes
exploited communities dependent on support from institutions that enhance their own power by
restricting those communities' ability to challenge and change policies that place profits over
human rights and needs. To promote such a change of commitment, EJ2020 should include
plans for educating regulators, scientists, policy makers, the EJ community and the general
public about the racial and economic inequalities that reproduce environmental injustice.
We appreciate EPA's consideration of these comments. We are happy to provide additional
information.
Sincerely,
Naeema Muhammad, Co-Director, North Carolina Environmental Justice Network
Ayo Wilson, Co-Director, North Carolina Environmental Justice Network
EJ 2020 Public Comments
250
-------
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Lauren Zeise, Ph.D., Acting Director
Headquarters • 1001 I Street • Sacramento, California 95814
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4010 • Sacramento, California 95812-4010
Oakland Office • Mailing Address: 1515 Clay Street, 16th Floor • Oakland, California 94612
Matthew Rodriquez
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Governor
June 12, 2015
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (MC 2201A)
William Jefferson Clinton Building South, Room 2226B
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Lee:
First, let me commend you and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) for
releasing the "EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework" draft document for public review and
comments. The document is well written and the three proposed goals are reasonable
for the 2020 timeframe. The actions items to be undertaken towards achieving each of
the goals are ambitious, but correctly have the primary components as public
engagement and partnership with state and local authorities. Our major comments are
forwarded for your consideration as you finalize the document.
The three goals are rightly focused on "overburdened communities." However, none of
the proposed actions show how the agency would proceed to identify these
communities across the country or in each state. You may want to consider convening
a National Environmental Justice Advisory Council workgroup to recommend how these
communities should be defined and a process to follow in addressing this task in the
framework. Section 39711 of California's Senate Bill 535 (De Leon, Statutes of 2012,
httpV/www.leqinfo.ca.aov/pub/l 1-12/bill/sen/sb 0501-
0550/sb 535 bill 20120930 chaptered.pdf) and the California Environmental
Protection Agency's (CalEPA) definition of "cumulative impacts"
(http://www.oehha.ca.qov/ei/pdf/CES20FinalReportUpdateOct2014.pdf, pq. 4) could
serve as a starting point for this discussion.
In California, the identification of such communities was the critical first step in initiating
investment opportunities in "disadvantaged communities" - similar to what US EPA has
envisioned for "overburdened communities." The identification of such communities will
facilitate state and local authorities joining hands with federal agencies to initiate
community-specific improvement activities to reduce pollution burdens. These activities
may range from investment, planning and permitting, to enforcement and compliance.
Environmental Justice Research Roadmap development and advancing, research on
California Environmental Protection Agency
EJ 2020 Public Comments
Sacramento: (916) 324-7572 Oakland: (510) 622-3200
www.oehha.ca.gov
251
-------
Charles Lee
June 12, 2015
Page 2
cumulative risks and impacts are worthwhile activities to pursue. These will require
substantial long-term financial and personnel commitments. As US EPA moves
forward in this direction, a first step would be to distinguish between cumulative risks
and impacts. These two words — risk and impact — are frequently conflated,
suggesting they convey the same outcome or a quantitative index. In the context of
health and environment, risk means chance of injury or loss. One expects that the risk
to an individual can be quantified. This has been the practice over several decades in
the current regulatory paradigm. Hence, the phrase "cumulative risk assessment"
creates an expectation that the effects from multiple stressors and sources can be
quantified in terms of likelihood by applying a state-of-science approach similar to
traditional risk assessment.
However, traditional risk assessment can only account for sensitivities of some
subpopulations, such as children and the elderly, and at this point cannot incorporate
community characteristics such as area-specific information (e.g., water quality,
pesticide use), proximity to multiple nearby sources, or socioeconomic or health status.
These factors may also affect a community's vulnerability to pollution. Further,
traditional risk assessments are only applicable to environmental contaminants that are
well-characterized with respect to exposure levels and their dose-response
relationships. These assessments are useful in estimating the risk to an individual, but
they cannot provide a comparable estimate of risk facing a community in a specific
area. The hazards of many environmental contaminants are not well-characterized,
and exposure to these contaminants within a community will vary greatly among
individuals. In addition, the data required to adequately characterize the huge number
of contaminants in the environment cannot be generated easily and may not even be
feasible. In fact, these limitations have also deprived decision-makers the ability to see
emerging issues, such as the siting of multiple pollution sources in some communities.
Because of such limitations, many institutions have used alternatives to the traditional
risk assessment paradigm of quantifying cumulative risk. In California, both
researchers and CalEPA have successfully used "cumulative impacts" analysis at local,
regional (https://dornsife.usc.edu/pere/cumulative-impacts/) and state levels
(http://www.oehha.ca.aov/ei/pdf/CES20FinalReportUpdateQct2014.pdf). "Impacts"
could be interpreted to mean potential effects or influences of stressors or sources that
do not necessarily result in injury or loss.
Thus, in the context of identifying overburdened communities, cumulative impacts
assessment is better-suited and could serve as a model for others to follow. Several
science-based methods are readily available in this context and most of the data sets
that US EPA has already incorporated in EJSCREEN can also be included. CalEPA's
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed CalEnviroScreen, a
science-based method for evaluating and quantifying relative cumulative impacts that
takes into consideration multiple pollution levels and sources in a community while
EJ 2020 Public Comments
252
-------
Charles Lee
June 12, 2015
Page 3
accounting for the community's underlying health and socioeconomic status. We are
willing to offer consultation should you decide to follow a similar path forward.
US EPA has the jurisdictional authority and influence to reduce pollution burdens in
communities nationwide. These burdens are a primary cause for many environmental
justice (EJ) concerns expressed by communities across the country. In the framework,
we suggest that the third goal be modified to read "Demonstrate progress on outcomes
that reduce the pollution burden in overburdened communities" instead of "Demonstrate
progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened communities." This change would
improve the clarity and avoid outcome expectations that are beyond the scope of US
EPA's influence.
Another related issue is that many of US EPA's permitting functions are delegated to
the states, and in turn to the local authorities in some jurisdictions. Hence, the
consideration of EJ in the permitting context needs to include detailed guidelines to be
considered by the states to ensure compliance and accountability and to track progress
over time in each state. We envision that this could be the most important but most
challenging task ahead, and would require experienced and dedicated staff as well as
resources.
Once again, we commend you to have taken this bold step and hope that our
comments will be useful as you move forward to finalize the goals and action items of
the EJ 2020 Framework. Should you need clarification or have questions, please
contact Shankar Prasad of my staff at (916) 323-2808 or
shankar.prasad@oehha.ca.gov.
Sincerely
VA .
Lauren Zeise, Ph.D.
Acting Director
EJ 2020 Public Comments
253
-------
PALM BEACH MONTHLY MEETING
of the
RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS (QUAKERS)
823 North A Street, Lake Worth, Florida 33460-2424
Phone: (561) 365-7522
pbquakers@gmail.com
July 9, 2015
Charles Lee
Deputy Assoc, Asst. Admin for Environmental Justice
USEPA Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Comment on the inclusion of prisoner populations in EPA's Draft Framework
for EJ 2020 Action Agenda
Dear Mr. Lee:
We believe prison populations need to be included in environmental justice
planning. Prison populations meet the EJ 2020 Action Agenda criteria of being
minority, low income and are in need of environmental protection.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Caldwell, Clerk
Palm Beach Monthly Meeting of the
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
Walk cheerfully over the world greeting that of God in everyone.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
254
-------
Pender Watch & Conservancy
RESPONSIBLE ADVOCATES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTSINCE1986
PO Box 662 I Hampstead, NC 28443 I
www,penderwatch@gmail.com I periderwatch@gmail.com
J
uly 13,
2015
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEPA Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Public Comment re: Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Dear Mr. Lee:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework.
PenderWatch & Conservancy ("PenderWatch") is an all-volunteer organization founded in 1986
in Pender County, North Carolina as "Responsible Advocates for the Environment." We have
approximately 400 members. PenderWatch is committed to preserving the natural
environment of Pender County for current and future generations by promoting
environmentally sound policies and programs.
We are grateful for this opportunity to comment on the draft framework for EJ 2020. In
particular, we would like to draw your attention to a pressing need - and excellent opportunity -
for EPA to meet its goal to "Engage states and other co-regulators in environmental justice,"
particularly with regards to permitting, by using the pending NC Division of Air Quality permit
for Carolinas Cement Company as a test case.
Engaging states and other co-regulators in environmental justice
EPA can meet its over-arching goal to "make a visible difference for over-burdened
communities" by addressing the points under Goal I, "Deepen environmental justice practice
EJ 2020 Public Comments
255
-------
within EPA programs to improve the health and environment of overburdened communities."
Nearly every environmental
permit issued is an opportunity to do just that. EPA's focus on considering environmental
justice in EPA permitting decisions is well-placed; however, only a tiny fraction of permits are
actually issued by EPA. Most permits are issued by state agencies or tribal governments. Many
of these permitting
staffs issued the very permits that created current Environmental Justice hotspots.
Environmental Justice will not be considered in most environmental permitting decisions unless
EPA strongly supports - or even compels - states to do so. We urge EPA to focus on advancing
the engagement of states in considering and implementing environmental justice:
• Require Environmental Justice training for state agency staff members and leaders
under cooperative agreements
EPA has completed mandatory training on Environmental Justice for all employees, according to
the Plan EJ 2020 Draft Action Agenda Framework. Congratulations on this important
achievement! Many state agency staff are in dire need of training on environmental justice as
well. State agency representatives in North Carolina, and presumably in many other states, are
unclear about what environmental justice is, why it is important, and how to consider or
implement it in their jobs. North Carolina serves as a key example, as it no longer even has a
coordinator for Environmental Justice within the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. We suggest that EPA require all state agency staff involved in permitting and
enforcement to receive mandatory environmental justice training under the terms of their
cooperative agreements with EPA. States like PA, CT and IL, which have shown leadership in
implementing environmental justice principles, could be tapped to help provide these trainings,
so that the message is peer-to-peer and thus more likely to be well-received by states. Such an
approach would also help meet EPA's goal to "Collaborate with states, tribes, local
governments and other co-regulators to share and develop environmental justice tools and
practices" (EJ 2020 Draft Framework).
• Guide states to consider Environmental Justice and develop hooks that compel them
to do so
There are likely multiple barriers that prevent states from considering and implementing
Environmental Justice in their permitting and regulatory functions. These barriers may include
a lack of understanding of the principles of environmental justice (see previous bullet point), a
perceived lack of resources or specialized knowledge to implement environmental justice,
pressure from regulated entities to speed up regulatory processes in ways that could preclude
full consideration of environmental justice, or others. EPA should identify and address these
barriers through education and training, guidance materials, and by compelling states to
EJ 2020 Public Comments
256
-------
consider Environmental Justice in permitting and enforcement whenever possible, such as
under cooperative agreements or other funding mechanisms. For example, EPA could adapt
the Agency's guidance "Considering Environmental Justice in Permitting" for state use, and
provide direct assistance in using such a tool. EPA could require states to make use of the
guidance as a condition of specific funding / cooperative agreements.
• Use the Carolinas Cement Company air permit as a test case under EJ 2020 to move a
state to thoroughly consider and implement environmental justice principles in a state
permitting decision.
EPA has an excellent opportunity to help a state make considerable progress by learning hands-
on how to use the principles of Environmental Justice in permitting. In issuing an air permit to
Carolinas Cement Company in 2013 (a permit that is currently before the North Carolina
Supreme Court), an endeavor that would build one of the world's largest cement plants in an
over-burdened community of poor and minority residents on the Northeast Cape Fear River on
the border of Pender County, North Carolina regulators summarily rejected the community's
many requests to consider environmental justice factors in its permit analysis. PenderWatch
has submitted comments on the proposed permit, and has communicated our concerns about
environmental justice with regards to this permit to NC DENR and to EPA's Region IV
Environmental Justice staff members.
The NC DENR Division of Air Quality held a public hearing on the revised permit in 2013, at
which PenderWatch, the New Hanover County NAACP and several other community
representatives urged the state to consider the special vulnerabilities of the nearby community
reliant on well water, already overburdened by legacy contamination from present and
historical polluters on the Northeast Cape Fear River. Despite our specific requests to do so, the
Division of Air Quality flatly refused to consider any secondary impacts of the permit, from air
deposition of mercury and heavy metals into an impaired waterway, to the tremendous
increases in heavy truck traffic that would accompany the opening of a massive cement plant.
The hearing officer publicly belittled community members for urging the Division of Air Quality
to consider environmental justice in their permitting decision. From the hearing officer's
written report:
"Commenters appear to allege that the federal Environmental Justice policy
applies to NC DAQ's issuance of this permit. The federal policy, set forth in Federal
Executive Order No. 12898, addresses the federal government's responsibilities
only, not the State's. Therefore it is not applicable here." - NC DENR
Recommendation for Issuance of Air Quality Permit, Carolinas Cement Company,
August 29, 2013
EJ 2020 Public Comments
257
-------
(http://daq.state.nc.us/permits/psd/docs/titan/CCC Hearing Officer Report.pdf
, page 13).
The Hearing Officer's opinion was adopted in its totality and the Carolinas Cement Company air
permit signed by Donald Van der Vaart, who was subsequently appointed Secretary of the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
See http://daq.state.nc.ys/perirnits/psd/docs/titan/tiit3n perm 08292013.pdf
We strongly urge EPA to conduct a thorough review of this permit and use your authority under
the Clean Air Act and other federal laws to give Environmental Justice its due consideration in
this matter. Mr. Lee, we would like to meet with you as well as meet again with Mr. Mustafa
Ali to discuss this proposal. We will contact you separately with a meeting request.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the EJ 2020 Draft Framework, and for
your diligent work to promote environmental justice. Please contact me at any time for
additional information about the issues which have been raised in this comment letter.
Respectfully yours,
Allie Sheffield
President
EJ 2020 Public Comments
258
-------
Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility
2000 P Street, NW, Suite 240 • Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 265-PEER • Fax: (202) 265-4192
Email: info@peer.org • Web: http://www.peer.org
EPA's Environmental Justice Program - Isolated from Civil Rights
PEER Comments on EPA 2020 Environmental Justice Action Agenda
July 14,2015
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has invited comment on a "draft EJ 2020
Action Agenda." These comments by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
(PEER) contend that this draft EJ 2020 plan continues, and in fact worsens, core flaws that have
weakened and marginalized EPA's environmental justice program for the past two decades.
The key weaknesses on the draft plan are that it -
it Wrongly separates environmental justice from its underlying basis in the Civil Rights Act
of 1964;
> Contains no guidance for state and local recipients of EPA funds, leaving the program as
a an intellectual construct without content; and
it Lacks any planning for enforceable regulation.
I. Flunking Civil Rights
By severing environmental justice from civil rights EPA has reduced environmental justice to a
largely voluntary program. As articulated in this plan, environmental justice is aspirational in
nature, with EPA serving mainly in a cheerleading role.
This diminution of environmental justice stands in stark contrast to the core values of the
environmental justice movement itself, coming out of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
Before the expression "environmental justice" came into usage, the core issue was clearly named
and understood as environmental racism. Yet over the years EPA has increasingly turned away
from the issues of race and civil rights, to a degree that it is fair to ask whether at EPA
environmental justice has become a distraction from EPA's obligation to deal with issues of race
and civil rights.
Whatever the motivation, the fact remains that at EPA civil rights has fallen off the
environmental justice table, and among the costs has been the disempowerment of communities
desperately in need of environmental justice and a lessening of their ability to invoke Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in order to obtain that justice. The further isolation of civil rights
EJ 2020 Public Comments
259
-------
from EJ is evident in the draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda in its relegation of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act to a single bullet in a short list of "related efforts" at the tail end of the draft EJ 2020
"Framework."
This disconnection of EJ from Title VI has left both programs in weaker shape than is needed, at
a time when the programs should be working hand in hand, complementing and reinforcing each
other. Both are in need of attention.
In reality, EPA's management of these issues actually undermines communities' civil rights.
Many and perhaps most communities facing environmental discrimination are predominantly
minority. Yet EPA, by withholding the involvement of its Title VI civil rights program and staff,
has effectively neutered the agency's own capacity for engaging the issues as the civil rights
issues which in fact they are.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is not only the law of the land, but is a recognized tool for
bringing about environmental justice. Environmental justice and the Civil Rights Act are
intertwined, and have been so since the inception of the environmental justice movement.
Environmental justice was institutionalized at EPA and in the federal government on February
11, 1994, when President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." In almost every
action addressing environmental justice since then the Agency has cited E.O. 12898 as its basis
for action, including in Plan EJ 2014, issued in 2011. In issuing that Executive order in 1994,
President Clinton accompanied it with a Presidential memorandum, the purpose of which was:
".. .to underscore certain provision of existing law that can help ensure that all
communities and persons across this Nation live in a safe and healthful environment.
Environmental and civil rights statutes provide many opportunities to address
environmental hazards in minority communities and low-income communities."
(Emphasis added.)
Having noted that the E.O. is intended "to promote nondiscrimination in Federal programs
substantially affecting human health and the environment," his memorandum then went on to
direct "that all department and agency heads take appropriate and necessary steps to ensure that
the following specific directives are implemented immediately:" among them the following:
"In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, each Federal agency shall
ensure that all programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance that affect
human health or the environment do not directly, or through contractual or other
arrangements, use criteria, methods, or practices that discriminate on the basis of race,
color, or national origin."
Thus from inception, environmental justice at the federal level and in its foundational Executive
Order 12898 has been intended to work in tandem with the Civil Rights Act, most specifically by
way of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In sum, environmental justice has a basis in law, most
specifically in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
260
-------
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act gains practical traction and consequence in its prohibition of
federal funding for any "recipient" state and local agencies whose programs may have a
discriminatory effect on minority populations. In practice the vast majority of EPA's programs
are implemented at the state and local level by such "recipient" agencies, and almost every one
of these agencies receives EPA funds. Under the law a "discriminatory" effect includes any
impact resulting from "procedures, criteria or methods" used in those programs that may result in
a disparate or disproportionate impact. It is Title VI which provides the federal government with
powerful role in overseeing hundreds of state and local agencies, and imposing on them an
affirmative obligation to take steps and implement procedures to protect communities from
discriminatory environmental impacts.
Where environmental justice and Title VI overlap is in their shared goal and requirement to
protect communities of color from being subject to disparate or disproportionate impacts.
Environmental justice expands this protection to include low income and other populations, but
the core requirement in law to protect minority communities remains embedded. The relevance
of this to the day-to-day struggles of environmental justice communities is that many, and
perhaps most, such communities have a substantial minority population. Therefore, when a
minority community raises a concern regarding disparate environmental impacts, that concern
can and ought to be addressed as both an environmental justice and a civil rights issue.
While there was little progress on the EJ front during the administration of President Bush
(2001-2008,), there were high expectations when President Obama took office in January 2009.
His appointment of Lisa Jackson as EPA Administrator further kindled hopes for renewed
attention to EJ. By 2010 a multi-year strategy was coming together and was issued in 2011 as
"Plan EJ 2014," the first ever such plan at EPA.
Significantly, however, a near final draft was almost completely silent on Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act. Then, largely in response to a series of meetings Administrator Jackson had been
holding with the "Title VI Alliance," a group of about a dozen EJ and civil rights advocates from
across the country, the final Plan EJ 2014 was revised to include more than three dozen
references to Title VI.
By contrast with the 2014 Plan and Title VI Supplement, the EJ 2020 Action Agenda stands out
by way of its almost complete omission of Title VI.
In short, EPA has lost its way on civil rights and environmental justice. The agency has allowed
Title VI to become a "third rail," too hot to be touched. The EJ 2020 plan needs to touch that rail
if it seeks to have any power.
II. Absence of Substantive Guidance
The most fundamental gap in EPA meeting its civil rights and environmental justice
responsibilities is that it has never provided substantive guidance to the hundreds of state and
local "recipient" agencies funded by EPA on how to fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
261
-------
Other federal agencies such as the Departments of Transportation (DOT), Education and Health
and Human Services have issued such guidance and followed up with vigorous oversight to
ensure that it is used in practice, in some cases withholding tens of millions of federal dollars
because recipients failed to follow agency guidance.
While EPA has issued procedural Title VI guidance on public involvement, it has not provided
guidance on addressing the substantive issue of actual disparate impacts. It is the lack of this
guidance, more than any other single factor, which has let state and local environmental agencies
off the hook for their obligations under the Civil Rights Act, and left communities vulnerable to
environmental negligence and discrimination.
It is imperative that EPA move immediately to remedy the gap it has allowed to develop between
its environmental justice and civil rights programs, and that steps to address this gap be
incorporated into both EJ 2020 as well as the Civil Rights Office "Strategic Plan" mentioned in
the draft EJ 2020 Framework. This gap exists in many forms, including the Agency's
organizational structure, policies, programs and day-to-day operations, and must be addressed at
all of these levels. Clearly this will not happen without a clear, credible and sustained
commitment from the EPA Administrator herself.
Without guidance supported by regulations requiring use of that guidance, there will be no right
of redress for environmental injustice. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Alexander v.
Sandoval (532 U.S. 275) against the right of private citizens to bring suit under Section 602 of
the Civil Rights Act. This section deals with discriminatory effects or impacts and does not rely
on demonstrations of "intention" to discriminate. The Act's accompanying Section 601 prohibits
intentional discrimination and under this provision individuals have the right to sue but proving
intentional discrimination is a tall order. If EPA issued binding Title VI guidance for recipients,
and the recipients failed to comply with that guidance, then such failure could be used as
powerful evidence that the discriminatory effects are indeed intentional.
On May 4 of 2015, EPA released a "Title VI Progress Report" in which it once again committed,
as it had in the 2012 Supplement, to issue guidance or a "toolkit" for recipients. What was
lacking, however, was any acknowledgment of, or explanation for, why such a commitment has
been contained in formal Agency every year for each of the past four years, (always for "this
year") and yet the commitment has never been met. Meanwhile a draft of such guidance has yet
to be circulated by the Office of Civil Rights within the Agency or even at the Office of
Environmental Justice.
Without guidance, EJ will remain a voluntary, aspirational goal with no practical tools for
affected communities to defend themselves.
III. No Enforcement, No Progress
The Environmental justice section of the EPA website declares:
"EJ 2020 is a strategy for advancing environmental justice ... It is not a rule"
That statement encapsulates its limitations.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
262
-------
It is no secret either within EPA or among civil rights advocates that other agencies such as
DOT, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are far ahead of EPA when it comes to
administering their Title VI programs and coordinating between their EJ and Title VI programs.
The FHWA recently released a "Reference Guide" for EJ practitioners at both the agency and at
the state and local agencies receiving FHWA funds. The Guide lays out FHWA's view of the
relationship between EJ and Title VI, and goes on to describe in practical terms how the
programs should interact in dealing with EJ and Title VI issues that arise in any particular
community.
Beyond the Guide, it is the actual practices of FHWA staff that show how FHWA has taken a
common sense problem-solving approach into communities raising Title VI and EJ issues. EJ
staff at EPA likewise is well aware of, and seen in practice, the DOT's willingness to work hand
in hand with other federal agencies such as EPA in developing practical solutions to
communities' Title VI concerns.
This contrasts fundamentally with EPA's highly legalistic and analytically oriented approach in
which countless hours and staff resources are spent on essentially desk exercises rather than in
pursuit of practical solutions working with the communities and other involved parties.
A look at FHWA's working definition of what EJ means at that agency may shed light on the
difference between the two agencies. From FHWA's "Environmental Justice Reference Guide"
(April 1,2015):
"Environmental justice at FHWA means identifying and addressing disproportionately
high and adverse effects of the agency's programs, policies, and activities on minority and
low-income populations to achieve an equitable distribution of benefits and burdens. This
includes the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the
transportation decision-making process."
By way of contrast consider the opening statement of EPA's Draft EJ 2020 Framework, also
released in April, 2015:
"EPA's environmental justice efforts seek to protect the health and environment of
overburdened communities, support them to take action to improve their own health and
environment, and build partnerships to achieve community health and sustainability."
While the FHWA is making a clearly stated commitment to "identify and address" real situations
on the ground in communities, EPA's plans to "seek," "support" and "build partnerships." Thus,
EPA adopts a passive cheerleading-like approach. This contrasts with FHWA's clear statement
of who (FHWA) will do the acting, that they will "identify and address" discriminatory
activities, and FHWA's clear statement that the affected communities are to be involved in
"deci si on-making."
Thus, other federal agencies are less confused about EJ and civil rights. It is especially
disconcerting that EPA, the one federal agency tasked with coordinating EJ efforts among all
EJ 2020 Public Comments
263
-------
federal agencies, lags so far behind other federal agencies when it comes to carrying out the
requirements of the Civil Rights Act.
Nor does EPA use its traditional enforcement to further EJ goals. For example, in June 2010 the
EPA Office of Inspector General slammed EPA for a decade-long failure to implement national
urban air toxics control plans, designed to alleviate a major public health threat to the nation's
urban centers with concentrations of disadvantaged populations. ("Key Activities in EPA's
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy Remain Unimplemented" Report No. 10-P-0154). The
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required EPA to develop a strategy to reduce air toxics
emissions in urban areas, particularly from small stationary sources. While the agency was
required to issue new urban emissions standards in 2000 for these smaller local sources, such as
cars, dry cleaners and gas stations, EPA failed to follow through. Yet EPA figures show acute
risks from these local sources - potentially causing cancer in one in 28,000 Americans with two
million residents in areas where the lifetime risk was one in 10,000 or greater..
Perhaps more problematic is the delay once again of any action on a previously proposed policy
on the role of environmental standards in resolving Title VI complaints. In looking into Title VI
complaints EPA has long relied on pre-existing environmental standards (such as the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS) as essentially disposing (by way of a "rebuttable
presumption") of any disparate impact issues. In practice this tends to neutralize Title VI
complaints simply by way of a desk exercise, rather than a real investigation of the root causes of
the complaint at the community level. EPA had proposed changes to this policy nearly three
years ago requiring a closer look at, for instance, localized impacts, but that policy change has
apparently stalled.
Tellingly, EPA has not even come to grips with how it should investigate EJ complaints. An
attempt at developing Title VI investigative guidance fell victim to an EPA management hoping
to deal with discrimination solely as a technical issue that could be resolved with "science." The
net result was an extremely lengthy, largely incomprehensible and fundamentally unusable
guidance document proposed in 1998, then revised and recirculated as "draft revised" guidance
document in 2000.
EPA has tried to obscure the fact that the guidance was never finalized by referring to it as
"interim" guidance. The document pleased no one and drew a large amount of critical comments
which were never responded to. Regardless, the main underlying flaw in this approach and a
tendency which continues at EPA even now, was in trying to resolve issues that are essentially
policy issues by hoping they could be resolved by "science." Whether this is due to confusion or
political and managerial timidity remains unclear, but the result is the same - EPA has choked
when it comes to identifying and acting on discriminatory practices.
In summary, it can be fairly said that the pattern at EPA on actually addressing environmental
justice is studded with stalled policies, fragmented efforts and repeated unmet commitments.
Does EPA Have a Race Problem?
There have long been rumblings within EPA that it's problems in dealing with race outside the
agency in its EJ and Title VI programs are directly related to its still unresolved issues around
EJ 2020 Public Comments
264
-------
race within the agency, issues which as described above, came to a head in the 1990s. The
primary authority for addressing such issues is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. EPA has placed
both the Title VI ("external") and Title VII ("internal") programs in the same office. It is hard to
imagine that problems in one program within the office would not have some effect on other
programs in the same office.
Many agency employees feel strongly that fairness outside the agency goes hand in hand with
fairness inside the agency. It is unlikely that the agency would be able to deal effectively with
discrimination outside the agency if it has not been able to deal with it inside the agency. Many
current employees of all ethnicities would say the agency has never addressed, let alone
remedied, its "internal" civil rights issues.
Conclusion
In summary, a real commitment to EJ by EPA would -
• Restore the rightful relationship between civil rights and environmental justice by putting
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act at the heart of the EJ plan and committing to implement
the letter of that law fully.
• Issue guidance and supporting regulations directing the hundreds of "recipient" agencies
to comply with Title VI and protect communities from discriminatory environmental
effects. This guidance would clearly explain what steps these recipient agencies need to
take.
• Would look to adopt best practices from other agencies such as the US DOT and FHWA
for models of EJ and Title VI programs and how they are enforced.
In addition, meaningful progress would require that EPA get its own act together. At a
minimum, the EPA's civil rights and EJ programs need to learn how to work together towards
common goals. Ideally, it would then incorporate that new-found coordination between the
programs into both the EJ 2020 plan and the Office of Civil Rights Strategic Plan.
Given the mixed, at best, record of EPA on EJ and Title VI thus far, there may not be reasonable
grounds for optimism for meaningful progress during the final 18 months of the Obama
administrator.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Ruch
Executive Director.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
265
-------
Public Laboratory for Open Technology and Science comments on EPA EJ 2020 Action
Agenda Framework
Section I. Deepen Environmental Justice practice within EPA programs to improve the
health and environment of overburdened communities
A. Finalize guidance on considering environmental justice in rulemaking. This is a dense
comment, it would be helpful to clarify what is meant by this.
B. Continue to implement regional plans for enhanced public participation. How is
encouragement happening? We urge you to consider public participation in a wide range
of activities from permitting to project evaluation and rule making.
C. Advance environmental justice through compliance and enforcement. Will timeliness of
enforcement and compliance in disadvantaged communities be addressed? We would
like to see enforcement in overburdened communities with environmental justice
infringements fast-tracked.
D. Enhance science tools for considering environmental justice in decision-making. We
firmly support the call to advance research on cumulative risks and impacts. We would
like to see utilization of community-based participatory research and citizen science data
specifically in EPA's effort to foster Next Generation compliance. The public can
contribute to documentation of environmental conditions and identification of
noncompliance, especially at a screening level. In order to utilize community-collected
data, EPA-approved methods should be performance-based rather than technology-
based. Additionally, publicity around Next Generation compliance strategies and tools
such as ECHO and EJ Legal Tools is necessary for them to be impactful.
Section II. Collaborate with partners to expand our impact with overburdened
communities
A. Collaborate on tools and mechanisms, such as EJSCREEN and E-Enterprise, we can
use together to advance environmental justice: Please describe the planned public
outreach for these tools. In addition to these EPA-developed tools, it would be efficient
and mutually beneficial to look outward to tools and data produced by the public.
Promote avenues for tool input. Want them to say something about new tools price point
that they'll incorporate into E-Enterprise.
B. Work with other federal agencies to advance environmental justice through the
Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice: We would like to see
environmental justice advanced at all levels, and to do so, we need to enhance
accountability at the state level. We recommend state and regional partners participate
in the Working Group in order to facilitate direct communication and promote action.
C. Support community-driven efforts to identify and address environmental challenges with
comprehensive roadmap approaches for development and capacity-building. In addition
to "development and capacity building" this should also include redress.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
1
266
-------
Section III. Demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened communities
C. In addition to measuring outcomes in particular communities, invite comment on
whether there are a few critical nationwide program areas that matter to overburdened
communities on which we should focus national attention (e.g., drinking water, lead
paint): We think there are more relevant examples, such as air quality issues and
household pollutants.
Section IV. Related efforts
A. Promoting climate adaptation and resilience and greenhouse gas reduction co-benefits
will be an important part of the EJ 2020 Action Agenda. We support the emphasis on
climate adaptation and resilience and encourage EPA EJ to emphasize locally relevant
instances of adaptation, resilience and reduction. An interesting example of how the
process for public participation in planning for climate adaptation is being led by people
is with pacific island peoples and their widespread adoption of P3DM (participatory 3D
modeling). Participation improves outcomes on climate processes and is recommended
by the National Research Council1.
Note: We would like to see dedication through EPA EJ to Superfund remediation.
Under 2015 priorities
This list does not include priorities that will address Section I.D: Enhance science tools
for considering environmental justice in decision-making. We suggest that specific
actionable steps towards inclusion of priorities be added to support Section I.D.
This point is vague and needs additional clarification: "Conduct community resources
and training workshop".
1 Dietz, Thomas and P.C. Stern, eds. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and
Decision Making. A report from the Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
2
267
-------
From:
Sent:
To:
Rebecca Gallogly>
Monday, June 15,
ejstrategy; Lee, Charles; Saltman, Tamara; Altieri, Sonia; Knorr, Michele; Maguire, Kelly;
kacker.adhir@epa.gov; Reed, Khesha; Dorka, Lilian; Minter, Marsha
EJ 2020 Open Public Comment
Subject:
The purpose of this public comment is to emphasize above all else the need to aggressively pursue
your line item, "Making a Visible Difference in Communities." Whereas righting past wrongs through
Environmental Justice efforts is definitely important, our energy and other infrastructures as they
stand are working in ways that serve to perpetuate the occurrence of more wrongs. Mitigating future
problems through prevention, by way of reducing exposures of individuals to pollutants,
contaminants, and poisons is the most ethical and efficacious approach to take in addressing health
disparities among individuals living in environmentally overburdened, underserved, and economically
distressed communities, as they relate to environmental protection.
Individuals living in environmentally overburdened, underserved, and economically distressed communities are
exposed to more pollutants from vehicular traffic, than other individuals. Because of the history of land
acquisition before The Civil Rights Movement in this country, many if not most of our highways and interstates
cut through economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. Underserved individuals also typically do
the "dangerous" or "dirty" work, such as directly handling gas. Much of the work that involves using gas-
powered equipment day in, and day out, such as landscape and construction equipment with gas engines, is
work that confers lesser pay, thereby relegating individuals to earn less while being persistently exposed to
noxious pollutants. People with older cars tend to be economically distressed, which means their own exhaust
can leak into the cabin of their car, and their emissions are dramatically worse than those from a car owned by
someone with the financial means to maintain it properly. People without garages or carports tend to be
economically distressed. Weathering from the elements wears the gaskets / sealants that seal car cabins, making
these individuals more susceptible to leakage of vehicular pollutants from other vehicles, into their car cabin,
where they are left to essentially "stew" their lungs in these toxins. People who don't own cars are more likely
to be economically distressed, and when living in an urban or suburban environment, are also more likely to
suffer from frequent or daily exposures to vehicular exhaust. Walking in urban areas where there are many cars
with bad emissions increases exposure to these emissions, as the time taken during a single trip is orders of
magnitude greater by foot than by car. In more distressed urban areas, walkers will be exposed to more and
worse emissions. In urban areas, most bus stops are at traffic lights, where groups of vehicles idle and then must
start again, producing the most pollution when reinitiating forward movement. People without cars often must
rely on buses for transportation, and can spend an inordinate amount of time sitting at bus stops as a result.
Individuals living in environmentally overburdened, underserved, and economically distressed communities are
often those who have lower paying jobs that involve exposure to toxins. Many paints and almost all solvents
have toxins in them, and often, jobs involving painting or the use of solvents are lower-paying. Also, not only
do they do others' dirty work, e.g., painting other people's houses — but they also often do their own home
improvement repairs, because it further saves on costs.
Finally, individuals living in environmentally overburdened, underserved, and economically distressed
communities often do not have the resources to buy healthier food. Many of the cheaper foods we buy are
sprayed with chemicals, and packaged in plastic. We need to eliminate this differential stratum in food pricing,
EJ 2020 Public Comments
268
-------
and simply make organic foods the default. We also need to educate people about the dangers of involving
plastics in food, and reduce or eliminate plastics use where possible in food packaging.
A primary component of your line item, "Making a Visible Difference in Communities," needs to
involve educating the general public about how particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in vehicle exhaust are cancerous; how many of the products we use in everyday
applications, such as solvents, etc., are cancerous; how these and related compounds leak from our
vehicles and onto our lands, and then run into our waters during rains; and how we breathe in these
components daily when living in urban environments and / or working with readily available products
such as paints and solvents. Education ought to also include more in depth information about
pesticides, and how components in plastic can leech into food and health problems — including but
not limited to problems in developing fetuses.
With this preliminary summary of problem and need, I now give you several concrete solutions that I
urge you to take on immediately, with the help of other relevant Departments, and with the goal of
preventing further health disparities negative outcomes for people in environmentally overburdened,
underserved, and economically distressed communities. A side benefit includes the fact that these
improvements will have rippling effects that will positively impact individuals in all communities.
1) Outlaw all fracking outright.
2) Aggressively pursue the creation of fossil-fuel free energy, a/k/a Renewable Energy (RE), lobbying
to use funds from the Department of Defense's discretionary budget for widespread startup and
implementation.
3) Implement standardization of battery packs for electric vehicles, so that battery replacement can
happen on a large scale (and batteries don't need to be sent back to the original owner; although, I
strongly suspect only hydrogen may be the better option).
4) Aggressively pursue the installation of RE highways on all interstates, to implement stations
wherein hydrogen cell fuel and battery swaps are available. Provide strong incentives to gas station
owners and gas companies to invest in the turnover to RE. Add to / replace existing fossil fuel
stations whenever possible. Must have both hydrogen and battery pack swaps available every X
miles on RE highway (unless hydrogen proves the better option - no lithium - a limited resource, is
required; can power a range of vehicle engine sizes from hydrogen).
5) Get large cities over a certain metropolitan size, on the fast track of implementation of vehicular RE
over the span of 5-10 years, max.
6) Federally mandate cities over a certain metropolitan size (say, 1 million residents) to begin
planning and building state-of-the-art and comprehensive RE commuter rail, reaching from all
suburban areas, to all major destinations (e.g., universities, airports, courthouses, entertainment
districts).
7) Implement a mandatory fuel conversion plan, wherein vehicles older than the year 2000, and all
two-wheeled vehicles must be hydrogen or electric. Invest heavily in matching funds for this program,
as you will be hitting a lower socio-economic target here, and the goal is to improve people's health
and the health of the environment - not to make tons of money from already disadvantaged
individuals. Require this by 2020. Quickly pull in existing fossil fuel workforce for training and
implementation of new program. Every five years, raise the year cutoff by five years, until there are no
more fossil fuel powered vehicles (or maybe it would make better business sense, for continuity, if we
raised the cutoff every year by a year or two — while actively creating a work transition conduit for
people in this business to pursue training in related, or if desired, unrelated line of work after
conversion is complete, as conversion program will have a limited life).
2
EJ 2020 Public Comments
269
-------
8) Require all states to be at AT LEAST 50% RE for both uses (vehicular and non-vehicular) by
2020.
9) Require conversion of all semi trucks, nationwide, to RE by 2020.
10) Require conversion of all vehicles involved in governmental affairs (city to federal), whether via
public-private partnership (e.g., USPS) or directly, to convert to RE by 2020.
11) Generate and enforce stricter standards for distance of residential living from coal burning plants
— factoring in issues such as (1) pollutants and contaminants generally flow downhill in water, and
(3) coal ash can disperse in any direction based on weather patterns.
12) Require conversion of all landscape-related equipment with engines, to hydrogen or electric by
2020.
13) Seek to put measures in place to limit vehicular number, size, and turnover for the general
population. Making fewer vehicles of smaller size will be less taxing on the workers making vehicles,
exposed to carpet off-gassing, welding solder, solvents, plastic, etc. etc. etc.
14) Make engine emissions STRICT, and make their violation a finable offense. If an officer can do a
breathalyzer test, they can do a tailpipe test. Hire more law enforcement and demand strict
enforcement — BUT MAKE CONVERSION FREE FOR THE POOR, MAKE SURE THERE IS A
WARNING / INFORMATION / REMEDIATION MECHANISM IN PLACE (e.g., if your tail light is out
you can get it fixed, bring evidence of getting it fixed to judge, and you don't have to pay fine — do
same thing with hydrogen conversion).
15) Get fossil fuel related participants OUT OF The Department of Energy's H2 design and
implementation measures — unless they have a very clear and detailed plan for cycling down fossil
fuels to zero and ramping up in renewable energy. Otherwise, IT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
16) REQUIRE electric vehicle manufacturers to actively work toward phasing in aluminum metal-air
batteries, with the goal of completely eliminating the manufacture of new lithium-ion batteries by 2020
(lithium is a much more limited resource than aluminum).
17) Provide welfare assistance for a family with up to two biological children. Cut off welfare
assistance wherein family has more than two biological children. We have the right to procreate, but
increasing population is bad for the environment.
18) Enforce a requirement of the provision of only organic food.
19) Require one certified OSHA expert on site per number of individuals working in industrial settings
to actively work with, observe, and enforce stricter standards (e.g., masks and not just hardhats worn
at construction sites), and provide very detailed and specific and ongoing training on safety hazards
for workers. What may be salient to one worker (e.g., inhalation of toxin could lead to liver damage in
later life), may be different from what is salient to another worker (e.g., inhalation could cause
immediate degradation of sperm quality, increasing probability of birth defects).
20) Ban all styrofoam applications for use by public.
21) Very actively and strongly reduce the use of plastics in food packaging — both unnecessary
packaging, and packaging wherein liquid / oily / acidic food is directly in contact with plastics for a
prolonged period.
22) Require all products possible (e.g., paints, adhesives, etc.) that have variants that are low in or
have no volatile organic compounds (VOCs), to switch to providing only the low- or no-VOC variants.
23) In all applications possible, eliminate spray versions of substances (e.g., sunscreens, paints,
solvents, etc.).
24) Aggressively target janitorial workforce health by carefully considering those things to which
people working in a supportive cleaning capacity are exposed to daily, and consider omitting the more
toxic variants such as powders (e.g., Comet, which is easily and repeatedly inhaled), and toxic
cleaning solutions (e.g., I recently confirmed that Fabuloso has a nasty chemical or two in it) from the
list of allowable cleaning agents. Require affordable, less toxic alternatives, and implement training
and education in this vein.
EJ 2020 Public Comments 270
-------
24) Urge the President of the United States to call on all people and business entities in the U.S. to
actively and vigorously assist toward the RE goals in the next five years.
Let's make a visible difference in communities!!
Thank you,
Rebecca Gallogly
EJ 2020 Public Comments
4
271
-------
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:
Robert
-------
The plan does a wonderful job of including some EJ voices and issues, but not all. That is to be
expected because many EJ folks are often financially stressed and coping day to day. It is not to be
accepted, although the only answer I have is to pay people for lost work when they participate. It is
obvious that the plan process was long and motivated by inclusion, but research in
my encyclopedias does turn up other types of EJ. Some of the missing EJ voices are from
academics, both nationally and internationally; overburdened communities in rural areas; local
government; and state level advocacy groups outside of state agencies. Some of the loudly silent
voices seem to be the mainstream US environmental organizations, big business and their state and
federal trade associations, and health workers. This may not reflect on the plan, but on their
willingness to collaborate with EJ. Personally as an activist, and chair of the EJTF in Oregon when
we won the EPA collaboration award, I fear a growing lack of collaborative partners for us. I hope
this plan with some of the initiatives will actually increase the pool of collaborative partners for us
outside and inside the agency.
Conclusion
Many environmental policies fall short because of a failure to address issues of institutional racism,
with "sustainability" becoming the latest one. Epigenetic impacts will even further prove the long
reaching human impact of avoiding EJ. While this is a very good plan, it does not engage local
government in a way that obstacles to implementation, such as institutional racism, are addressed.
Almost all environmental problems are solved and mitigated on the site in the community. EJ leads
the way in developing realistic environmental problem solutions because it directly confronts
conflictual values of on the ground implementation of industrial and environmental projects. While
awkward for some, it is a necessary growing pain for a mature and inclusive environmental policy.
That is why the 2020 Plan is at the cutting edge of environmental policy right now in the US.
Respectfully Submitted
Robert W. Collin
EJ 2020 Public Comments
2
273
-------
July 15, 2015
Charles Lee,
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEP \, Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania. Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
RE: To EJ 2020 Open Public Comment Period
Dear Charles Lee,
The EPA is distinguished among many government agencies by positioning their works within the
priorities and context of communities affected by the unjust geographies of environmental pollution.
If there is something we hear from EJ communities in San Juan is that the EPA is always there when
you need them. The history of EPA in Puerto Rico is the victory of many communities struggling for
social and environmental justice. In our barrios and communities as many other places, the antidote
for the long term mitigation of environmental injustice is the participatory planning for a sustainable
community development. This type of planning requires deep levels of commitment, organization
and capacity building, both tacilitated by EPA to many local residents ot the EJ communities in Puerto
Rico. However, we are curious and interested in knowing the planning processes and methodology
for creating the EJ 2020 Action Agenda framework.
Following the community based and participatory tradition of the San Juan Bay Estuary Program,, on
November of 2013 we started working closely with local communities of the San Juan Bay Estuary on
a multidisciplinary and participatory project that has the goal of identifying point and non-point
sources pollution in the watersheds of the San Juan Bay Estuary. Our job requires a high level of
commitment and empathy with the local communities affected by social and environmental injustices.
On the other hand the success of our work depends on the trust and emotional bonds established
with the communities affected by the impacts of injustice.
We were invited by our project manager to participate in the last conference for the: EJ 2020 Action
Agenda Framework feedback (region 2) held on June 9, 2015. We are deeply grateful for the invitation
to participate in this important matter. However, is our opinion that tins passive level of participation
fails to recognize the diverse contributions, inputs, claims, preferences, knowledge and experiences
that local residents of EJ communities have towards the agenda. It would be contradictory to the
EJ 2020 Public Comments
274
-------
proposed goals of EJ 2020 to create an EJ plan without propitiating the participation of the SJBE EJ
communities and many other EJ communities affected by the impacts of unjust geographies.
The EPA knows that reducing inequalities and providing access to the planning and decision making
are requirements for achieving the long term sustainability of justice. The participation of local EJ
communities in the processes of planning the agenda must be a priority since the proposed draft of
the agenda states: "Under Plan EJ 2014, EPA. laid a foundation for integrating environmentaljustice in all its
programs," hence, suggesting that the EPA is prepared for a robust dialogue with local EJ communities,
as is expected for the creation of the EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework. For this dialogue to occur
we proposed stakeholders to transfer the scale of planning the agenda to a local community scale, to
capacitate and propitiate the discussion of local solutions and strategies to attend the development of
environmental injustices.
In our short experience working with EJ communities, community leaders are constantly reminding
the historical social exclusion processes leading up to the development of environmental injustices.
The history of social exclusion is printed in the landscape and memory of local EJ communities,
whereas remembrance of the causes of injustice stimulates the claims and development of justice. We
are convinced that to genuinely include Puerto Rico's EJ communities' feedback, the plan should be
contextualized and presented at a local scale and comments should be requested and discussed at this
scale.
As an informal, limited and voluntary exercise to provoke the discussion about the draft goals of the
Action Agenda Framework, we asked community leaders about their environmental situation in
relation to EJ. The following selected answers to questions regarding EJ and the environmental
situation of the community portray some of the common knowledge and perception in regards to EJ.
Interviews were given informally by some leaders of the local communities participating in the project.
-fWhat is environmentaljustice?-
• I am not sure
• Justice for the environment
• ^To not have environmental problems in my community?
• To avoid the placement of a polluting facility close to my home or community
-fWhat is an environmentalproblem?-
• When something affects the environment
• When the air's smell stings
• When we have dead fish in the river
• When we have trash in the lagoon
-fWhat environmentalproblems does jour community have?-
• We don't have garbage dumpsters
• We have a waste water treatment plant very close to our homes
EJ 2020 Public Comments
275
-------
• We don't have waste water connection and we have to dump our water straight to the river
• When it rains everything gets flooded
• Waste water running in the street
• Trash in the river
• Grey water in the river
• Heavy metals in our soils
• Our lagoon is filled with everyone's trash
• We can't use the basketball court because it's filled with waste water
-jjHow do you see your participation in solving these problems?-
• Working hand to hand with the government to solve the problems
• Actively
• Community development
• Consulting the community when making a decision that affects the community
Comments to environmental injustice constantly leads to identify social exclusion as part of the
causes of injustice:
-jjWhat would you identify as the cause of environmental injustices in the community?-
"This happens in a daily basis, the government does not come, we are the ones that have to do the cleanup" Peter, Playita
resident
"I do not understand why they bull do^er comes to cut my trees to create an easement, if these trees do more for us holding the
ground when the riverfloods" Don Rafa, Sierra Maestra resident
"I would not be surprised if one of these days the government pulls me out of here, to build a hotel" Don Juan, Plebiscito I,
resident
"The smell is unbearable, I don't go out anymore or open my windows. I've been in many government agencies and nobody helps
me because I am from the Venezuela community" Dona Ines, Venezuela resident
"There's somethingyou have to understand, the histoy ofpoor communities is the history of the garbage, back then, it was
through garbage the only way that many of us could survive" South Hill Brother resident
"... ^4 visit? ..., Kid, we are tired of walking the community evety time someone comes. The community have walked many times
and no one does anything' Maria, Villa Kennedy, resident
EJ 2020 Public Comments
276
-------
Our objective with this letter is to provide feedback towards the processes for planning the EJ 2020
Agenda Action Framework, not to provide feedback on the draft. The main comment of our
feedback is to provide equal, transparent and participatory platforms for encouraging and including
the voice of EJ communities in the EJ 2020 Agenda. This effort will guarantee an equal, just and
sustainable long term effect of EPA actions for tackling environmental injustices.
We are deeply grateful for your consideration to our comments. If you have any question,
suggestion and/or need more information please contact us to facilitadorestuario@,gmail.com and
rmorales@estuario.org.
Cordially,
787-398-4050
Roberto E. Morales Lopez
Geographer & Project Coordinator
San Juan Bay Estuary Program
Omar Perez Figueroa
Specialist on Water Issues
Water Quality and Field Data Collection
USEPA Grant CE C-72-250-02
USEPA Grant CE C-72-250-02
www.estuario.org
www.estuario.org
EJ 2020 Public Comments
277
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda
Framework (June 15, 2015)
Via email
July 14, 2015
eistrateav(a)eDa.aov
Comments of Sierra Club
Leslie Fields
Violet Lehrer
Alejandra Nunez
Isabelle Riu
Joanne Spalding
Natalie Spiegel
Joshua Stebbins
Sierra Club
50 FSt. NW, 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
leslie.fields@sierraclub.org
EJ 2020 Public Comments
278
-------
Table of Contents
I. Incorporating environmental justice in rule making 1
A. EPA must prepare an environmental justice analysis of every federal rule under EO 12898 and
the agency's policies that implement it 1
B. EPA must establish more stringent standards for the regulation of pollutants that affect minority
and low income communities 4
1. Minority and low income communities are disproportionately exposed to higher levels and
health impacts of ozone air pollution 5
C. It is practicable to require states to conduct an environmental justice analysis as part of
implementation plan submission and approval 12
D. EPA must provide guidance to staff and states on how to conduct an environmental justice
analysis and address minority and low-income communities' concerns 14
E. Promoting greenhouse gas reduction co-benefits must be a critical component of the EJ 2020
Framework 17
F. EPA must prioritize further research on cumulative impacts and address those impacts in its
environmental justice analyses 18
G. Comments on EPA's environmental justice screening tools 20
1. EPA must prioritize the completion of NATA assessment updates to finalize EJSCREEN 21
2. EPA should add S02 to EJSCREEN's environmental indicators 21
3. EPA must provide detailed guidance on its intended uses of EJSCREEN 22
4. EPA must also provide guidance on how to use EJSCREEN for cumulative impacts analyses.... 22
5. EPA must reassess EJSCREEN's limitations regarding demographic information 24
6. CalEnviroScreen 2.0 provides good lessons on additional information that EPA could
incorporate into EJSCREEN 26
7. EPA should not discontinue EJView 27
H. EPA Must Continue to Ensure Meaningful Involvement of Minorities and Low Income
Communities in Regulatory Actions 29
II. EPA must ensure that environmental justice concerns are adequately addressed in the operating
permit process 31
III. EPA must effectively incorporate EJ concerns in reviewing and approving amended state plans
and enforcing the requirements of the SSM rule under those plans 35
A. Testimony from members of the Fairmount, Alabama community surrounding the Walter Coke
Facility 36
B. Testimony from Members of the Detroit, Michigan Community Surrounding the Marathon
Refinery 37
EJ 2020 Public Comments
279
-------
C. Testimony from members of the Shreveport, Louisiana Community Surrounding Calumet
Shreveport Refining 38
D. Testimony from members of the Port Arthur community surrounding the BASF Chemical Plant
and the Total Petrochemicals and Refinery 39
IV. EPA must ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by any entity that receives
funding from the agency 39
EJ 2020 Public Comments 280
-------
Thank you for accepting these comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's
("EPA") Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework (June 15, 2015) ("EJ 2020 Framework"). The
Sierra Club is the oldest and largest grassroots environmental group, with over 1.2 million
members and supporters. The Sierra Club has joined with other environmental groups in a
detailed set of comments to EPA's EJ 2020 Framework focused on demonstrating progress on
outcomes that matter to minority and low income communities and creating specific initiatives
that will assist the agency in achieving this progress. These comments discuss in more detail
how to integrate environmental justice ("EJ") in rule making and rule implementation, with an
emphasis on practical suggestions to effectively apply the EPA's recently finalized "Guidance on
Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of Regulatory Actions" ("Final
Guidance"), focused primarily on air pollution rules.
The Sierra Club would also like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank EPA staff
for its continued commitment to comply with Executive Order ("EO") 12898, Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which
requires every federal agency to make environmental justice a part of its mission. However, as
these comments note, there is still much left to do for environmental justice to truly take root
in every section of the agency. As numerous studies have documented and EPA has also
acknowledged, minority, low income, and indigenous communities often live in close proximity
to large sources of air and water pollution, experience adverse or even disproportionate health
impacts resulting from numerous environmental hazards, and have less opportunities to
participate meaningfully in decisions that affect their health and environment. Minority and
low income communities are also more likely to reside in areas vulnerable to climate change
impacts such as sea-level rise and to spend higher proportions of their income as a result of
rising food prices or increased water scarcity.
Consistent with its obligations under EO 12898, EPA must integrate environmental
justice in all its regulatory actions, assessing not only whether the agency's regulations would
have the potential of creating adverse or disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income
populations, but also whether those communities in particular can receive the benefits
expected from the implementation of those rules. These comments offer practical suggestions
on how to effectively put into practice EPA's Final Guidance to implement EO 12898, in order to
ensure that EPA appropriately addresses environmental justice both in the development and
implementation of the agency's regulatory actions. Toward this end, we also provide input on
EPA's environmental justice screening tools, with an emphasis on EJSCREEN, which EPA recently
released, and EJView, which the agency plans to discontinue this fall.
I. Incorporating environmental justice in rule making
A. EPA must prepare an environmental justice analysis of every federal rule under EO
12898 and the agency's policies that implement it
Executive Order ("EO") 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires each federal agency to make
1
EJ 2020 Public Comments
281
-------
environmental justice part of its mission "by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United
States."1 EO 12898 requires all federal agencies to collect, maintain, and analyze information
that assesses and compares environmental and human health risks to populations identified by
race, national origin or income, and to use that information in determining whether their
actions have "disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on
minority populations and low-income populations."2
Incorporating environmental justice into the rule making process is a critical part of
implementing EO 12898. Sierra Club commends EPA for its continued commitment to make
this one of the agency's focus areas, now under its Plan EJ 2020. The recently-finalized Final
Guidance will be an important tool to assist EPA's rule writers and decision makers in
incorporating EJ in its "Action Development Process" ("ADP") for developing environmental
regulations.3 As EPA notes, rule making will be more effective if, following the Final Guidance,
EJ is considered not only in the development of the rules themselves, but also in other "up-
front" actions that support the development of those regulations, such as risk assessments and
analytical tools.4
Sierra Club shares EPA's view that the agency's rules need not entail "disproportionate"
impacts in order to trigger a requirement to protect the health and environment of minority,
low income, and indigenous communities ("EJ communities"). As the Final Guidance notes, the
Clean Air Act "provide[s] a broader basis for protecting human health and the environment."5
Consistent with its authority under the Act, EPA may address any adverse impacts from the
implementation of a rule on EJ communities without having to show that those impacts are
disproportionate. If EPA is required to make such a determination in particular contexts,
however, EPA's Final Guidance provides a good recommendation that agency staff must
implement in every rule they craft—to consider "the severity and nature of health
consequences; the magnitude of the estimated differences in impacts between population
groups; mean or median exposures or risks to relevant population groups; distributions of
exposures or risk to relevant population groups; characterization of the uncertainty; and a
discussion of factors that may make population groups more vulnerable."6
EPA must promote the effective use and robust implementation of the Final Guidance,
as proposed in its EJ 2020 Framework.7 Consistent with EPA's obligations under EO 12898, EPA
1 Exec. Order No. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, § 1-101.
2 Id. § 3-302(a).
3 U.S. EPA, Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of Regulatory
Actions ("Final Guidance"), May 2015, at i.
4 Id. at 1.
5 Id. at 7.
6 Id.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft EJ2020 Action Agenda Framework, June 15, 2015, at 2.
2
EJ 2020 Public Comments
282
-------
must prepare an EJ analysis in every rule it issues. EPA and other federal agencies have for
many years conducted cost-benefit ("CBA") analyses for each and every "significant" action
they issue, in accordance with EO 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.8 Just like CBA has
become a critical component of agencies' decision making, we believe that EJ analyses must
become more rigorous in order to really become an integral part of the regulatory process.
This would also help offset some of the gaps in traditional CBA analyses, which do not focus
centrally on distributional issues.9 Effective integration of EJ concerns into EPA's regulatory
analysis would provide both substantive and practical benefits. It would also fully comport with
EPA's legal mandates under EO 12866 and EO 12898. Perhaps most importantly, integrated
CBA and EJ analyses would help ensure that EJ considerations are not overlooked at key
moments in the decision-making process and that EJ communities are treated like equal
stakeholders, whose costs and benefits are, as a matter of fact, part of the CBA calculus.
Sierra Club fully supports the Final Guidance's expansion of the concept of "fair
treatment" to include the distribution of benefits of the agency's regulations across all
populations, in particular EJ communities. In light of this expanded concept, agency staff
should not only evaluate potential adverse impacts to these communities, but also "the
distribution of the positive environmental and health consequences resulting from their
regulatory actions."10 Thus, as part of its EJ analyses, agency staff must assess not only whether
the agency's regulations would have the potential of creating adverse impacts on minority, low-
income, and indigenous populations, but also whether those communities specifically can
receive the expected benefits of those rules. Robust implementation of the Guidance means
8 See Exec. Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, § 6(a)(3)(B).
9 The draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis ("Draft
Technical Guidance"), which EPA must finalize this year, observes that "analyses of potential EJ concerns
are often conducted separately from an assessment of benefits and costs (i.e., benefit-cost analysis
evaluates efficiency, while analyses of potential EJ concerns evaluate whether impacts are distributed
differently)." It also notes that consideration of EJ concerns is distinct from "other parts of the
regulatory analysis" such as CBA; that "the focus of E.O. 12898 is on human health or environmental
effects, which is generally at least one step prior to monetization of benefits and precludes certain other
benefit categories covered in the EPA's Economic Guidelines;" and that decision-makers are to consider
distributional impacts analyses "along with" efficiency analyses. U.S. EPA, Draft Technical Guidance for
Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis, Post-Internal Agency Review Draft, May 1, 2013,
at 4, n. 14., 5, n. 17. See also Office of Management and Budget ("OMB"), "Circular A-4" (September 17,
2003), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (implying that the two
analyses should be separate). However, the Draft Technical Guidance fails to note that EPA's own
description of its Economic Guidelines states that they "provide guidance on analyzing the benefits,
costs, and economic impacts of regulations and policies, including assessing the distribution of costs and
benefits among various segments of the population." U.S. EPA, Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses, available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE%5Cepa%5Ceed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html. EPA
needs to revise its Draft Technical Guidance to address this possible inconsistency. In particular, EPA
should provide its staff with clear guidance on exactly at what point in the regulatory process will EPA
ensure that EJ concerns are considered "along with" efficiency, and what will be the relative priority of
the two if/when they conflict.
10 Final Guidance, at 4-5.
3
EJ 2020 Public Comments
283
-------
that, going forward, EPA's analyses of the environmental justice implications of its rules should
be done differently if EPA really is to make environmental justice part of its mission. The
following comments offer practical suggestions on how to implement the Guidance and ensure
that the rules EPA issues address EJ appropriately.
Finally, Sierra Club supports EPA's direction to rule writers to consider environmental
justice not only in the development of the agency's regulatory actions, but also in the
implementation of those actions.11 As these comments detail, EPA must provide guidance and
work closely with states in developing implementation plans to comply with applicable EPA
standards and in developing the operating permit program to comply with these requirements
at the state level in a manner that addresses environmental justice effectively.
B. EPA must establish more stringent standards for the regulation of pollutants that
affect minority and low income communities
In order to effectively implement the Final Guidance in the rule making context, EPA
must establish more stringent and more protective standards for the regulation of pollutants
that affect the health of environmental justice communities. For example, in its proposed
Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone ("ozone
NAAQS"), EPA concluded that "the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action
will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level
of protection provided to human health or the environment," and that, if finalized, the revised
ozone NAAQS will actually increase public health protections.12 Contrary to this statement, the
level of the standard established by EPA will affect the level of protection to human health and
the environment, including for minority, low income, and indigenous communities. The more
stringent the final standard is, the more benefits EJ communities will receive from the
implementation of the ozone rule.
EPA's proposed Regulatory Impact Analysis ("ozone RIA") to the proposed ozone NAAQS
provides a limited analysis of the socio-demographic characteristics of populations living in
counties with monitors with current design values (2011-2013) that exceed the proposed
standards (65 to 70 ppb). As the agency itself indicates, the analysis does not identify in detail
the demographic characteristics of the most affected communities nor does it quantify the level
of risk those communities currently face. The RIA does not provide state-level or county-level
information either, and it does not assess in detail the health burdens that EJ communities face.
EPA has thus concluded that the analysis "cannot be used to draw any conclusions regarding
potential disparities in exposure or risk across populations of interest from an EJ perspective."13
11 Id., at 11.
12 U.S. EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. 75,234,
75,387 (Dec. 17, 2014).
13 U.S. E.PA., Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ground-Level Ozone ("ozone RIA"), at 9A-1.
4
EJ 2020 Public Comments
284
-------
On the other hand, based on this limited analysis EPA has quickly concluded that, to the
extent that an EJ community is disproportionately impacted by ozone levels because it resides
in an area of interest (i.e., an area which ozone levels exceed the proposed standard), those
communities stand "to see increased environmental and health benefits from the emission
reductions called for by this proposed rule," and that the proposed standard "will tend to
benefit" geographic areas with a larger proportion of minority (particularly Hispanic and
African-American) and low-income residents than the national average.14 EPA has the
opportunity to address and ameliorate existing adverse impacts on EJ communities in revising
the ozone NAAQS standard by setting a stringent level and form for the new standard, which
will contribute to decrease the disproportionate ozone-related health burdens that EJ
communities (in particular minorities) bear throughout the country, both in non-attainment
and attainment areas, as detailed below.
1. Minority and low income communities are disproportionately exposed to higher levels
and health impacts of ozone air pollution
Ozone is a public health threat. Ozone exposure can cause numerous health problems,
including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion.15 Breathing ozone inflames
and damages the airways, reduces lung function, and continues to damage the lungs even after
symptoms have disappeared.16 Ozone also makes the lungs more susceptible to infection and
repeated exposures may permanently scar lung tissue and cause premature death from heart
or lung disease. Ozone is particularly dangerous for those who already suffer from respiratory
illnesses because it can trigger and exacerbate conditions such as asthma, emphysema, and
chronic bronchitis.17 Sensitive populations such as children and the elderly are especially
susceptible to the negative health effects of ozone.18 These effects lead to increased school
absences, work absences, emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and reliance on
medication.19
Minority and low income communities are disproportionately exposed to higher levels
of ozone air pollution, to more types of elevated air pollution and to more chronic air pollution.
African-Americans, in particular, are at higher risk of early death from ozone pollution than the
14 Id., at 9-7, 9A-7.
15 See, e.g., U.S. EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 16,436,
16,440 (Mar. 27, 2008); see also U.S. EPA, Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants, EPA 600/R-10/076F (Feb. 2013), available at
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/ozonehtm (cataloguing scientific studies and discussing in depth the wide
range of adverse health effects associated with short- and long-term ozone exposure) [hereinafter
"ISA"].
16 Id. at sec. 6.2.
17 Id.
18 Id. at ch. 8.
19 See, e.g., U.S. EPA, Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, EPA-452/R-14-006 (Aug. 2014), at 4-57.
5
EJ 2020 Public Comments
285
-------
general population. Bell et al. (2008)20 examined 98 urban communities in the U.S. and
reported that the risk between ozone and mortality was greatest in areas with high
unemployment, a higher percentage of African-Americans, higher public transportation use,
and a lower availability of air conditioning.
There are far higher proportions of minority populations than white populations living in
ozone non-attainment areas. The Sierra Club has cross-referenced census data, EPA's
nonattainment designations for the 2008 ozone standard, and levels of ozone (2011-2013
design values for the 2008 ozone standard) in several states,21 finding that this is a clear and
persistent trend. (See Appendix A.) Sierra Club has provided this information as part of its joint
comments22 to EPA's proposed ozone standard, and reiterates it here as a means to provide
practical suggestions to EPA on how to analyze EJ issues and implement its Final Guidance in
the context of the ozone rulemaking. Sierra Club hopes that this information also contributes
to further EPA's obligation to collect and analyze information on environmental and human
health risks borne by populations identified by race, national origin, or income, as mandated
under Section 3-302(a) of EO 12898.
Sierra Club's analysis found that, in the south of the country, Alabama, Arkansas, North
Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas all have higher relative concentrations of
blacks—sometimes far higher—living in areas that fail to meet the 2008 ozone standards than
concentrations of whites when compared to average state wide racial demographics. The same
holds true for central and mid-west states: Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Kansas,
and Oklahoma are particularly notable in the over representation of blacks living in areas that
fail to meet minimum air quality standards for ozone. Nevada also follows this trend. This trend
can also be seen in eastern and mid-Atlantic states, where Pennsylvania and Rhode Island have
higher relative exposures among blacks than whites, though in other states, such as New York
and Virginia, minorities that are at greater relative exposure than whites are Hispanics and
Asians.
Indeed, as Appendix B demonstrates,23 for many states there is a striking correlation
between increasing concentrations of smog, increasing concentrations of people of color and
decreasing concentrations of whites in areas that fail to meet minimum air quality standards.
20 M.L. Bell & F. Dominici (2008). Effect modification by community characteristics on the short-term
effects of ozone exposure and mortality in 98 US communities, Am. J. Epidemiol., 167: 086-997.
21 Data derived from US Census Bureau, "QuickFacts," available at
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html and EPA, "Design Values: Ozone 2013 Design Value
Report," available at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html
22 Comments of Sierra Club, et al. on EPA's Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone (March 2015), available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-
HQ-QAR-2008-0699-2720
23 Data derived from US Census Bureau, "QuickFacts," available at
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html and EPA, "Design Values: Ozone 2013 Design Value
Report," available at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html
6
EJ 2020 Public Comments
286
-------
Stated another way, as air quality progressively worsens, representation of people of color
increases while representation of whites in the population decreases.
It is also undisputed that ozone is a trigger for asthma attacks. Minority and low income
communities suffer a disproportionately higher asthma burden in the United States -
particularly African-Americans, Hispanics (especially Puerto Ricans), and Native Americans.
In absolute number terms, African-Americans are most heavily burdened by asthma in
the U.S. Nationally, the current asthma prevalence rate for non-Hispanic blacks is 11.9%,
compared to 8.1% for non-Hispanic whites and 7.0% for Hispanics.24 While the prevalence rate
reflects a relatively significant impact, it actually understates asthma's true burden on the
African-American community. Other key statistical measures of asthma's impact - including
hospitalization rates, emergency department visit rates, and mortality rates - show a much
starker contrast amongst races, with disproportionate impacts of approximately 200-400%
when comparing non-Hispanic blacks to non-Hispanic whites. Figure 1, which includes statistics
from several states that have recent data in at least three of the four major categories,
illustrates this pattern:
Fig. 1. State data on statistical measures of asthma's impact
State
Current Prevalence
Hospitalization
Emergency Department
Mortality Rate*
among Adults
Rate*
Visit Rate*
White
Black
White
Black
White Non-
Black Non-
White
Black
Non-
Non-
Non-
Non-
Hispanic
Hispanic
Non-
Non-
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
LD
1—
u
8.3%
15%
86
405
342
1273
0.77
2.61
TX26
9.2%
10.2%
88
195
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.9
NC27
1.2%
10%
75
210
N/A
N/A
0.68
1.8
IN28
8.7%
13.7%
85
306
344
1293
N/A**
N/A**
Wl29
8.6%
15.9%
63
346
N/A
N/A
0.79
3.54
24 CDC, Asthma Surveillance Data, available at http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/asthmadata.htm (accessed
Mar. 13, 2014).
25 Connecticut Dept. of Health (2012). The Burden of Asthma in Connecticut 2012 Surveillance Report,
available at http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/hems/asthma/pdf/full_report_with_cover.pdf.
26 Texas Dept. of State Health Services, Asthma Health Facts 2011, available at
https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/asthma/data.shtm#New_Asthma (accessed Mar. 13, 2014).
27 North Carolina Dept. of Health and Human Services (2010).The Burden of Asthma in north Carolina
2010, available at http://www.asthma.ncdhhs.gov/docs/TheBurdenOfAsthmalnNorthCarolina-2010.pdf;
North Carolina Dept. of Health and Human Services, African Americans and Asthma in North Carolina
(Mar. 12, 2014),
http://www.asthma.ncdhhs.gov/docs/factsheets/2011/AfricanAmericansAndAsthmalnNorthCarolina.pd
f.
28 Indiana State Dept. of Health, Asthma Fact Sheet, available at
http://www.in.gov/isdh/files/ISDH_FactSheet_Asthma_Nov2013_FINAL(l).pdf (accessed Mar. 13, 2014).
29 Wisconsin Dept. of Health (2013). Burden of Asthma in Wisconsin 2013.
7
EJ 2020 Public Comments
287
-------
* Per 100,000 persons
**lndiana data provides raw mortality numbers but not mortality rates. In 2011, 73 Indiana residents died from
asthma, 54 of whom were white and 18 of whom were black. African-Americans thus comprised approximately
24% of asthma deaths despite accounting for only 9% of Indiana's total population.
As the data summarized above shows, asthma's disproportionate impact is greater for
the most serious, life-threatening asthma-related complications. Not only are African
Americans more likely to have asthma, but even among asthma sufferers, they are more likely
to have the worst asthma-related complications, as not all individuals who have asthma suffer
from it equally. In other words, a higher percentage of African-Americans have asthma, but an
even higher percentage suffers from its most serious symptoms and outcomes.
Minority groups other than African-Americans are also disproportionately affected by
asthma. Nationally, Hispanics (especially Puerto Ricans) and American Indians/Native Alaskans
have a much higher current asthma prevalence rate than even African-Americans, at 16.7% and
14.3% respectively.30 In Hawaii, the prevalence rate for Native Hawaiians is 14.9%, compared to
only 9.0% for whites living in Hawaii.31 Asthma's heavy burden on these groups is also evident
from other statistical measures. Nationally, the mortality rate for Puerto Ricans is four times
higher than the mortality rate for whites.32 Similar trends exist at the state level for Native
Americans. In Oregon and Wisconsin, for example, the American Indian hospitalization rate is
double the rate for non-Hispanic whites.33 And while asthma prevalence among the total
Hispanic population is actually lower than the national average, Hispanics also have higher
hospitalization and mortality rates than non-Hispanic whites, and thus also suffer
disproportionately.34 Hispanics are 30% more likely to visit the hospital for asthma, as
compared to non-Hispanic whites, and Hispanic children are 40% more likely to die from
asthma.
Epidemiological studies also suggest that socioeconomic status ("SES") is associated
with higher risks of ozone-related health outcomes.35 EPA concludes that "most studies of
30 The Office of Minority Health, Asthma and American Indians/Alaskan Natives, available at
http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?lvl=3&lvllD=532&ID=6172 (accessed Mar. 13,
2014).
The Office of Minority Health, Asthma and Hispanic Americans, available at
http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?lvl=3&lvllD=532&ID=6173 (accessed Mar. 13,
2014).
31 Hawaii State Dept. of Health, Hawai'i Asthma Plan 10 (2013).
32 The Office of Minority Health, Asthma and Hispanic Americans (Mar. 13, 2014),
http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?lvl=3&lvllD=532&ID=6173.
33 Oregon Health Authority, Asthma Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations (Mar. 12, 2014),
available at
https://public.health.oregon.gov/DiseasesConditions/ChronicDisease/Asthma/Documents/burden/ch7.
pdf (Mar. 12, 2014); Wisconsin Dept. of Health 2013, supra.
34 The Office of Minority Health, Asthma and Hispanic Americans, supra.
35 S. Lin, X. Liu, L.H. Le, & S. Hwang (2008). Chronic exposure to ambient ozone and asthma hospital
admissions among children, Env. Health Perspect., 116(12): 1725-1730.; J.T. Lee, J.Y. Son, H. Kim, & S.Y.
8
EJ 2020 Public Comments
288
-------
individuals have reported that individuals with low SES and those living in neighborhoods with
low SES are more at risk for 03-related health effects, resulting in increased risk of respiratory
hospital admissions and ED visits."36 For example, a New York City study showed that children
with lower socioeconomic status had greater risk of ozone-induced hospital admissions for
asthma.37 Accordingly, the ISA noted that "evidence is suggestive of SES as a factor affecting risk
of 03-related health outcomes."38
Even in ozone attainment areas, environmental justice communities are adversely
affected by high ozone pollution levels due to the weak form of the current (2008) ozone
NAAQS. The form, known as the "design value," is the three-year average of the fourth highest
8-hour average ozone concentration. This form of the standard completely ignores the top
three ozone concentrations each year, and thus authorizes extremely high levels of ozone
without triggering any requirement to clean the air.
There are many areas largely in the eastern region that have recently attained the 2008
ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb based on 2012-2014 design values. However, it is important to note
that this shift is largely based on aberrant weather, as ozone and temperature are inextricably
linked, rather than a result of permanent and enforceable emission reductions. Despite now
being in attainment, many of these areas have regular and extreme exceedances, up to 111
ppb, that threaten public health but are entirely permissible due to the weak form of the ozone
NAAQS.
For example, the Baltimore community regularly suffers from ozone exceedances up to
109 ppb, as the following graph shows.39 Baltimore City has the highest percentage of people
living below the poverty line in the entire state40 and is predominantly black. Moreover, blacks
are over 30% over-represented and whites are 25% under-represented compared to the state
average.41 Baltimore City also consistently has the highest asthma prevalence, rates of
emergency department visits, hospitalization and death caused by asthma in all of Maryland,
which already has disproportionately high asthma rates compared to the rest of the nation.42
Kim (2006). Effect of air pollution on asthma-related hospital admissions for children by socioeconomic
status associated with area of residence, Arch. Environ. Occup. Health, 61(3): 123-120; S. Cakmak, R.E.
Dales, M.A. Rubio, M& C.B. Vidal (2011). The risk of dying on days of higher air pollution among the
socially disadvantaged elderly, Environ. Res., 111(3): 388-393; M. Pastor, R. Morello-Frosch, & J. Sadd
(2010). Air Pollution and Environmental Justice: Integrating Indicators of Cumulative Impact and Socio-
Economic Vulnerability into Regulatory Decision-Making, California Air Resources Board.
36 ISA at 8-27.
37 Lin. et al. 2008, supra note 654.
38 Id. at 8-28.
39 Data derived from: http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad data dailv.html.
40 Maryland Alliance for the Poor, "Maryland Poverty Profiles: 2014," available at
http://www.catholiccharities-md.org/public-policy/2014-map-poverty-profiles.pdf
41 US Census Bureau, "QuickFacts: Maryland," available at
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/IPE120213/24,24510,24005
42 Maryland Department of Health and Mental Flygiene, Asthma in Maryland 2011, available at:
9
EJ 2020 Public Comments
289
-------
Blacks Marylanders bear a significant asthma burden statewide as they are over 3 times as
likely to visit the hospital for asthma, over 4 times as likely to visit the emergency department
for asthma, and nearly 2.5 times more likely to die from asthma than white Marylanders,43
Fig. 2. Number of Days Ozone Monitors in Baltimore Exceeded the NAAQS (2012-14)
Number of Days Ozone Monitors in Baltimore Exceeded
the NAAQS (2012-14)
-------
income brackets."1' Yet the Charlotte community still endures significant ozone impacts and
asthma burdens and will soon have no obligation to improve its air quality due to the weak
form on the NAAQS.
Fig. 3. Number of Days Ozone Monitors in Charlotte Exceeded the NAAQS (2012-14)
Highest
Number of Days Ozone Monitors in Charlotte Exceeded the
NAAQS (2012-14)
evel: 88
Highest
evel: 92
1
jvel: 11
1
Ie
vel: 87
1
County Line Garinger High Monroe School Arrowood York CMS
(Mecklenburg Co.) School (Mecklenburg Co.)
(Mecklenburg Co.)
2012-14 Design Values of Charlotte Monitors (highest to lowest)
Source: Data derived from: http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad data dailv.html.
The Philadelphia area also recently came into attainment, but still endures frequent
exceedances, well above the current standard of 75 ppb and at levels deemed unsafe by EPA, as
the following graph shows. '7 Once again, these egregious exceedances are entirely permissible
due to the weak form of the NAAQS. The Philadelphia area has some of the highest asthma
rates in the entire state. The Southeast region of Pennsylvania, which includes Philadelphia, has
the highest asthma hospitalization rate, emergency room visit rate, and lifetime asthma
prevalence amongst school students in the entire state. And as displayed in the graph below,
blacks are significantly overrepresented and whites are underrepresented in Philadelphia.''
Blacks bear a disproportionate asthma burden, as black children are nearly twice as likely to
have lifetime asthma as white children in Pennsylvania. Moreover, Blacks are also over five
times as likely to be hospitalized for asthma as whites, and Hispanics are three times as likely.
And finally, Blacks are over three times as likely to die from asthma as whites.
J NCDHHS, Low Income Households and Asthma in North Carolina Fact Sheet, 2011, available at
http://www.asthma.ncdhhs.gov/docs/factsheets/2011/LowlncomeHouseholdsAndAsthmalnNorthCaroli
na.pdf.
47 Data derived from: http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad data dailv.html.
48 US Census Bureau, "QuickFacts: Pennsylvania," available at
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/42,4260000,42101
11
EJ 2020 Public Comments
291
-------
Fig. 4. Number of Days Ozone Monitors in the Philadelphia, PA Area
Exceeded the NAAQS (2012-14)
Number of Days Ozone Monitors in the Philadelphia, PA Area
Exceeded the NAAQS (2012-14)
¦ Total Days with 8-hour ozone levels of 75 ppb or higher during 2011-13 ozone seasons
Of that total, days in a single ozone season with 8-hour levels of 75 ppb or higher
Bucks-(75 ppb) Delaware-(74 Philadelphia - (75 Chester-(73 Montgomery- Philadelphia - (56
ppb) ppb) ppb) (72 ppb) ppb)
Monitors in Philadelphia, PA Area - (2012-14 Calculated Design Value)
Source: Data derived from: http://www.epa,gov/airdata/ad data dailv.html.
Fig. 5. Racial Over- and Under-Representation in Philadelphia, PA
Racial Over and Under Representation in
Philadelphia, PA
% Black % Asian % Hispanic or % White
Latino
Source: US Census Bureau, "QuickFacts: Pennsylvania"
It is evident that throughout the country, in both currently attaining and non-attaining
areas, minority and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to ozone and bear
an undue asthma burden. EPA must address these EJ concerns when setting the level and form
of the new ozone NAAQS.
C. It is practicable to require states to conduct an environmental justice analysis as part
of implementation plan submission and approval
Effective implementation of EPA's Final Guidance in the rule making context also means
that, in the context of rules where EPA cannot initially perform an environmental justice
analysis due to lack of information on the content of state implementation plans, the agency
should require states to conduct such an analysis as part of plan submission and approval. For
12
EJ 2020 Public Comments
292
-------
example, in the proposed Clean Power Plan, EPA has not performed the analysis required by EO
12898.49 The agency states that, because it "cannot exactly predict how emissions from specific
EGUs would change as an outcome of the proposed rule due to the state-led implementation ...
it is not practicable to determine whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous populations
from this proposed rule." In addition, the proposed rule highlights the co-benefits of the Clean
Power Plan in terms of emissions reductions from criteria and hazardous air pollutants, but
does not look at how those benefits could be distributed to minority and low-income
communities because there is no analysis of communities overburdened by criteria air
pollutants and their resulting health impacts.50
In the proposed Clean Power Plan, EPA is essentially leaving the decision on how to
avoid the creation of environmental justice impacts to the states. The proposed rule provides
that a state can take steps to avoid increased utilization of particular fossil fuel-fired power
plants, and thus avoid increased emissions of regulated pollutants with localized environmental
effects. To the extent that states take this course of action, "there would be no new
environmental justice concerns in the areas near such EGUs."51 EPA also contemplates that any
environmental justice impacts that result from the implementation of the rule will be dealt with
after the fact, because existing tracking systems will inform EPA and the states of which power
plants have increased their utilization significantly, to enable them to prioritize efforts in
assessing changes in air quality in the vicinity of such plants.52
The Clean Power Plan differs from other environmental rules because, as proposed, it
provides states with great flexibility to comply with the required state targets through the
combination of emission reduction measures that makes the most sense depending on their
particular circumstances. This is why EPA cannot at this point predict with certainty which fossil
fuel-fired plants will increase or decrease their utilization as a result of the implementation of
this rule. While EO 12898 is addressed directly to the activities and policies of federal agencies,
in order to implement its Final Guidance effectively EPA could determine, in the context of rules
that provide flexible avenues for compliance (such as, for example, the Clean Power Plan and
rules issued under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, which require the development of state
implementation plans), that it is practicable to require states to conduct an environmental
justice analysis as part of the development of their implementation plans and to effectively
address EJ concerns in order to receive plan approval. This will ensure that EJ impacts are
avoided and benefits to EJ communities are encouraged as a matter of compliance plan design.
49 U.S. EPA, Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility
Generating Units; Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. 34,830, 34,950 (June 18, 2014); Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants and Emission Standards
for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants ("CPP RIA"), at 7-9- 7-13.
50 79 Fed. Reg. at 34,950.
51 79 Fed. Reg. at 34,949.
52 Id.
13
EJ 2020 Public Comments
293
-------
To this end, EPA needs to provide guidance to states on how to prepare this analysis and
effectively address environmental justice in their plans.
EPA is also authorized to require owners or operators of affected stationary sources to
provide necessary information to assist in the development of state plans pursuant to Section
114 of the Clean Air Act.53 The information collected from states and owners and operators of
affected sources will enable the agency to prepare a full-fledged environmental justice analysis
as required under EO 12898, which EPA should complete before approval of state plans. Once
the agency has collected and assessed state-specific environmental justice analyses, this
information will enable it to assess the environmental justice implications of its rules (in terms
both of mitigation of adverse impacts and distribution of benefits) at the national level.
D. EPA must provide guidance to staff and states on how to conduct an environmental
justice analysis and address minority and low-income communities' concerns
EPA must provide guidance to its own staff (both in Headquarters and in the EPA
Regions) and to states on how to prepare an environmental justice analysis and address
adverse impacts and distribution of benefits to minority and low-income communities in the
agency's rules and their implementation plans. EPA has done robust environmental justice
analyses of its rules in the past that can help towards this guidance. In particular, the
environmental justice analysis to the Definition of Solid Waste ("DSW") rule,54 together with
EPA's Final Guidance, provide agency staff and states with a robust sample methodology that
they can use (and then adjust as appropriate) to develop expanded EJ analyses. In the EJ
analysis on the DSW rule, EPA mapped the facilities that it thought may take advantage of the
rule against the demographics of the surrounding communities, finding that certain population
groups would experience an increased risk of adverse impacts. EPA then incorporated means
to mitigate these adverse impacts, for example, by closely monitoring the facilities that notify
under the rule.55
The Draft DSW Rule analysis used a 6-step approach to identify affected areas and
formulate targeted requirements to improve both oversight and accountability for hazardous
materials recycling regulated under the rule:56
1. Hazard characterization
53 42 U.S.C. §7414(a)(i)(l).
54 U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Potential Adverse Impacts Under the
Definition of Solid Waste Exclusions (Including Potential Disproportionate Adverse Impacts to Minority
and Low-Income Populations), Executive Summary, December 2014.
55 Id.
56 EPA, Environmental Justice Analysis of the Definition of Solid Waste Rule: Draft for Public Comment
(June 30, 2011), available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-
0742-0004. at ii.
14
EJ 2020 Public Comments
294
-------
2. Identification of potentially affected communities
3. Demographics of potentially affected communities
4. Identification of other factors that affect vulnerability in potentially affected
communities
5. Assessment of disproportional impact
6. Identification of potential preventive and mitigation strategies
In providing guidance to agency staff and states on how to perform an environmental
justice analysis of an environmental rule, we suggest EPA to review the above methodology and
perform those steps that it can readily execute using publicly available information on pollution
from the regulated sources contained in the agency's various databases, demographic
information available in the U.S. Census, and information on cumulative impacts, as
documented in extensive research under various EPA programs and environmental justice
screening tools. Sierra Club believes that, under any rule, EPA can characterize the potential
hazards from the application of the relevant rule in detail.
EPA can also identify potentially affected communities (in many cases located in close
proximity to the sources of pollution regulated under the relevant rules) and their demographic
make-up. In the context of the Clean Power Plan, for example, EPA can assess and explain the
co-pollutant implications of the increased utilization of coal-fired and gas-fired plants that are
located in areas where minority and low income communities reside. Utilizing its unit-level
data, EPA can identify plants with large co-pollutant emission levels and "map" these facilities
against the demographics of the surrounding communities.
EPA can also assess other factors that increase the vulnerability of those communities
(for example, other sources of pollution), based on information available in its own
environmental justice screening tools such as EJSCREEN and EJView, as well as web-based tools
such as Google Earth. EPA may also require states to provide detailed information on their
minority, low income, and indigenous communities and the different kinds of localized pollution
hazards and health impacts they face, some of which is not available in national databases, as
further discussed below.
In short, Sierra Club believes that the EJ analysis conducted by EPA under its DSW rule
provides a sound methodology to identify potential hazards to environmental justice
communities from the implementation of a rule. It also provides good examples of practical
solutions that EPA took to address EJ concerns in the 2014 DSW final rule; for example, a
requirement that generators send their hazardous secondary materials to a RCRA-permitted
reclaimer or to a verified hazardous secondary materials reclaimer who has obtained a solid
waste variance; detailed requirements for the containers of hazardous secondary materials;
emergency preparedness and response requirements to address the risk of fires, explosions,
and other accidents; and additional recordkeeping requirements for certain persons subject to
"speculative accumulation" requirements.57
57 Potential Adverse Impacts Under the Definition of Solid Waste Exclusions, at 15-18.
15
EJ 2020 Public Comments
295
-------
On the other hand, the concept of distributing benefits from its rules specifically to
these communities, as provided in EPA's Final Guidance, needs to be further developed and
implemented. The steps in the methodology above are critical to identify those communities
whose health and environment are and have for years been overburdened by different sources
of pollution, both from the sources regulated under the rules and from other sources.
Strengthening environmental regulations will, as a general rule, provide benefits at the national
level to all populations affected by those rules. But if EPA really is to make environmental
justice part of its mission, the agency also needs to ensure that its agency staff or the states,
where applicable, devise targeted efforts to ensure that those communities receive the benefits
expected from those regulations.
For example, as discussed above in the context of EPA's proposed ozone standard,
minority communities are heavily overburdened by ozone pollution in both attainment and
non-attainment areas and, as a consequence, they are greatly affected by asthma, in a much
higher proportion than whites are. In order to truly address benefits to these communities
from the implementation of the ozone rule, the standard needs to be strengthened, both in
level and form. In the Clean Power Plan, EPA has quantified the co-benefits of the proposed
rule in terms of emissions reductions from criteria and hazardous air pollutants, but has also
acknowledged that its benefit-per-ton estimates "may not reflect the local variability in
population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local
factors for any specific location.58 EPA and the states must identify minority and low income
communities potentially affected by the increased utilization of fossil fuel-fired power plants
and ensure that those plants must actually reduce their utilization and thus their emissions.
These communities must also benefit from the expansion of renewable energy and demand-
side energy efficiency, which the Clean Power Plan authorizes as compliance measures.
In addition, EPA must provide guidance to states on how to integrate environmental
justice in the context of state implementation plan revisions to ensure that states continue to
address adverse impacts and benefits for environmental justice communities as part of this
process. The underlying environmental justice analysis provided as part of initial plan approval
may need to be updated to address potential adverse impacts or opportunities for distribution
of benefits from the proposed plan revisions. EPA should provide guidance on the type and
level of analysis that states should be required to submit as part of their applications for
approval of plan revisions.
Finally, Sierra Club commends EPA for providing sample language for the EO 12898
section of its rules to agency staff, as the Final Guidance provides.59 In addition, we specifically
recommend EPA to create a central repository for environmental justice analyses, and for rule
writers to prepare memoranda summarizing the key aspects of the relevant rules at issue and
the specific methodologies used in the environmental justice analyses of those rules. If agency
58 CPP RIA, at ES-16.
59 Final Guidance, at 29.
16
EJ 2020 Public Comments
296
-------
staff and states have a robust information resource that they can rely on to conduct and
improve their analyses in future rules, the practice of preparing expanded environmental
justice analyses will take root inside the agency and help fulfil the goals of EPA's EJ 2020
Framework.
E. Promoting greenhouse gas reduction co-benefits must be a critical component of the
EJ 2020 Framework
The EJ 2020 Framework provides that promoting climate adaptation and resilience and
greenhouse gas ("GHG") reduction co-benefits will be a "related effort" under the Framework.60
Sierra Club fully supports EPA's proposal to incorporate the concept of co-benefits from GHG
emissions reductions into its Plan EJ 2020, but believes that it cannot be simply a "related
effort." Instead, EPA should incorporate it as one of the key components of effective
integration of environmental justice in the rule making context. Standards to reduce GHG
emissions from stationary sources such as the Clean Power Plan, which regulates C02 emissions
from existing power plants, can result in decreased emissions of both criteria and hazardous air
pollutants, including sulfur dioxide ("S02"), nitrogen oxides ("NOx"), particulate matter ("PM"),
and mercury ("Hg"). S02 causes the formation of fine particle pollution ("PM2.5") and NOx is an
ozone ("03") precursor. As discussed elsewhere in these comments, these pollutants
contribute to an increased risk of premature death, heart attacks, an increased incidence and
severity of asthma, and other health effects.61
The Clean Power Plan provides EPA with the opportunity to promote GHG reduction co-
benefits in a manner that effectively addresses environmental justice. EPA has estimated that
the Clean Power Plan will substantially reduce emissions of C02, S02, NOx, and directly emitted
PM2.s, which could result in lower ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone.62 The agency
has calculated that, in 2020, implementation of the CPP using an individual state compliance
approach would yield climate benefits63 of approximately $18 billion and air pollution co-
benefits ranging between $17 to $40 billion, with net benefits (i.e., less compliance costs) of
$27 to $50 billion.64 In 2030, the climate benefits of this approach are estimated at $31 billion,
and the air pollution health co-benefits are estimated to range between $27 and $62 billion,
with net benefits of $49 to $84 billion.65
60 Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, at 3.
61 CPP RIA, at ES-9.
62 Id., at ES-9.
63 EPA's estimates of climate benefits are based on the average social cost of carbon estimated at a 3
percent discount rate, but the RIA considers the full range of SCC values (model average at 2.5, 3, and 5
percent. Monetized benefits correspond to $2011 USD.
64 Table 18-Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs and Net Benefits for Proposed Option
1 in 2020; 79 Fed. Reg. at 34,943. EPA also looked at monetized climate and co-pollutant benefits,
compliance costs, and net benefits of a regional compliance scenario, both in 2020 and 2030.
65 Table 19-Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs, and Net Benefits for Proposed
Option 1 in 2030, Id. at 34,944. Monetized health co-benefit estimates do not include the benefits of
17
EJ 2020 Public Comments
297
-------
Fully taking into account the co-benefits of EPA's rules aimed at regulating GHG
emissions from air pollution sources is consistent with EO 12866, which requires federal
agencies, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, to select "those approaches
that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and
safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity)."66 OMB's Circular A-4 further
provides that CBA analyses should include, among other things, "any important ancillary
benefits," which are the favorable impacts of the alternative under consideration that are
unrelated or secondary to the purpose of the regulatory action.67 EO 12898 and EPA's policies
provide guidance on how to ensure that those co-benefits are distributed to the populations
that most need it.
It is clear that policies intended to address climate change by reducing C02 emissions
can result in substantial public health benefits through co-pollutant reductions. But EPA must
address the environmental justice part of the equation, by performing (or requiring states to
perform) a robust environmental justice analysis that identifies low income and minority
communities overburdened by the impacts of air pollution (including cumulative impacts) to
ensure that those communities in particular receive the co-pollutant benefits from the rule, for
example, by ensuring that state plans do not allow increased utilization of fossil fuel-fired
power plants that affect these communities and that they provide for expanded renewable
energy and energy efficiency to directly benefit those communities.
F. EPA must prioritize further research on cumulative impacts and address those impacts
in its environmental justice analyses
In preparing environmental justice analyses of its rules, EPA staff must also consider
cumulative impacts, i.e., "the impact[s] on the environment which result from the incremental
impact of [an] action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of time."68 As EPA itself notes, minority and low income
populations are in many instances affected by multiple environmental hazards, such as
industrial facilities, landfills, poor housing, leaking underground tanks, pesticides, and
incompatible land uses. Analyzing the effects from these multiple stressors would allow a more
complete evaluation of pollutant risks to specific populations.69
reducing direct exposure to S02, N0X, and mercury, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility
impairment. These unquantified benefits could be substantial.
66 § 1(a).
67 OMB, Circular A-4, at 7.
68 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7; EPA, Office of Fed. Activities, Consideration of Cumulative Impacts In EPA Review
of NEPA Documents, EPA 315-R-99-002 (May 1999), available at
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/cumulative.pdf, at 2.
69 Final Guidance, at 13.
18
EJ 2020 Public Comments
298
-------
While, as EPA notes in the Final Guidance, the science supporting cumulative impact
assessments is still evolving, EPA has already undertaken significant efforts to develop research
on cumulative impacts, and should apply it in elaborating EJ analyses of its rules. It is critical to
consider the cumulative impacts of multiple stressors when assessing health impacts, including
a population's exposure to multiple pollutants, exposure to higher levels of multiple pollutants,
and chronic exposure to lower levels of multiple pollutants. This is particularly true when
evaluating sensitive sub-groups such as minority communities and low-income communities
that frequently experience higher exposure to air pollution and other disproportionate
impacts.70 As noted above, minority and low income communities are more likely to live or
work near sources of pollution, which is only exacerbated by factors such as health care access,
housing market dynamics, and predisposed traits.71 These higher pollution burdens are
associated with adverse health outcomes such as respiratory and cardiovascular disease, low
birth weight, and premature mortality.72
Controlled human exposure studies are valued for their ability to control and eliminate
confounding factors such as temperature, co-pollutants, or allergens, and the epidemiological
studies EPA relies upon are subjected to rigorous statistical analysis to control for confounding
effect of multiple pollutant exposures.73 Yet in the real world, physiological impacts are likely to
be even worse than what is experienced in the exposure studies because of the addition of
these other factors. The combined effects among air pollutants produce important
physiological effects.74 Air pollutants are inhaled as a mixture of different sources, yet focus has
historically been placed on monitoring and regulating individual pollutants in isolation.75
In conducting its EJ analyses, EPA should draw on its own Framework for Cumulative
Risk Assessment and prior cumulative impacts analyses, such as the one prepared in the
context of the DSW rule. EPA may also rely on its own guidance for the agency's review of
NEPA documents. Although focused on the analysis of projects on ecological resources, the
agency could consider the same principles as applied to socioeconomic and human health
issues, particularly with respect to the identification of areas cumulatively impacted by a given
measure, the delineation of geographic and time boundaries, the identification of all relevant
past activities into the affected environment, the utilization of qualitative and quantitative
70 Policy Assessment at 1-15; ISA at 8-1, 8-2, 8-2.
71 Morello-Frosch et al. (2011). Understanding the Cumulative Impacts of Inequalities in Environmental
Health: Implications for Policy, Health Affairs, 30(5): 879-887.
72 American Lung Association, State of the Air-Disparities in the Impact of Air Pollution (2013), available
at http://www.stateoftheair.Org/2013/health-risks/health-risks-disparities.html#_ftnl.
73 See 79 Fed. Reg. 75,234, 75,251: "Most 03 effect estimates for lung function were robust to
adjustment for temperature, humidity, and copollutants such as PM2.s, PM10, N02, or S02."
74 J. Mauderly & J. Samet (2009). Is there Evidence for Synergy Among Air Pollutants in Causing Health
Effects?, Environ. Health Perspect., 117(l):l-6; ISA sec. 4.3.4.
75 U.S. EPA, Exposure and Health Effects of Mixtures of Air Pollutants, available at
http://www2.epa.gov/air-research/exposure-and-health-effects-mixtures-air-pollutants (accessed Mar.
16, 2015).
19
EJ 2020 Public Comments
299
-------
thresholds to determine degradation and cumulative impacts, and the incorporation of
mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the severity of those impacts.76
There are many programs and tools to evaluate different components of risk
assessments, for example, the Community-Based Technical Support Forum, an EPA workgroup
on technical issues that supports community-based risk assessments; EPA's Community Action
for a Renewed Environment ("CARE") program, which addresses risk mitigation needs, and the
Office of Research and Development's ("ORD") National Exposure Research Laboratory's
("NERL"), which develops and applies exposure models and tools to conduct cumulative
exposure assessments, both with respect to health impact and other stressors.77 NERL is also
developing the Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool ("C-FERST"), which will
help identify environmental issues and prioritize exposure and risk reduction efforts based on
EPA's best available information.78 Furthermore, EPA's Community Cumulative Assessment Tool
("CCAT"), currently under development, will use information from C-FERST in order to inform
the public about the process and complexities of assessing cumulative impacts.79 To the extent
EPA needs more community-level information to prepare a comprehensive "cumulative
effects" analysis, it should ask the states to provide it in their own environmental justice
analyses in state plans.80 EPA must, however, continue to prioritize the development of
research on cumulative impacts.
G. Comments on EPA's environmental justice screening tools
EPA has a breadth of environmental justice screening tools that can help to integrate EJ
considerations in its rules and in "up-front" actions that support the development of those
regulations, as the Final Guidance provides.81 EPA recently launched EJSCREEN, a new
environmental justice mapping and screening tool that provides demographic and
environmental information for a selected geographic area. The tool combines environmental
and demographic indicators into "EJ indexes" to identify potential exposure and susceptibility
76 EPA, Consideration of Cumulative Impacts In EPA Review of NEPA Documents, at 5-19.
77 ORD and NERL have also developed models to estimate children's cumulative exposures to chemicals.
See Zartarian et al., ORD/NERL's Model to Estimate Aggregate and Cumulative Exposures to Chemicals:
SHEDS - Multimedia Version 4 (Jan. 13, 2011), available at
http://ghhidetroit.cus.wavne.edu/blog/file.axd?file=2011%2Fl%2FSHEDS Presentation 01-13-
2011 clearance.pdf.
78 Zartarian et al., The EPA's Human Exposure Research Program for Assessing Cumulative Risk in
Communities, J, of Exposure Sci. and Envtl. Epidemiology (April 15, 2009), at 352-355.
79 EPA, Plan EJ 2014, Progress Report (Feb. 2014), available at
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/resources/policv/plan-ei-2014/plan-ei-progress-report-
2014.pdf. at 23.
80 In a separate rulemaking, EPA should issue a cumulative impacts standard that fully recognizes the
existence of these effects on minority and low income communities, providing guidance to states, or any
other obligated entity under its rules, to identify and address cumulative impacts in all their programs,
policies, and activities.
81 Final Guidance, at 1.
20
EJ 2020 Public Comments
300
-------
to air and water pollution and other environmental risks in a selected location. EJSCREEN's
main purpose is to provide a nationally consistent tool that EPA, other agencies, and the public
can use to understand demographic and environmental characteristics of different locations
defined by the tool users.82 Sierra Club recognizes EJSCREEN as an extremely valuable tool, in
particular because it summarizes information in percentiles, allowing users to compare
environmental information for a selected geographic area to that of the state, EPA region, or
the country. Below we offer specific comments on how to further improve this screening tool.
We also ask EPA not to discontinue EJView.
1. EPA must prioritize the completion of NATA assessment updates to finalize EJSCREEN
EJSCREEN contains 12 environmental indicators, some of which quantify proximity to
sources of exposure to pollutants, and others which estimate ambient levels of air pollutants.
Available indicators for air pollution include particulate matter and ozone. Available indicators
relevant to a proximity analysis include traffic proximity and volume (amount of nearby
vehicular traffic and distance from roads), lead paint (percentage of housing units built before
1960), and proximity to waste and hazardous chemical facilities and sites (National Priorities
List, Risk Management Plan Facilities, Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System discharges, which have been
calculated from various EPA databases.83 The data for these indicators ranges between 2011
and 2013. We note that the tool will have to be updated periodically to reflect the latest
information available. In addition, EPA has not yet made available several indicators from EPA's
National Air Toxics Assessments ("NATA"), including cancer risks, neurological hazard,
respiratory hazard, and diesel particulate matter.84 Sierra Club urges EPA to prioritize the
completion of these assessment updates so that EJSCREEN can be finalized.
2. EPA should add S02 to EJSCREEN's environmental indicators
With respect to EJSCREEN's available indicators, Sierra Club urges EPA to add sulfur
dioxide (S02) to the list of environmental indicators provided by this tool. Exposure to S02 in
even very short time periods—even five minutes—has significant health impacts and causes
decrements in lung function, aggravation of asthma, and respiratory and cardiovascular
morbidity.85 S02 pollution can have local impacts on minority and low income communities
82 How Does EPA Use EJSCREEN?, available at http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen/how-does-epa-use-
ejscreen
83 Overview of Environmental Indicators in EJSCREEN, available at at
http://www2.epa.gov/eiscreen/overview-environmental-indicators-eiscreen; see also EJSCREEN
Environmental Justice Mapping and Screening Tool, EJSCREEN Technical Documentation, May 2015,
available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
05/documents/ejscreen_technical_document_20150505.pdf
84 Id.
85 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520,
35,525 (June 22, 2010).
21
EJ 2020 Public Comments
301
-------
located in proximity to large sources of S02 pollution. Its impacts can also extend far beyond
those communities, affecting the health of other populations.
3. EPA must provide detailed guidance on its intended uses of EJSCREEN
The EJ 2020 Framework clarifies that EJSCREEN is a "screening" tool; i.e., EPA uses it as a
preliminary step to identify areas that may be candidates for additional consideration, analysis
or outreach as the agency develops programs that affect EJ communities. In EJSCREEN's
website, EPA indicates that the tool is not used to "label" an area as an EJ community; to
quantify specific risk values for a selected area; to measure cumulative impacts of multiple
hazards; or as a basis for agency decision making regarding the existence or absence of EJ
concerns.86 Sierra Club, however, believes that the tool can be used to identify low-income and
minority communities suffering disproportionate impacts, without having to formally "label" or
categorize them as EJ communities. Identifying populations of concern would help agency staff
to ensure the agency avoids adverse impacts from their actions and to target the distribution of
benefits from its rules.
In its website, EPA also states that the tool is used to help inform outreach to
communities; implement aspects of permitting, enforcement, compliance, and voluntary
programs; enhance geographically-based initiatives, and develop retrospective reports of EPA
work.87 EPA must provide clarity on how exactly the tool is used in permitting and enforcement
processes, so that the public can comment and provide further input on additional ways the
tool could be utilized in these contexts. Training communities in how to use EJSCREEN will also
empower them to participate more meaningfully in the actual permitting process. Sierra Club
also urges EPA to provide guidance to its staff and to states on how to use EJSCREEN in EJ
analyses in the rule making context.
4. EPA must provide guidance on how to use EJSCREEN for cumulative impacts analyses
Sierra Club believes that EJSCREEN provides valuable information on cumulative impacts
by displaying pollution data and data on proximity to sites of concern as percentiles, which
allows users to determine how pollution and air quality in a selected area compares to that of
the relevant state, the relevant region, and the country as a whole. For example, as shown in
Figure 6 below, the EJSCREEN report for Eckert Station Power Plant in Michigan indicates that
the levels of PM2.s within 5-miles of the plant are worse than in 79 percent of the state.
Moreover, populations living within 5 miles of the Eckert plant are in closer proximity to other
sites of concern than the majority of people living in Michigan. The population living within 5
miles of the plant is also in closer proximity to Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)
than 76 percent of the state; to National Priorities List (NPL) sites than 94 percent of the state;
to Risk Management Plan (RMP) sites than 78 percent of the state; and to Major Direct Water
86 How Does EPA Use EJSCREEN?, available at http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen/how-does-epa-use-
ejscreen
87 Id.
22
EJ 2020 Public Comments
302
-------
Dischargers than 88 percent of the state. EJSCREEN, however, does not allow mapping all these
indicators together, which would be useful for a cumulative impacts screening. (See Figure 7).
Sierra Club believes that EJSCREEN's mapping tool would be more useful if users could visualize
the EJ indexes both individually and cumulatively.
Fig. 6. ~ SCREEN'S EJ Indexes for 5 mile radius around Eckert Station, Michigan
Selected Variables: EJ Indexes
State
Percentile
EPA Region
Percentile
USA
Percentile
PM2.5
79
79
66
Ozone
79
79
65
Traffic Proximity and Volume
83
86
75
Lead Paint Indicator
84
84
80
Proximity to NPL sites
94
92
84
Proximity to RMP sites
78
77
65
Proximity to TSDFs
76
76
63
Proximity to Major Direct Dischargers
88
86
76
Fig. 7. Map of EJ Index PM 2.5 for Eckert Station
These percentiles provide perspective on how the selected block group or buffer area compares to the
entire state, EPA region, or nation. The darker gray the area, the higher the EJ Index PM2.5 Level
percentage is, with the yellow area being the highest percentage in the map.
23
EJ 2020 Public Comments
303
-------
5. EPA must reassess EJSCREEN's limitations regarding demographic information
EPA has indicated that EJSCREEN does have important limitations in so far as it is not a
detailed risk analysis; there is uncertainty in the data provided; and it does not examine the full
range of issues relevant to an environmental justice analysis. On the second aspect, Sierra Club
notes that the source of all demographic data (for the Printable Standard Reports) appears to
be the American Community Survey five-year summary file and the 2010 Census.88 In its
website, EPA correctly warns that EJSCREEN's demographic estimates involve substantial
uncertainty, particularly when looking at small geographic areas such as Census blocks groups
because these estimates come from surveys and are uncertain.89
Sierra Club has compared the demographic data in EJSCREEN's various reports (Printable
Standard Report, 2010 Census Report, and ACS Report, but not 2000 Census Report) with
demographic data obtained using Alteryx's "Site Selection" application,90 an online geographic
information tool that allows users to define a study area using radii or driving times in order to
generate detailed reports on demographic trends for that area. Alteryx demographics' tools
have been used in the past for environmental justice analyses, most notably in NAACP's "Coal
Blooded" report.91 Alteryx's Site Selection also uses census block-level data from the 2010 U.S.
Census, which is the smallest scale on which the U.S. Census collects demographic data. Site
Selection produces individual reports for each selected location that display 2010 Census
information as well as 2014 and 2019 estimates. For 2010 demographic information, the tool
draws not only from the ACS, but also from the U.S. Census Bureau's Annual Population
Estimates and the Current Population Survey (CPS).92
Alteryx's Site Selection reports display different population counts for larger geographic
areas when compared with EJSCREEN results. EJSCREEN various reports also display different
population counts, depending on the report selected by the user. By way of example, Figures 8,
9, and 10 below display population numbers for Mount Storm Power Plant in West Virginia, as
well as Eckert Station and River Rouge Power Plant in Michigan within a half-mile, 1 mile, 3
mile, 5 mile and 25 mile radius using both Site Selection and EJSCREEN's various reports. As
noted, Site Selection displays different population numbers than EJSCREEN. Sierra Club urges
EPA to explain in detail how EJSCREEN calculates population counts when users define larger
areas, offer guidance to users on how to select specific types of reports and why, provide more
detailed information on margins of error, contrast this information with other available tools,
and adjust its population calculations if necessary. EPA has already acknowledged that there is
uncertainty in its estimates of smaller areas and has instead suggested using EJSCREEN by
88 EJSCREEN Technical Documentation, at page 21.
89 Limitations and Caveats in Using EJSCREEN, available at http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen/limitations-
and-caveats-using-ejscreen
90 See Alteryx, Analytics Gallery, at https://gallery.alteryx.eom/#! (last visited June 12, 2015).
91 NAACP, Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People (Nov. 2012)..
92 CAPE Briefing Note, at 9.
24
EJ 2020 Public Comments
304
-------
93
defining larger areas in buffer reports. But, as Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11 show, it appears that
the tool cannot obtain population counts (or generate reports) for larger radii that is still
relevant for the assessment of certain air pollutants that travel long distances. Providing the
most accurate population numbers possible is critical as this information underlies the tool's EJ
Indexes.
Fig. 8. 2010 Census Demographics for Mount Storm Plant, West Virginia
2010 Demographics
0.5
Miles
1 Mile
3 Miles
5
Miles
25 Miles
Total Population (Alteryx)
0
15
231
681
72,791
Total Population (EJSCREEN 2010
Census)
0
15
231
681
71,098
Total Population (EJSCREEN ACS Report)
0
15
237
703
72,029
Total Population (EJSCREEN Printable
Standard Report)
0
15
237
703
"The area is too
large to generate
an EJSCREEN
report."
Fig. 9. 2010 Census Demographics for Eckert Station, Michigan
2010 Demographics
0.5
Miles
1 Mile
3 Miles
5 Miles
25 Miles
Total Population (Alteryx)
2,418
11,827
89,752
193,248
497,484
Total Population (EJSCREEN 2010 Census)
2,418
11,827
89,233
192,743
501,790
Total Population (EJSCREEN ACS Report)
2,511
11,821
87,942
193,736
501,684
Total Population (EJSCREEN Printable
Standard Report)
2,511
11,821
87,942
193,736
"The area is too
large to generate
an EJSCREEN
report."
Fig. 10. 2010 Census Demographics for River Rouge, Michigan
2010 Demographics
0.5
Miles
1 Mile
3 Miles
5 Miles
25 Miles
Total Population (Alteryx)
0
1,747
55,537
173,489
3,037,033
Total Population (EJSCREEN 2010
Census)
0
1,747
55,496
173,177
3,039,164
Total Population (EJSCREEN ACS Report)
0
1,731
57,115
173,014
3,046,717
Total Population (EJSCREEN Printable
Standard Report)
0
1,731
57,115
173,014
"The area is too
large to generate
93 Limitations and Caveats in Using EJSCREEN, available at http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen/limitations-
and-caveats-using-ejscreen
25
EJ 2020 Public Comments
305
-------
an EJSCREEN
report."
Fig. 11. Screenshot of EJSCREEN Printable Standard Report for Area Within 25 Miles of
Eckert Station, Michigan
E PA SSr1
The area is too large to generate an EJSCREEN report.
6. CalEnviroScreen 2.0 provides good lessons on additional information that EPA could
incorporate into EJSCREEN
To further strengthen EJSCREEN we suggest EPA to again review the design of the
California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool ("CalEnviroScreen 2.0"), which
California state and local agencies use to identify communities that are disproportionately
burdened by different sources of pollution and better direct their resources and programs.
CalEnviroScreen 2.0 uses a myriad of environmental indicators, including ozone, PM2.s, diesel
particulate matter, drinking water contaminants, pesticide use, toxic releases from facilities,
traffic density, clean-up sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste generators and facilities,
impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites and facilities. It also provides information on
health and socioeconomic indicators, including age (to distinguish children and elderly
populations), asthma rates, low birth weight infants, educational attainment, linguistic
isolation, poverty, and unemployment.94 The demographic data is derived from roughly 8,000
census tracts (from the 2010 Census) throughout the state.95 This tool compiles all of the
different indicators when evaluating a particular location, and ranks zip codes statewide for
comparison.
EJSCREEN relies on most but not all of these indicators. To the extent that some of the
additional indicators of CalEnviroScreen 2.0 are also available in national databases or this
information can be collected from state level health agencies (for example, asthma-related
information), EPA should incorporate these indicators to EJSCREEN, particularly if those
indicators can help to prioritize clean-up and abatement projects. In addition,
CalEnviroScreen's scores are, to a degree, based on available scientific literature on
environmental pollutants, risk assessment principles (in particular that some populations, such
as children, may be 10 times more sensitive to certain chemical exposures), and established risk
scoring systems quantifying risks by both the relevant threat and the vulnerability to it. To the
94 http://oehha.ca.gov/ej7pdf/CES20FinalReportUpdateOct2014.pdf
95 California Envt'l Protection Agency, Designation of Disadvantaged Communities Pursuant to Senate Bill
535 (Oct. 2014), at 13.
26
EJ 2020 Public Comments
306
-------
extent that these principles have not yet been incorporated in EJSCREEN's calculation of EJ
indexes, EPA should integrate them into the relevant formulas used.
7. EPA should not discontinue EJView
EPA's EJView website states that EJView will be taken down in September 20 15.96 Sierra
Club urges EPA not to do so. EJView provides valuable information on cumulative impacts in
terms of the actual number of potential sources of pollution, by tallying total sites/facilities and
environmental concerns in a selected area based on sources that report to EPA under various
programs. For example, according to the EJView report for Eckert Station in Michigan, there
are 879 sites and facilities and 35 environmental concerns within 5 miles of this power plant.
More specifically, EJView identifies 726 hazardous waste sites reporting to EPA, as well as 26
impaired streams within the said radius. In this area there are also 121 schools, 5 hospitals and
147 places of worship. Schools, in particular, suggest that children may be subject to adverse
exposures to pollutants that need to be studied further.
Cross-referencing EJView's number of environmental concerns and sites with the
population information generated in EJSCREEN (which appears to be the same population
information available in EJView), we find that 710 people live within the 5 mile radius and are
potentially exposed to pollution risks that need to be analyzed further. We appreciate the
feature in EJView maps that allows users to click on the relevant objects in a map and be
redirected to the relevant EPA databases in order to gather detailed information on those sites
and concerns, which does not exist in EJSCREEN.
Some of the databases where EJView and EJSCREEN draw their information for the
analysis of proximity impacts overlap; for example, it appears that both tools use RCRAInfo,
which contains information reported by hazardous waste generators, transporters, treaters,
storers, and disposers of hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
including information on releases and clean-ups, as well as the Permit Compliance System
(PCS), which contains information collected under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit program. But there seem to be other databases used by EJView that
have not been incorporated into EJSCREEN; for example, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI),
which contains information about hundreds of toxic chemicals that are being used,
manufactured, treated, transported, or released into the environment, as well as the
Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) database, which captures
data reported by grantees on environmental activities (assessment, cleanup and
redevelopment) under the Brownfields Program.
EJView's ability to visualize all these concerns in a single map (individually or together,
as chosen by the user) is very helpful to provide communities a full picture of potential
cumulative impacts that need to be analyzed further. (See Fig. 12 below for an example). We
urge EPA to not discontinue EJView unless it incorporates this aspect of the tool and any other
96 http://epamapl4.epa.gov/ejmap/entry.html
27
EJ 2020 Public Comments
307
-------
databases that have not yet been incorporated into EJSCREEN. Furthermore, as noted, EPA
must ensure EJSCREEN's (and EJView's) population estimates are accurate, so that EJView
reports can be compared to the specific populations that these sites and concerns are
potentially affecting.
Fig. 11. EJView Environmental Report for 5-mile radius around Eckert Station
Sites and Facilities
Count
Air Facility System (AFS)
33
Superfund Sites (NPL)
3
Toxic Releases (TRI)
27
Hazardous Waste (RCRAInfo)
726
Water Dischargers (PCS & ICIS)
24
Brownfields (ACRES)
65
Radiation Information Database (RADInfo)
0
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
1
Environmental Concerns
Count
National Water Information System (NWIS)
sites
6
STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) sites
3
Impaired Streams
26
Impaired Waterbodies
0
National Parks
0
Places
Count
Schools
121
Hospitals
5
Worship Places
147
EJ 2020 Public Comments
28
308
-------
Fig. 12. EJView's Map of Environmental Concerns around Eckert Station
W Michigan Ave ^
&
iv loniaor
W Kalamazoo St
>aK,«st to
ZU u gjpfl, - i u J ~ «¦
WOttaJfea DC. D j
~ _ IH0 Ttc SBPO ~ ~ ¦ CD'D'W
WAiioost mc qj.-nsine H '« ,
- 5-Jn \"lj '5 &
a ~ ? \ ¦ iQ
'I3 1° ^ CHpiXOamnzcQSt
a& i Drf >. \ I Hinkorf^it
I ~ ^ = ~
w n„ £
-«^»o
Moores^-
W Elm St
~
D,
I I
~ CD
tfil!
^Or X
Alsdorf St _ . . Moore
Britten Ave pa)
.'^WBar^Ave p|
r Smith Ave
6
a
Cooper Ave
Go'd.^Ave
fi
X
Loraine Ave
Victor Ave
c ^ d2d 12b
* to ^-en^e Ave
Poxson AveCP
3
C3
~
Rock t\>
Den^ Qe ;i lyonb n
Eckert Station is represented by the pink cross in the center of the map. Green squares represent
hazardous waste sites; light blue squares are toxic release sites; dark blue squares represent sources of
air emissions; and orange squares are brownfields. The houses with flags are schools; the yellow houses
are churches, and the letter "H" depicts hospitals. This map shows that there is a school 0.15 miles
southeast of the facility, which raises concerns that children may be exposed to various environmental
hazards that need to be further evaluated.
H. EPA must continue to ensure meaningful involvement of minority and low income
communities in regulatory actions
EO 12898 requires federal agencies to conduct their programs, policies, and activities
that substantially affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that such
programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from participation
in these actions, denying them the benefits of those actions, or subjecting them to
discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, " EO 12898 also seeks to
promote public participation by requiring federal agencies to ensure that public documents,
notices, and hearings are concise, understandable, and readily accessible to the public" and
encouraging them to translate crucial public documents, notices, and hearings for limited
English speaking populations.
97 § 1-101.
98 § 5-5.
29
EJ 2020 Public Comments
309
-------
In furtherance of these requirements, the Final Guidance provides that "meaningful
involvement" means that communities whose health or environment would be potentially
affected by a regulatory action should have an appropriate opportunity to participate in and
influence those decisions, and that rule-writers and decision-makers should reach out and
facilitate the involvement of those populations potentially affected by the agency's actions."
The Guidance emphasizes that public involvement from minority and low income populations,
as well as tribes and indigenous peoples, works best when rule writers consult with these
communities early and often so that they can obtain relevant information on their needs and
vulnerabilities. To the extent possible, these populations should have a meaningful role in
designing the regulatory action.100
Sierra Club commends EPA for arranging outreach opportunities for communities to
obtain their input in the design of recently proposed rules, and for organizing visits by
communities to the agency's campus in Research Triangle Park. We urge the agency to
continue providing these communities with opportunities for meaningful involvement in the
process of developing regulatory actions and to increase these opportunities to the extent
possible. EPA should also do trainings for environmental justice communities to educate and
inform them on the public health and environmental impacts of its actions (both in terms of
potential adverse impacts as well as distribution of benefits, as discussed above). EPA's Final
Guidance encourages rule writers to develop a formal public involvement plan early in the rule
making process.101 Sierra Club believes that this public involvement plan must become an
integral part of every regulatory action by the agency.
Finally, EPA's obligations under EO 12898 also involve public participation from tribes
(whether federally-recognized or not) as environmental justice communities. As part of this
mandate, EPA must ensure public participation by a broad range of tribal stakeholders (not just
tribal officials, which EPA is required to consult with under EO 13175, including community and
neighborhood groups; traditional leaders (elders); community service, environmental, and
other non-governments organizations; academic institutions; and religious communities.
99 Final Guidance, at 4.
100 Id., at 32-33.
101 Id., at 26.
30
EJ 2020 Public Comments
310
-------
II. EPA must ensure that environmental justice concerns are adequately addressed in
the operating permit process102
EPA must ensure that environmental justice concerns are adequately addressed in the
operating permit process through the implementation and enforcement of emission limitations
that fully comply with applicable EPA's standards for the regulation of pollution set forth in
state implementation plans. For example, under Title V of the Clean Air Act all major stationary
sources of air pollution are required to apply for operating permits.103 Title V permits must
provide for all federal and state regulations in one legally enforceable document, thereby
ensuring that all Clean Air Act requirements are applied to the facility and that the facility is in
compliance with those requirements.104 These permits must include emission limitations and
other conditions necessary to assure a facility's continuous compliance with all applicable
requirements of the Act, including the requirements of any applicable state implementation
plan.105 Title V permits must contain monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and other
requirements to assure continuous compliance by sources with emission control
requirements.106 It is unlawful for any person to violate any requirement of a Title V operating
permit.107
Under Title V of the Act, EPA establishes the minimum elements that must be included
in the operating permit programs, and assists states and local governments in developing their
programs.108 EPA is responsible for overseeing the implementation of permit programs and
may object to a permit that fails to comply with the program requirements. The agency is also
required to establish a federal permit program in any area where the relevant permitting
authority fails to develop and maintain an adequate operating program.109
Below we discuss the results of Sierra Club's modeling of the permitted maximum
allowable S02 emission limits of select coal plants, which shows that facilities' permitted S02
102 Sierra Club endorses the comments of the Human Rights Defense Center on the EJ 2020 Framework,
which urge EPA to prioritize the provision of the environmental protections intended under EO 12898 to
prisoner populations and their families, the great majority of whom are low income and people of
color.102 FIRDC's "Prison Ecology" Project has conducted extensive research to understand how
environmental justice criteria have been applied to prisoner populations, particularly in the permitting
process, noting that EPA does not take prisoners into account as local residents of the regions where
they are incarcerated in assessing environmental impacts from land use decisions on siting the prison
facilities. Human Rights Defense Center, Comment on the inclusion of prisoner populations in EPA's Draft
Framework for EJ 2020 Action Agenda, July 14, 2015.
103 40 C.F.R. § 70.5(a); see 42 U.S.C. § 7661a(a).
104 See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661a(a) and 7661c(a); 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(a)(1).
105 See id.
106 See 40 C.F.R. §70.
107 See 42 U.S.C. § 7661(a).
108 U.S. EPA, Air Pollution Operating Permit Program Update, Key Features and Benefits, Title V
Operating Permit, at 1, available at http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/permits/permitupdate/permits.pdf
109 Id., at 3.
31
EJ 2020 Public Comments
311
-------
emission limits can be dramatically higher than what is necessary to adequately protect human
health. The modeling shows that the permitted emission limits caused violations of the 1-hour
S02 NAAQS, which not only threatens public health but also disproportionately affects EJ
communities. Thus, developing permits with restrictive limits is essential to protecting EJ
communities, and EPA must play a critical role in this effort.
Specifically, Sierra Club used AERMOD software to model the permitted allowable S02
emission limit for the Potomac River Generation Station in Alexandria, Virginia. The plant has
now retired, but the analysis is useful to understand how allowable emission limits under valid
permits can create adverse impacts to EJ communities. In this modeling, the resulting S02
plume map overwhelmingly demonstrated that the station's emissions were causing violations
of the 1-hour S02 NAAQS in not only the local area but also in neighboring Maryland and D.C.
More specifically, the plant was causing violations in D.C.'s Ward 8, which has been consistently
the poorest ward of D.C. and predominantly (93.5%) black.1 0 Ward 8 also, perhaps not
surprisingly, has consistently had the highest asthma emergency department visits for children,
adults and the elderly.111
Fig. 13. S02 Plume Map of Potomac River Generation Station, Virginia
110 D.C. Office of Planning, "Census 2010 Population by Race and Ethnicity - Ward 8," available at
http://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachrrients/Census%25202010%252
0Population%2520by%2520Race%2520and%2520Ethnicity%2520-%2520Ward%25208.pdf
111 Children's National Medical Center, D.C., "Asthma Surveillance in DC Emergency Departments,"
available at http://childrensnational.org/~/media/cnhs-site/files/departments/impactdc/impact-dc-
surveillance-20022011_website-compatibility-mode.ashx?la=en
32
EJ 2020 Public Comments
312
-------
Source: "Evaluation of Compliance with the S02 1-hour Average NAAQS - Mirant Potomac River LLC,
Alexandria City, Virginia - May 9, 2011" attached as Exhibit 1.
Similarly, for the Baltimore area Sierra Club used AERMOD to model the permitted
allowable S02 emission limit for the Crane Generating Station in Bowleys Quarters, Maryland,
currently in operation. The S02 plume map displayed massive violations of the 1-hour S02
NAAQS, including impacts on over 130 schools and Baltimore City, an environmental justice
community. As described previously, Baltimore City is a predominantly black county, and it has
the highest asthma rates and highest poverty rate in all of Maryland,
Fig. 14. S02 Plume Map of Crane Generating Station, Maryland
The Crane Generating Station's S02 Plume Covers Over 130 Baltimore Area Schools
141 ng/m3 is a violation of the NAAQS with Maryland background. All colored areas represent violations.
35S000 3S0000
3S2GC0 364000 366000
36SOOC 37 COCO
372000
37*000 37SOOO
37SOOO
3SCOOO 3S
ccc
UTW East jmj
i.
Crane Generation Piant
21.
Goucher Coll.
41.
Roiand Park Country
61.
W.E.B. DuBois Kgh
31.
Hopkins Creek Eiem.
101.
2.
Edgewood E"-em.
22.
cah/et Hall Coi. High
42.
Gi'man School
62.
Reginald F Lews High
B2.
Stemmefs Run Mid.
102.
3.
Deerfed Eem.
23.
Loch Raver Tech
43.
St Mary's unrv.
63.
Genmoisnt Etem./M»d.
S3.
Middlesex Eem.
103.
4.
Magne t Mid.
24.
Ca "ver ctr for Ats & Tech 44.
WaJdorf schooi of Ba t.
64.
Haze wood Eem./Mid.
81.
Hawthorne Eem
104.
5.
Magnoiia Eiem.
25.
Immaculate Conception
45.
Edgecom.be (Srtie Eem.
65.
Maritime lndiistries Acad. 35.
Martin ESvd. Eiem.
105.
6.
Riverside Eem.
26.
Towson ujmi.
46.
St. Ambrose CathoEc
65.
Dr. Samuel L Banks Hgh
86.
M'dde River Mid.
106.
7.
joppatowne High
27.
Towson Hgh
47.
PimEco Eiem.
67.
St. Clements
B7.
Gienmar Eem.
107.
e.
Ofiver Beach Eiem.
28.
Rogers Forge Eiem.
45.
MLK Jr. Eiem.
SB.
GO der. Ring Mid.
B8.
Hyde Park Eem.
108.
9.
Seneca Eiem.
29.
Dismbartor. M^.
49.
Kennedy Krieger Kgh
69.
Comm. Co':, of Bart. Cty.
69.
Mdaebsrougr E'em. 109-
10.
Chase Eiem.
30.
Storveiegh Eiem.
50.
Bait. City Comm. Co'.
70.
Orems Eiem.
90.
Turkey Point Mid.
110.
li.
.iCppa view £>em.
31.
Tunbridge Pbb'c Charter
51.
Johns HopkiRS Univ.
71.
Eastern Techr ca High
91.
Vincent Farm Eem.
111.
12.
-=-v a MS.
32.
Govans Eem.
5Z
Waverfy Eiem.
72.
Kenwood Hgh
9Z
Goddard
112.
13.
P:ne Grove E'
-------
112
poverty rate in Massachusetts. Holyoke is also a predominantly Hispanic community, with a
Hispanic overrepresentation of nearly 40% and a nearly 30% underrepresentation of whites
compared to the state average," Holyoke's age-adjusted asthma emergency room visit rate is
nearly four times higher the state age-adjusted rate"4 and within that metric, Hispanics had by
far the highest rate (up to triple) compared to all other races. Moreover, Hispanics were over
2.5 times as likely to go to the emergency room for asthma if they lived in Holyoke compared to
the rest of the state. Even more disturbingly, Holyoke's age-adjusted asthma mortality rate is
triple the state rate, and the asthma mortality rate for Hispanics in Holyoke in particular is four
times the state rate.
Fig. 15. S02 Plume Map of Mount Tom Power Station, Massachusetts
i
\
I.MT 1 ii § >/if I '
S S.I
u
.
2400
I
!
y I 1 rr , x v v. / \ z
^ :j7\ I
j
( *
.,>'7 !
3 1200
&
691500 692000 692500 693000 693500 694000 694500 695000 695500 696000 696500 697000 697500 698000 696500 699000 699500 700000
Source: "Sierra Club Evaluation of Compliance with 1-hour S02 NAAQS - Mount Tom Station, Holyoke,
Massachusetts - August 19, 2011" attached as Exhibit 2.
In all of these instances, the facilities' permits were so lax that they allowed violations of
the 1-hour S02 NAAQS, endangering local populations and in particular minority communities.
EPA should work with states in developing stringent permits to realize the environmental and
public health protections intended by the agency's rules, to protect overburdened
communities, and to meet its EJ goals under its EJ 2020 Framework.
112 US Census Bureau, "American Fact Finder," available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
113 US Census Bureau, "QuickFacts: Massachusetts," available at
http://www. census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/25,2530840#flag-js-X
114 Massachusetts Department of Health and Human Services, "Asthma - Mortality and Hospital Data,"
available at http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/researcher/community-health/masschip/asthma-mortality-
and-hospital-data.html
34
EJ 2020 Public Comments
314
-------
III. EPA must effectively incorporate EJ concerns in reviewing and approving amended
state plans and enforcing the requirements of the SSM rule under those plans
The Clean Air Act requires states to craft state implementation plans to meet Clean Air
Act requirements, including the requirement to ensure attainment and maintenance of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).115 However, many plans contain illegal
exemptions and affirmative defenses that allow polluters to exceed federally-applicable
emission limitations during startup, shutdown, malfunction ("SSM") events without
consequences. These SSM loopholes undermine the emission limits in state plans, threaten
states' abilities to achieve and maintain compliance with the NAAQS, and endanger public
health and public welfare. These provisions also undermine other requirements of the Act,
including Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments, nonattainment plans, and visibility
requirements. Ignoring emissions during SSM events undermines the entire state operating
program because for years there has been no check on whether SSM events are violating EPA's
standards or the facilities' applicable permits.
The pollution caused by these events often exceeds the routine pollution levels emitted
by a source during normal operations. However, because of the SSM loopholes in state plans,
facilities have been effectively exempted from permit limits or face no penalties for these large
emissions. Excessive pollution during SSM events from large facilities has devastating impacts
on surrounding communities, which are often minority or low income communities. During
these events, the facility can emit a toxic mix of pollutants, which the community bears witness
to, as described below.
On May 22, 2015, EPA issued a final rule -the SSM Emissions Rule—which requires
states to fix these unlawful loopholes in their state plans implementing the NAAQS.116 The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently evaluated the validity of an affirmative defense
provision in EPA's NESHAP for manufacturers of Portland cement, holding that affirmative
defense provisions in EPA's regulations are inconsistent with Clean Air Act requirements
because the Act gives citizens the right to have a court determine whether violators should be
penalized for not taking reasonable precautions to avoid upset events that cause
disproportionate impacts on the surrounding communities.117 In issuing this rule to ensure that
states have implementation plans that are fully compliant with Clean Air Act requirements and
are consistent with recent court decisions, EPA has identified loopholes in the state plans of 36
states and issued a "SIP call" to direct them to correct the relevant SSM provisions in their
115 Id. § 7410(a)(1).
116 U.S. EPA, State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update
on EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, available
at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/20150522fr.pdf
117 NRDCv. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
35
EJ 2020 Public Comments
315
-------
118
plans. States have until November 22, 2016 to propose the relevant revisions. EPA must
effectively incorporate EJ concerns in reviewing and approving amended state plans, as well as
in enforcing the requirements of the SSM rule under the approved plans. Below we provide
testimony from members of communities that have been disproportionately affected by these
SSM loopholes. We hope EPA takes these issues into account in evaluating states' modified
plans, in accordance with EO 12898.
A. Testimony from members of the Fairmount, Alabama community surrounding the
Walter Coke Facility
The federal government has identified environmental justice concerns in North
Birmingham, Alabama.119 Jefferson County, in particular, ranks tenth in the nation for the
highest risk of cancer from toxic air pollution.120 In accordance with the SSM exemptions
allowed under the current Alabama SIP, the operating permit for the Walter Coke facility, which
coke for use in blast furnaces and foundries, allows large excess emissions events to occur
without consequence.121 The Walter Coke facility had at least 80 SSM events from July 2008 to
June 2012, with many spanning several hours, including one for almost 30 hours.122
Charlie Powell lived very close to the Walter Coke facility for over forty years. His house
and car were regularly covered in soot pollution, so he had to routinely hose off his house and if
he didn't wash his car weekly, it would accumulate a dense layer of soot that he would have to
scrape off the windows.123 Charlie also developed sleep apnea and other respiratory problems
while living near the facility, and his wife developed cancer. Since moving a few more miles
away from the facility, Charlie's health has improved and he doesn't have to sleep hooked up to
a machine as often.124
118 State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking, at 2.
119 Defined as "low income, minority communities that are unfairly burdened with industrial pollution."
Deadly Deception, CBS-TV 42 (Aug. 5, 2011), available at
http://www.cbs42.com/2013/01/ll/deadly-deception-part-l/. In August 2011, CBS-TV 42 aired a
documentary titled "Deadly Deception" about the health concerns of North Birmingham residents
due to the Walter Coke plant, and other industrial facilities. The opening scenes of the video show
flares from the Walter Coke facility and a resident describing how he can taste the chemicals coming
from the flares.
120 Id.
121 Ala. Admin. Code r. 335-3-14-.03(l)(h)(l)-(2), available at
http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/sips/al/335-3-14.pdf; see Sierra Club Petition at pp. 17-18.
122 Copies of Walter Coke Six-Month Monitoring Reports from July 2008 to June 2012 as referenced and
attached as an exhibit in "Sierra Club et al. Comments Supporting EPA's Proposed SSM Rule," available
at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-QAR-2012-0322-0622
123 Sierra Club et al. Comments Supporting EPA's Proposed SSM Rule at 30, available at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-QAR-2012-0322-0622
124 Id.
36
EJ 2020 Public Comments 316
-------
Eunice Webb is Charlie Powell's 70-year old aunt and she blames Walter Coke for a
range of sicknesses that she and her family have suffered.125 She developed asthma after
moving to the area, and she lives with her son, who is very sick, and three of her grandchildren,
one who has asthma and another who suffers from cerebral palsy. One of her sisters has
cancer, both her mom and other sister have suffered from heart attacks, and her husband died
of cancer. Air pollution is particularly bad in the summertime, and while Eunice would like to sit
outside on her porch, she cannot do so because the poor air quality exacerbates her asthma.
The air quality often makes it too difficult for Eunice to go outside at all. She would like to move
away from the area, and has family and friends who have already done so.126
B. Testimony from members of the Detroit, Michigan community surrounding the
Marathon Refinery
The diverse community surrounding the Detroit Marathon Refinery is located in the zip
code with the highest levels of air pollution in the country. One-quarter of the residents live
below the poverty level127 and the community's cancer and death rates are "significantly
higher" than the rest of the state.128 Since 2001, the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality has issued several air-pollution violations notices to Marathon's Detroit Refinery, but
nevertheless in 2008 the refinery underwent a $2.2 billion dollar expansion to allow it to
process more high-sulfur tar sands crude oil from Canada.129 Since that expansion, the
community has noticed that flaring events have significantly increased. The Michigan SIP's SSM
provisions do not discourage constant flaring events because the SIP allows excess emissions
from the facility without penalty. The SIP contains both an enforcement discretion approach to
"excess emissions resulting from malfunction, start-up, or shutdown," and an affirmative
defense for "excess emissions during start-up or shutdown."130
Sherry Griswold has lived within a few hundred feet of this enormous refinery for
21 years, and has raised her children in this home.131 For the last five years, Sherry has been
tormented by relentless flaring from this facility - usually three times every night. Twenty-foot
tall flames shoot out from the flares accompanied by a loud howling sound and a pungent odor.
127 Global Community Monitor, Southwest Detroit, available at
http://www.gcmonitor.org/section.php?id=156.
128 Center for Public Integrity, Detroit Refinery expansion adds more Canadian crude, brings more
worries, available at http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/31/11566/detroit-refinery-expansionadds-
more-canadian-crude-brings-more-worries#!5.
129 Id.
130 Mich. Admin. Code r. 336.1915; id. r. 336.1916, available at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/r5ard.nsf/SIPs%20View%20By%20State%20Main%20View!OpenView&St
art=l&Count=30&Expand=3.12#3.12; see Approval and Promulgation Michigan Provisions for
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown or Malfunction, 68 Fed. Reg. 8,550 (Feb. 24, 2003); see
also Sierra Club Petition at pp. 44-45.
131 Sierra Club et al. Comments Supporting EPA's Proposed SSM Rule at 33.
37
EJ 2020 Public Comments
317
-------
Once while Sherry was in her backyard, a flaring event literally knocked her to the ground. Her
house shakes and her ceiling tiles have fallen down during these events. Sherry doesn't have
her children and grandchildren come over anymore because she is afraid the pollution from the
refinery will impact their health. When the kids did play outside, soot from the flaring would
coat their skin, and was very difficult to wash off.132
C. Testimony from members of the Shreveport, Louisiana community surrounding
Calumet Shreveport Refining
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality documented over 100 SSM
incidents from 2005 through 2012 at the Calumet Shreveport Refining facility,133 emitting over
320,000 pounds of unpermitted excess air pollution into the community.134 The Calumet
Refinery permit allows excess pollution events and flaring because the SIP contains automatic
and discretionary exemptions for specific pollutants.135 Other conditions and affirmative
defense provisions allow Calumet to escape penalties for excess emissions during SSM
events.136
Velma White has lived two streets over from Calumet's massive oil refinery for over 38
years in the Ingleside neighborhood, a predominately African-American, low income
community in Shreveport.137 When Velma White first moved, the Calumet refinery was a much
smaller facility, but it has since expanded from approximately half a block in size to over twelve
blocks. Velma White's daughter was diagnosed with renal failure at a young age, and many
others in the community suffer from respiratory illnesses, such as asthma, heart disease, renal
failure, cancer and skin problems, which Velma believes are caused by pollution from the
Calumet refinery. Velma spends much of her time documenting the refinery's accidents and
upsets: she usually smells strong odors accompanying the flaring ranging from a rotten egg,
sulfuric smell to a more chemical smell, and experiences physical reactions including a burning
sensation in her nose and throat, nausea, and a funny taste in her mouth. These symptoms can
last for days after the flaring. In addition to the smells, Velma has often awakened in the middle
of the night to a loud, roaring noise when the facility is flaring. There also can be a black ash or
debris from the flaring, which on occasion has covered her house and property, and even her
skin.138
Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Refinery Accident Database, Calumet Lubricants 8, available at
http://ec2-54-234-227-88.compute-l.amazonaws. com/refinery. php?refinery=BB004.
134 Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Air Emissions - Calumet Lubricants 8 (1214), available at http://ec2-
54-234-227-88.compute-l.amazonaws.com/emission_list.php
135 La. Admin. Code tit. 33, §§ 111:1107, lll:1507(A) & (B), lll:2153(B)(l)(i), 111:2201(C)(8) and
lll:2307(C)(l) & (2), available at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r6/Sip0304. nsf/home?Openview&Start=l&Count=30&Expand=3;
136 Calumet Shreveport Refinery Operating Permit, Specific Requirements, at p. 30
137 Sierra Club et al. Comments Supporting EPA's Proposed SSM Rule at 33.
138 Id. at 33-35.
38
EJ 2020 Public Comments
318
-------
D. Testimony from members of the Port Arthur community surrounding the BASF
Chemical Plant and the Total Petrochemicals and Refinery
Hilton Kelley was born in Port Arthur and returned to the area in 2000. He has lived
downwind from the BASF Chemical plant and Total Petrochemicals and Refinery for the past 12
years.139 Port Arthur, where most residents are African American or Hispanic,140 has one of the
highest concentrations of hazardous waste and petrochemical facilities and refineries in the
country. He routinely notices soot on the cars in his neighborhood, and a pungent, sulfurous
odor in the air. His eyes frequently sting and water when he leaves his house, and when the air
smells particularly strong of sulfur, his lips immediately chap and he feels a tingling sensation
on his tongue. He also deals with hypertension, sinus problems, and allergies. He did not suffer
from any of these ailments before moving back to Port Arthur. His 12-year old grandson lives
nearby and spends a lot of time at his house and has, since birth, suffered from respiratory
problems, allergies, and sinus infections. His grandson's symptoms persist, and worsen when he
spends time outdoors. Hilton had returned home to fight for environmental justice and over
the last couple of years, he helped to successfully relocate families from the housing project
where he spent his childhood, which was located on the fence line of the Valero and Motiva
refineries, to another part of town not directly in harm's way.
IV. EPA must ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by any entity that
receives funding from the agency
EPA must ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by any entity that
receives funding from the agency to implement its rules, programs, and policies. Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act ("Title VI"), Section 601, provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on
the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance."141 Title VI "reaches unintentional, disparate-impact discrimination as well
as deliberate racial discrimination."142 Title VI, Section 602, requires every federal agency and
department empowered to grant financial assistance to issue regulations to effectuate the
provisions of Section 601.143
EO 12250, Leadership and Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws, directs federal
agencies to issue appropriate Title VI implementing directives, either in the form of policy
139 Sierra Club Comments Supporting EPA's Supplement to the SSM Rule Eliminating Affirmative
Defenses at 14, available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-QAR-2012-0322-
0961
140 See EPA, Environmental Justice Showcase Communities,
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/grants/ej-showcase.html
141 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
142 Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Service Com'n of City of New York, 103 S.Ct. 3221, 3227 (1983).
143 Id. § 2000d-l.
39
EJ 2020 Public Comments
319
-------
guidance or regulations consistent with the requirements prescribed by the Department of
Justice's Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.144 The presidential memorandum
accompanying EO 12898 also requires federal agencies providing funding to programs or
activities that affect public health or the environment to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act.145
EPA's implementing regulations forbid recipients146 of federal funds from using criteria
or methods of administering their programs in a manner that has the effect of discriminating on
the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex.147 These regulations also preclude a recipient
of federal funds from choosing a site or location for a facility that would result in discriminatory
effects.148 Other EPA's regulations mandate that state agencies that receive federal funds
maintain Title VI compliance programs for themselves and other recipients that obtain federal
assistance through such programs.149
State agencies implementing EPA's rules are responsible for ensuring that EPA-funded
activities (for example, permitting processes) conform to Title VI requirements. If any program
or measure that was funded by EPA resulted in discrimination on the basis of race, color, or
national origin, those agencies would be in violation of Title VI, and aggrieved persons would be
entitled to file an administrative complaint with EPA.150
Title VI cannot be just a "related effort;"151 it needs to be an integral part of EPA's EJ
2020 Framework. EPA must prioritize and devote additional resources to Title VI compliance
and enforcement. As part of this process, Sierra Club reiterates EPA's need to make
modifications to the complaint investigation and resolution process in a manner that ensures
meaningful participation of environmental justice communities and effective enforcement of
Title VI complaints.152
144 Exec. Order No. 12250, § 1-402.
145 Memorandum from President Clinton Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (Feb. 11, 1994), available at
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/documents/executive order 12898.htm.
146 The regulations define "recipient" as "any State or its political subdivision, any instrumentality of a
State or its political subdivision, any public or private agency, institution, organization, or other entity, or
any person to which Federal financial assistance is extended directly or through another recipient,
including any successor, assignee, or transferee of a recipient, but excluding the ultimate beneficiary of
the assistance." 40 C.F.R. § 7.25.
147 40 C.F.R. § 7.35(b).
148 40 CFR§ 7.35(c).
149 28 C.F.R. §42.410.
150 40 C.F.R. § 7.120.
151 Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, at 3.
152 Letter from Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, The City Project, Conservation Law
Foundation, Earthjustice, Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island, Humansynergyworks.org, New
Mexico Environmental Law Center, NRDC, Sierra Club, West End Revitalization Association, Inc., Marc
40
EJ 2020 Public Comments
320
-------
In addition, if compliance cannot be achieved voluntarily, the regulations authorize EPA
to deny, suspend or terminate funding to the particular program under which the agency has
found discrimination. EPA may also refer the matter to the Department of Justice to ensure
compliance.153 EPA should make use of this authority if any program funded by the agency
results in a Title VI violation. EPA should also finalize its "Draft Title VI Guidance for EPA
Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting Programs" and its "Draft Revised
Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits."
Meaningful public involvement is also necessary to ensure recipients' compliance with
Title VI. As EPA notes in its Title Vl's "Recipient Guidance," early and inclusive public
involvement of environmental justice communities in the permitting process is critical to ensure
that the use of federal funds does not discriminate against these communities on the basis of
race, color, or national origin.154 In this guidance, EPA has suggested specific public
involvement approaches in the permitting process, which could also inform the development of
environmental rules. As noted above, the Final Guidance directs rule writers to develop formal
public involvement plans to ensure the participation of EJ communities in the making and
implementation of the agency's rules.
Specifically, Title VI "Recipient Guidance" encourages the preparation of a "public
involvement plan" with the participation of environmental justice communities.155 The
guidance also suggests equipping communities with appropriate tools such as information
materials, training sessions (including in other languages, if there are non-English speaking
communities), and grants to ensure their active and effective participation in the plan
development process.156 Finally, funding recipients should work to ensure that local authorities
integrate environmental justice concerns early in the process, which will require acknowledging
communities' concerns about existing facilities near residential areas; working with the relevant
authorities to ensure that data on demographics and location of existing facilities in
communities are considered before making any siting decisions; and working with those
authorities to identify locations for new facilities that avoid net increases in pollution in
communities with disproportionately high exposure or that already host a number of
facilities."157
Brenman, and Patrice Lumumba Simms to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy (Nov. 5, 2013), attached as
Exhibit 3.
153 40 C.F.R. § 7.130; Draft Title VI Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental
Permitting Programs ("Draft Recipient Guidance) and Draft Revised Guidance for Investigating
Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (Draft Revised Investigation Guidance), 65 Fed.
Reg. 39,650, 39,696-97 (June 27, 2000).
154 Title VI Public Involvement Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental
Permitting Programs (Recipient Guidance), 71 Fed. Reg. 14,207, 14,210 (Mar. 21, 2006).
155 Id. at 14,211.
156 Id. at 14,213.
157 Id. at 14,214-15.
41
EJ 2020 Public Comments
321
-------
Respectfully submitted,
Leslie Fields
Violet Lehrer
Alejandra Nunez
Isabelle Riu
Joanne Spalding
Natalie Spiegel
Joshua Stebbins
Sierra Club
50 F St. NW, 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
leslie.fields@sierraclub.org
EJ 2020 Public Comments
42
322
-------
Sierra Club Group Comments
The email on the following page was sent 573 times from Rhonda Anderson on
behalf of Sierra Club members. The email is only included in this document
once and the names of the 573 Sierra Club members who this message was
sent on behalf of are not listed in this compilation of public comments.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
323
-------
From: Rhonda Anderson on behalf of Eric Keller
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:44 AM
To: ejstrategy
Subject: Act without delay to address issues in overburdened communities
Jun 11, 2015
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator Charles Lee
USEPA, Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington,, DC 20460
Dear Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator Lee,
I am responding to the EPA's request for comments to the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework. I appreciate EPA's
efforts through Plan EJ
2014 to integrate environmental justice into all its programs and particularly to build environmental justice into
enforcement targeting and enforcement cases.
For decades, tribal areas, communities of color, and low-income populations have been experiencing disproportionate
impacts of pollution. This pollution affects impacted individual's health and quality of life daily and in the long-term,
including children who suffer physical and cognitive development delays due to this pollution.
In places like Wayne County, Michigan, a portion of which has been titled "the Epicenter of Asthma Burden" by the
Michigan Department of Health, 92 schools lie in communities where children are exposed to air pollution that affects
their ability to learn.
I urge you to adopt an additional element under the goal to "Demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to
overburdened communities." Where federal authority exists and state government has failed to address environmental
justice issues, the EPA should act without delay to address issues in overburdened communities. An example of this
situation already exists in Wayne County Michigan, an area that failed to meet federal minimum standards for sulfur
dioxide
(S02) pollution. There the state put aside an effort to finalize a state implementation plan that, with a few changes,
would have brought the region into attainment; instead the state allowed the polluting industries to dictate pollution
levels through a draft permit process that provided grossly inadequate S02 reductions. The timeline for Michigan to
produce a state plan has long passed, and people in the Wayne County continue to suffer.
Thank you for helping ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency achieves real outcomes that matter to
overburdened communities.
Environmental justice delayed is justice denied.
Sincerely,
Eric Keller
EJ 2020 Public Comments
1
324
-------
Lionel Lopez, Director
South Texas Colonia Initiative, Inc.
4325 Philippine Dr.
Corpus Christi, TX 78411
Phone/Fax: 854-5248
lionel@southtexascolonia.org
EJ 2020
In Nueces County we have never had a good health survey.
We need help with the Clean Water Act.
We need an EJ representative to come more often to visit colonias and talk to residents about
our problems. We don't even know who EJ Representative for our area is.
We need help placing more of our colonias placed on the S.O.S. website.
Executive Order 12898 - Federal agencies to address the disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs on minority and low-income
population.
How can we advance when we, in some of our colonias don't even have mail delivered to their
homes.
We need help with sewage systems when the colonias get flooded the septic tanks over flow
on the inside of the houses.
NEEDED:
Have classes to educate our residents!
We have no community centers in Nueces County.
We have two toxic injection sites that bring toxic materials even from Mexico and all over the
states. One site is within % of a mile from a neighborhood. The other site across the street
with no monitors.
Roads in some of our colonias are so bad the school children have trouble walking to the bus
stop even in good weather.
E.J. 2020 also needs bilingual people when it comes to teaching classes in our area.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
325
-------
Our most important asset that we have is our children and often our children are sick because
of the environment, water they drink or air they breathe. The soil they play on is contaminated
with pesticides.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
326
-------
Southeast'
ay Road
Castle Hayne, North Carolina
scecejcoaIitioe@gmaiI.coin
910-409-8457
September 14, 2015
Public Comment re: Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Dear Mr. Lee:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework.
The Southeastern North Carolina Environmental Justice Coalition is an all-volunteer
organization founded in 2014 to address the rampant environmental injustice in Southeastern
North Carolina, in the Wilmington regional area. Our Coalition members are the New Hanover
County NAACP, the North Carolina Coastal Federation, Cape Fear RiverWatch, PenderWatch &
Conservancy, Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help (REACH), the Cape Fear
(IMC) Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Duke University Environmental Justice Clinic. Our
member organizations have approximately 15,000 members. Among the most pressing of the
numerous EJ issues in our region are the proposed Carolinas Cement (aka Titan Cement) kiln
and quarry, the Duke Energy coal ash pond with its leaks, the massive pollution caused by the
CAFO hog farms in many eastern North Carolina counties and the superfund sites at Navassa,
NC. Our air, aquifers and the Cape Fear River or its tributaries are grossly polluted or
threatened with pollution by all of these.
We are very grateful for this opportunity to comment on the draft framework for EJ 2020. In
particular, we would like to draw your attention to a pressing need - and excellent opportunity -
for EPA to meet its goal to "Engage states and other co-regulators in environmental justice,"
particularly with regards to permitting, by using the pending NC Division of Air Quality permit
for Carolinas Cement Company as a test case.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
327
-------
Page 1 of 4
Engaging states and other co-regulators in environmental justice
EPA can meet its over-arching goal to "make a visible difference for over-burdened
communities" by addressing the points under Goal I, "Deepen environmental justice practice
within EPA programs to improve the health and environment of overburdened communities."
Nearly every environmental permit issued is an opportunity to do just that. EPA's focus on
considering environmental justice in EPA permitting decisions is well-placed; however, only a
tiny fraction of permits are actually issued by EPA. Most permits are issued by state agencies or
tribal governments. Many of these state permitting staffs - including those in North Carolina -
issued the very permits that created current Environmental Justice hotspots. Environmental
Justice will not be considered in most environmental permitting decisions unless EPA strongly
supports - or even compels - states to do so. We urge EPA to focus on advancing the
engagement of states in considering and implementing environmental justice:
• Require Environmental Justice training for state agency staff members and leaders
under cooperative agreements
EPA has completed mandatory training on Environmental Justice for all employees, according to
the Plan EJ 2020 Draft Action Agenda Framework. Congratulations on this important
achievement! Many state agency staff are in dire need of training on environmental justice as
well. State agency representatives in North Carolina, and presumably in many other states, are
unclear about what environmental justice is, why it is important, and how to consider or
implement it in their jobs. North Carolina serves as a key example, as it no longer even has a
coordinator for Environmental Justice within the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. In other words, no one at NC's DENR considers EJ issues in evaluating permits, which
is appalling. We suggest that EPA require all state agency staff involved in permitting and
enforcement to receive mandatory environmental justice training under the terms of their
cooperative agreements with EPA. States like PA, CT and IL, which have shown leadership in
implementing environmental justice principles, could be tapped to help provide these trainings,
so that the message is peer-to-peer and thus more likely to be well-received by states. Such an
approach would also help meet EPA's goal to "Collaborate with states, tribes, local
governments and other co-regulators to share and develop environmental justice tools and
practices" (EJ 2020 Draft Framework).
• Guide states to consider Environmental Justice and develop hooks that compel them
to do so
There are likely multiple barriers that prevent states from considering and implementing
Environmental Justice in their permitting and regulatory functions. These barriers may include
EJ 2020 Public Comments
328
-------
Page 2 of 4
a lack of understanding of the principles of environmental justice (see previous bullet point), a
perceived lack of resources or specialized knowledge to implement environmental justice,
pressure from regulated entities to speed up regulatory processes in ways that could preclude
full consideration of environmental justice, or others. EPA should identify and address these
barriers through education and training, guidance materials, and by compelling states to
consider Environmental Justice in permitting and enforcement whenever possible, such as
under cooperative agreements or other funding mechanisms. For example, EPA could adapt
the Agency's guidance "Considering Environmental Justice in Permitting" for state use, and
provide direct assistance in using such a tool. EPA could require states to make use of the
guidance as a condition of specific funding / cooperative agreements.
• Use the Carolinas Cement Company air permit as a test case under EJ 2020 to move a
state to thoroughly consider and implement environmental justice principles in a state
permitting decision.
EPA has an excellent opportunity to help a state make considerable progress by learning
hands-on how to use the principles of Environmental Justice in permitting. In issuing an air
permit to Carolinas Cement Company in 2013 (a permit that is currently before the North
Carolina Supreme Court), an endeavor that would build one of the world's largest cement
plants in an over-burdened community of poor and minority residents on the Northeast Cape
Fear River on the border of New Hanover and Pender Counties, near Wilmington, North
Carolina. State regulators summarily rejected the community's many requests to consider
environmental justice factors in its permit analysis. Our member organizations have submitted
critical comments about the proposed permit, and we have communicated our concerns about
environmental justice with regards to this permit to NC DENR and to EPA's Region IV
Environmental Justice staff members.
The NC DENR Division of Air Quality held a public hearing on the revised permit in 2013, at
which our member organizations the New Hanover County NAACP and PenderWatch as well as
several other community representatives urged the state to consider the special vulnerabilities
of the nearby community reliant on well water, already overburdened by legacy contamination
from present and historical polluters on the Northeast Cape Fear River. Despite our specific
requests to do so, the Division of Air Quality flatly refused to consider any secondary impacts of
the permit, from air deposition of mercury and heavy metals into an impaired waterway, to the
tremendous increases in heavy truck traffic that would accompany the opening of a massive
cement plant. The hearing officer also publicly belittled community members for urging the
EJ 2020 Public Comments
329
-------
Page 3 of 4
Division of Air Quality to consider environmental justice in their permitting decision. Quoting
the hearing officer's written report:
"Commenters appear to allege that the federal Environmental Justice policy
applies to NC DAQ's issuance of this permit. The federal policy, set forth in Federal
Executive Order No. 12898, addresses the federal government's responsibilities
only, not the State's. Therefore it is not applicable here." NC DENR
Recommendation for Issuance of Air Quality Permit, Carolinas Cement Company,
August 29, 2013
(http://daq.state.nc.us/permits/psd/docs/titan/CCC Hearing Officer Report.pdf
page 13).
The Hearing Officer's opinion was adopted in its totality and the Carolinas Cement Company air
permit issued by Donald Van der Vaart, who was subsequently appointed Secretary of the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, where he remains today.
See http://daq.state.nc.ys/perirnits/psd/docs/titan/tiit3n perm 08292013.pdf
We strongly urge EPA to conduct a thorough review of this permit and use your authority under
the Clean Air Act and other federal laws to give Environmental Justice its due consideration in
this matter. Mr. Lee, we would like to meet with you as well as meet again with Mr. Mustafa
Ali to discuss this proposal. We will contact you separately with a meeting request.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the EJ 2020 Draft Framework, and for
your diligent work to promote environmental justice. Please contact me at any time for
additional information about the issues which have been raised in this comment letter.
Respectfully yours,
Veronica Carter
Chair
EJ 2020 Public Comments
330
-------
Spectra
Energy
Patrick J. Hester
Associate General Counsel
Spectra Energy
890 Winter Street, Suite 300
Waltham, MA 02451
617 560-1377
617 560 1587 fax
July 14,2015
pjhesterQspectraenergy. com
Submitted electronically to ejstrategy@epa.gov
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEPA, Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Dear Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator Lee:
Spectra Energy Corp ("Spectra" or "Spectra Energy") submits the following comments and
recommendations on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")'s draft EJ 2020 Action
Agenda framework.1 Spectra supports EPA's environmental justice efforts but requests that EPA
commit to concrete environmental justice goals and policies that produce predictable outcomes
and expectations for regulated entities.
Spectra Energy is one of North America's leading pipeline and midstream companies. Based in
Houston, Texas, the company's operations in the United States and Canada include more than
22,000 miles of natural gas, natural gas liquids and crude oil pipelines. For nearly a century,
Spectra Energy and its predecessor companies have developed critically important pipelines and
related infrastructure connecting energy supplies to premium markets.
Spectra Energy's core customers are local distribution companies, marketers and traders, natural
gas producers, gas-fired electric generators, and residential, commercial, and industrial facilities.
Spectra Energy provides infrastructure that is vital to meeting the Nation's energy demands. The
company is constantly constructing new projects to keep up with the growing demand for oil and
natural gas and maintaining its existing pipeline infrastructure to ensure pipeline safety.
Natural gas plays an increasingly vital role in the United States economy, and interstate pipelines
are essential to that development. The INGAA Foundation, Inc. projects that the United States
and Canada will need to invest an average of $14 billion per year through 2035 on natural gas
midstream assets, including new mainlines, natural gas storage fields, laterals to/from storage,
power plants and processing facilities, gas lease equipment, LNG export facilities, and related
1 Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda, available at http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ej2020/draft-
framework.pdf.
EJ 2020 Public Comments 331
-------
Spectra
Energy
Charles Lee
July 14,2015
Page 2
equipment.2 Spectra alone anticipates investing $35 billion by 2020 in much needed
infrastructure. The role of natural gas and need for pipeline construction will only increase in
importance as EPA seeks to achieve other priorities such as the proposed Clean Power Plan.
The siting, construction, and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines are regulated by FERC
pursuant to the Natural Gas Act ("NGA"). Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which
amended the NGA, FERC is the designated lead agency for NEPA review of interstate natural
gas pipeline projects.3 Before a new interstate natural gas pipeline is constructed or expanded,
FERC must issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity finding that there is a need for
the project and that it is in the public interest. As part of the certificate process, FERC conducts a
thorough review of the proposed pipeline route and environmental impacts under NEPA.
Although FERC is not bound by Executive Order 12,868, FERC's thorough review includes an
extensive opportunity for meaningful public input and often incorporates environmental justice
considerations.
Pipeline construction projects require an efficient and predictable permitting process in order to
meet construction schedules and the in-service dates demanded by customers. This efficient and
predictable process is of utmost importance to creating the infrastructure necessary to "maintain
our Nation's competitive edge, and ensure an economy built to last."4 In this regard, Congress,
the White House, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have all adopted the goal of
efficient permitting for pipeline operations.5
Against this backdrop of clear and stringent regulatory and permitting requirements, Spectra has
at times been concerned with the vagueness of EPA's environmental justice goals and policies.
Vague environmental justice policies lead to three major problems. First, vague policies do not
provide a roadmap for compliance. The pipeline industry is highly regulated. The schedules
associated with pipeline construction and maintenance require a degree of predictability that
2 The INGAA Foundation, Inc., North American Midstream Infrastructure Through 2035: Capitalizing on
Our Energy Abundance at 14 (Mar. 18, 2014), available at http://www.ingaa.org/Foundation/ Foundation-
Reports/203 5Report.aspx.
3 Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005) (codified as amended in scattered sections of Title 42 of the U.S.
Code).
4 Executive Order 13,604 (Mar. 22, 2012).
5 See Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, § 316(b), 119 Stat. 594, 689 (2005) (requiring that
Federal and State agencies comply with deadlines established by FERC); Exec. Order No. 13,604 (Mar. 22, 2012)
("[I]t is critical that executive departments and agencies .. . take all steps within their authority, consistent with
available resources, to execute Federal permitting and review processes with maximum efficiency and
effectiveness..."); FERC Order No. 687, 18 C.F.R. § 157.22, 71 Fed. Reg. 62,912, 62,921 (establishing 90 day
deadline for Federal authorization); Oversight Hearing to Review the Permitting of Energy Projects: Hearing Before
the S. Comm. on Env't and Pub. Works, 109th Cong. 7-9 (May 25, 2005) (statement of J. Mark Robinson, Dir.,
Office of Energy Projects, FERC, advocating for a rational siting process).
EJ 2020 Public Comments
332
-------
Spectra
Energy
Charles Lee
July 14,2015
Page 3
cannot be provided by vague regulatory guidance. Environmental justice guidance should not
leave regulated parties guessing as to compliance requirements. Second, where policies are
unclear, preventable conflicts and associated delays will occur. These delays are particularly
difficult for linear projects like pipelines which are subject to multiple permits and scheduling
constraints. It is not unusual for a large pipeline project to involve multiple state jurisdiction and
multiple federal agency regions/districts. Third, without clear and concrete guidance,
environmental justice policies may be applied inconsistently from one agency official to the next.
Inconsistent application of environmental justice policies undermines predictability and
consistency for regulated entities. Confusion, delay, and inconsistent policy application
negatively impact both environmental justice communities and regulated entities.
Accordingly, Spectra recommends that EPA establish concrete goals and policies that advance
environmental justice while producing predictable outcomes and expectations for regulated
entities. Concrete goals are necessary for the agency to consistently and effectively produce
positive environmental justice outcomes. Predictable outcomes and expectations are necessary
for regulated industries to plan infrastructure investments and effectively partner in advancing
the goal of environmental justice.
Specifically, Spectra submits the following requests. First, the agency should ensure that the EJ
2020 framework incorporates complementary mandates to streamline permitting. As suggested
by Executive Order 13,604, EPA's environmental justice guidance should be structured to
"provide a transparent, consistent, and predictable path for both project sponsors and affected
communities" and seek to "significantly reduce the aggregate time required to make decisions in
the permitting and review.. .while improving environmental and community outcomes.. ,"6
Second, the agency should use specific language to describe the effect that environmental justice
considerations will have in different contexts (e.g., compliance) and avoid vague undocumented
goals that do not provide predictability for the regulated community.7 Third, in order to ensure
consistent policy application, the agency should make environmental justice policies clear and
easy to follow for regulators, affected communities, and the regulated public. Finally, the agency
should expressly identify how environmental justice considerations interact with the EPA's
existing statutory and regulatory requirements and the requirements of other regulatory agencies.
Spectra appreciates the Agency's willingness to listen and respond to our concerns and
recommendations. Spectra looks forward to working with the leadership and staff of the Office
6 Executive Order 13,604 (Mar. 22, 2012) (emphasis added).
7 Spectra understands that some of these goals will be elucidated in future guidance and looks forward to
participating in those discussions.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
333
-------
Spectra
Energy
Charles Lee
July 14,2015
Page 4
of Environmental Justice to finalize a framework that advances environmental justice and
promotes predictability and clarity.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Hester
EJ 2020 Public Comments
334
-------
July 14,2015
Via Electronic Mail to cistrategy@epa.gov
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ATTN: Charles Lee
Mail Code: 2201A
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20460-0001
Dear Mr. Lee:
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) appreciates the
opportunity to provide comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Draft EJ
2020 Action Agenda Framework (Draft Framework). EPA proposes the Draft Framework as a
tool to assist the agency in advancing environmental justice (EJ) through its programs, policies
and activities, and will support its cross-agency strategy on making a visible difference in
environmentally overburdened, underserved, and economically distressed communities. The
Draft Framework will build on the foundation established through EPA's Plan EJ 2014 in an
effort to expand existing initiatives through commitments that will continue through the next five
years.
Various programs within TDEC reviewed the Draft Framework. Based on this review, TDEC
appreciates EPA's work on developing a new Draft Framework that provides current information
and direction on EJ efforts and outcomes. TDEC is already actively engaged with EPA staff,
through the Environmental Council of the States, regarding the public release of EJSCREEN.
Additionally, some TDEC programs provide services to a significant portion of Limited English
Proficient (LEP) customers and regularly use tools like written document translation, over the
phone interpretation, and in-person interpretation to better communicate with their customers.
TDEC looks forward to continuing its work with EPA to better understand and address EJ issues.
Specific comments for consideration include:
• TDEC recommends EPA add language to the introductory paragraph that places
EPA's EJ efforts into context within its regulatory and voluntary programs. Suggested
additional information includes information pertaining to the Office of Environmental
Justice's creation, its roles and responsibilities, how it relates to various program
areas within EPA as well as how it might relate to programs at the state or
municipality level. Additionally, any internal policies and/or executive orders related
to EJ efforts and its authorities would be a welcomed inclusion. TDEC also
recommends that EPA clarify for the reader that EJ is not a rule or regulation. TDEC
recommends that EPA clarify what it aims to achieve through its EJ work. This is not
clear to the reader in the draft framework.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
335
-------
• TDEC acknowledges that the Draft Framework is a welcomed high-level summary of
strategic goals and approaches for EPA's EJ efforts. However, in general, TDEC
recommends that EPA include an additional layer of detail within all objective areas
that outline specific action steps EPA will take and deadlines within which action
steps will be completed in order to accomplish all stated goals or objectives. For
example, on page 2 within goal I, focus area C, the statement "Consider impacts on
overburdened communities in developing EPA injunctive relief, mitigation, and
Supplemental Environmental Project options in enforcement settlements" does not
provide the reader with the necessary information to understand how and when EPA
proposes to accomplish this step. Will EPA develop resources, guidance materials, or
other examples that address how impacts on overburdened communities should be
considered? Similarly, on page 3, within goal II, focus area A, what steps will EPA
take to "work with states, tribes, local governments and other co-regulators to
promote consideration of EJ in collective decision-making"? In addition to speci fying
to the reader how EPA plans to accomplish its goals, such action steps would allow
each state or partner to better identify opportunities for collaboration and/or potential
impact areas within their own programs. While TDEC provides these two examples,
EPA should note that additional details regarding action steps and deadlines
throughout the entire framework should be included. Within goal I, focus area D,
TDEC recommends that EPA define "Next Generation environmental monitoring"
and include additional information regarding this effort and what it encompasses.
While this may be a well-known term within EPA, it may be less understood by
external communities.
• Wi thin each focus area of goal II, "collaborate with partners to expand our impact
within overburdened communities," TDEC recommends that EPA consider adding an
objective or outcome to annually publish case studies and success stories for
incorporating EJ practices into state and community-level programs, regulatory
actions, decision-marking, etc. By providing partners with a regularly updated
repository of EJ best practices and examples of innovative approaches to considering
EJ communities, partner agencies and organizations can learn from the successes of
one another. Understanding how other states and communities have incorporated EJ
considerations into their regulatory activities and addressed challenges within
particular regulatory contexts would be helpful. Additionally, it is TDEC's
experience that EPA's expectations regarding the manner in which EJ should be
incorporated into regulatory activities on a state-specific basis is not often understood
and/or communicated through EPA program staff to the same level as EPA staff
dedicated to EJ issues.
• EPA should include information regarding specific communication tools and formats
it will use to accomplish goal III. Further, TDEC recommends that EPA publish
EJ 2020 Public Comments
336
-------
progress on outcomes in multiple, publicly-accessible locations, such as websites,
local government entities, video recording, posters, handouts, articles, etc., such that
the public, regardless of geographic location or other factors, will be able to access
information. While EPA may make progress with regard to its EJ goals, it may
achieve greater success in improving education and influence within impacted
communities with a more detailed plan to effectively communicate this progress to
interested stakeholders.
• EPA should include hyperlinks to completed Plan EJ 2014
commitments/accomplishments on page 4 to provide readers with direct access to
those materials from the framework.
• TDEC recommends that EPA provide additional information for the items listed in
the "Priorities in 2015" section. In particular, TDEC recommends that EPA outline
specific action steps EPA will take and a timeframe for accomplishing the stated
priorities. Given that these comments are being collected mid-wav through 2015, it
may be helpful to include the anticipated priorities for 2016 as well. Providing
guidance on the quickly approaching 2016 priorities will assist states and partner
organizations in strategic planning of opportunities for collaboration and/or potential
impact areas within their own programs.
EPA should be commended for its ongoing efforts to advance environmental justice and make a
difference in underserved communities. TDEC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
Draft Framework.
Sincerely,
Costin Shamble
TDEC Office of Policy and Planning
Title VI and Environmental Justice Manager
EJ 2020 Public Comments
337
-------
Tennessee Interfaith Power & Light
A Spiritual Response to Climate Change
www.tennipl.orgtennesseeipl@gmail.com
PO Box 26313 Knoxville TN 37912
To: Charles Lee, Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice, EPA
From: Louise Gorenflo, coordinating secretary, Tennessee Interfaith Power & Light
Re: Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Date: June 15, 2015
Tennessee Interfaith Power & Light (TIPL) thanks EPA for the opportunity to submit our comments on its Draft
EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework. It is of great value that EPA is developing its capacities to advance EJ
through its programs, policies, and activities, as well as engaging other agencies in developing their own
capacities.
It is our understanding, however, that EPA's commitment to EJ is largely an internal process that does not
extend to states. Certainly EPA encourages states to incorporate EJ in development of SIPs, state regulations,
and state enforcement, but encouragement is not the same as requirement.
Our experience here in Tennessee has taught us that state agencies do not hold EJ in high regard. We have
seen no actual evidence that our state's agencies have considered EJ in their rulemaking, regulations, and
enforcement.
It is important the EPA has developed its own EJ capacities. However, without developing the capacities of the
states to do the same, we the people do not experience EPA's efforts making a difference in how states
operate.
After the release of the draft Clean Power Plan, EPA convened conference calls and meetings with many EJ
leaders and public interest groups to affirm EPA's valuing of EJ. Yet absent within the draft Clean Power Plan
were any requirements that states incorporate EJ into the development of their SIPs.
This disconnect between EPA's aspirations for EJ and actual requirements for EJ on the state level is reflected
in the draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework which recommends not one step towards making states
accountable for EJ in their rulemaking, regulations, or enforcement.
Some states have on their own made EJ part of the way they do business. We live in a state that would not do
so unless it was required to do it.
We encourage EPA to include within its draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework agenda items that would move
EPA in the direction of requiring states to incorporate EJ in their SIPs, regulations, and enforcement.
Thank you.
Louise Gorenflo, coordinating secretary
Tennessee Interfaith Power & Light
EJ 2020 Public Comments
338
-------
Comments for EJ2020 Draft Framework
Terrence E. Gilchrist
Columbus, Ohio
Submitted: Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Part II, Section A
Collaborate with states, tribes, local governments and other co-regulators to share and develop
environmental justice tools and practices
Commissions. There are local and state-level authorities, such as conservation districts and
health commissions, which have intervention and regulatory capacity on behalf of jurisdictions.
For instance, according to Chapter 1515 of the Ohio Revised Code, the state's Soil and Water
Conservation Commission may "[sleek the cooperation and assistance of the federal
government or any of its agencies, and of agencies of this state, in the work of the districts ,.."1
The Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Commission is within the state's Department of Natural
Resources. Other authorities of interest include the Bureau of Underground Storage Tank
Requirements of the state's Department of Commerce; the Ohio Minority Health Commission;
and the Utility Radiological Safety Board of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Marginalization. Though there are governmental and non-governmental authorities, some
perceive themselves as non-traditional partners. A perception problem arises such that potential
mission-compatible partners have relegated 'social justice' issues as a concern not-central to
conservation of natural resources or their main constituents e.g. farmers, exurbs.
Part II, Section C
Support transformative efforts in communities to advance environmental justice through EPA's
Community Resources Network
Libraries. To ensure the accessibility and continuity of knowledge as federal administrations
and priorities change, local and state libraries may help with archiving the accrued resources
e.g. publications, webinars. This can increase the diffusion of innovation in environmental
justice as well as serve a function as introductory subject matter exposure for community
members and local public officials. Public libraries can serve as a repository of legacy
information and historical data in the Community Resources Network.
Reinvestment. The Community Resources Network could incorporate data about the
performance of financial institutions serving overburdened communities. The Community
Reinvestment Act of 1977 enables robust participation of banks via financing, foundation
support, and corporate social responsibility.2 It has been coupled with historic preservation to
revitalize neighborhoods such as the Manchester District of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the
Mount Auburn District in Cincinnati, Ohio.3
EJ 2020 Public Comments
339
-------
Part III, Section B
Show positive impacts of our work through community-level results, such as revitalization and
sustainability, partnerships and collaborative problem-solving, and grassroots capacity-building
Depth. Research partners can provide technical assistance and train members of the community
who want to extend their skills in data collection, organizing, and problem-solving.
Collaborators such as universities already collect, refine, and store the type of data associated
with the EJSCREEN. For instance, the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity of
The Ohio State University as well as the Franklin Soil and Water Conservation District have
personnel with geographic information systems capabilities and regularly compile datasets. For
especially overburdened communities, such partners can provide precise and up-to-date data.
Part III, Section D
Develop indicators of progress through collaborative processes with communities, states, tribes and other
stakeholder partners
Metrics. There are ways to demonstrate progress in addition to geographic profiles of the
presence of chemicals of concern. For instance the set of social network analysis metrics
pioneered by Albert-Lazslo Barabasi4, Nicholas Christakis56, James Fowler56, and Andrew
Papachristos7 reveal the extent to which social ties influence health. With respect to the
environmental justice gap, the number of connections and types of partnerships established
with communities across time can show an indication of the trajectory of success in attaining
outcomes and eventual impact.
Perhaps in evaluating progress in environmental justice, categories of metrics from
different disciplines, such as epidemiology with chronic disease surveillance, can provide a
comprehensive view of progress in environmental justice. Recent public health metrics have
measurements that show mediating factors in the preventive and risk determinants in health.8
With vast amount of data as well as the computing capability of government
institutions, the emerging field of data science is revealing patterns that statistics does not
sufficiently convey.9'ia 11 The linear measurement from multilevel regression discerns a certain
type of insight. Non-linear measurement from the sciences of complexity adds another
understanding of the interaction of stakeholders which contributes to the emergent, system-
level patterns in the distribution of environmental hazards. The Santa Fe Institute and
behavioral economists have developed a copus of knowledge in this area.12
EJ 2020 Public Comments
Gilchrist - Columbus, Ohio I 2
340
-------
Part IV, Section A
Promoting climate adaptation and resilience and greenhouse gas reduction co-benefits will be an
important part of the EJ 2020 Action Agenda
Finance. For communities with willing property owners and renters as well as businesses, there
are ways to adapt financial products to assist environmental conservation and energy
sustainability. In states such as Ohio, which have legislatures influenced by special interests of
the carbon-based economy, e.g. Big Coal, a market-based approach may complement the
regulatory tools of any federal administration. With such overburdened communities, the
financing instruments can accelerate the adoption of green infrastructure and energy
sustainable infrastructure which improve public health13; save costs to owners and the
municipality14; and increase housing value15. Credit enhancement helps with green
infrastructure and renewable energy projects, particularly in neighborhoods affected by sub-
prime predatory lending. The innovative deployment of Clean Water State Reserve Funds could
play a role with liability settlements between communities, states, and corporations. Given the
extent of contamination in some overburdened communities, a large loan fund or combination
of funding approaches may be necessary for remediation.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
Gilchrist - Columbus, Ohio I 3
341
-------
Part IV, Section B
EPA will advance its program relative to the implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act through a
comprehensive, long-term Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Strategic Plan, which OCR is currently developing
Enforcement. Sometimes the lack of political commitment can impede the efforts of a
community to mitigate an environmental justice gap. National level data and the precedent of
cases can move regulatory and private actors to participate. The Office of Civil Rights can assist
organized communities with determining if their local regulatory institutions are performing
the role of enforcing accountability, liability, and social responsibility of banks, companies, and
municipalities. For instance, according to the Ohio Revised Code, the supervisors of the county-
level conservation districts, which are considered political subdivisions in Ohio, have powers
which include the ability "[t]o sue and plead in the name of the district, and be sued and
impleaded in the name of the district, with respect to its contracts and, as indicated in section
1515.081 of the Revised Code, certain torts of its officers, employees, or agents acting within the
scope of their employment or official responsibilities, or with respect to the enforcement of its
obligations and covenants made under this chapter ,.."16
Disclosure. Recently, in places such as the County of St. Louis in Missouri, there are revelations
that the radiological remnants of special nuclear material persist. To the extent possible, the
source of contamination in communities may be illuminated from further declassification of
records from and another comprehensive accounting of the production of resources for the
country's weaponized atomic arsenal and peaceful atomic energy.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
Gilchrist - Columbus, Ohio I 4
342
-------
Endnotes
1. "Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Commission - Powers and Duties,"
Ohio Revised Code, Title XV, Chapter 1515, Section 2, Part C
Site: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1515.02
Accessed: July 14, 2015
2. Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Site: http://www.federalreserve.gov/communitydev/cra_about.htm
Accessed; July 14, 2015
3. "Preservation at the Grassroots: Pittsburgh's Manchester and Cincinnati's Mt. Auburn
Neighborhoods," Stephanie R. Ryberg, Journal of Planning History, May 2011 vol. 10 no. 2 139-163
doi: 10.1177/1538513210381848
Accessed: July 14, 2015
4. "Network Medicine: A Network-based Approach to Human Disease,"
Albert-Lazslo Barabasi,, N. Gulbahce, J. Loscalzo, Nature Reviews Genetics 12, 56-68 (2011).
Site: http://www.barabasilab.eom/pubs/CCNR-ALB_Publications/201012-18_NatureRev-
NetMedicine/201012-18_NatureRev-NetMedicine.pdf
Accessed: July 14, 2015
5. "Social Contagion Theory: Examining Dynamic Social Networks and Human Behavior,"
Nicholas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler, Statistics in Medicine, February 20, 2013; 32(4):556-77
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5408
6. Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives;
How Your Friends' Friends' Friends Affect Everything You Feel, Think, and Do Nicholas A.
Christakis and James H. Fowler ( Little, Brown, and Company, New York: 2009)
7. "Social Networks and the Risk of Gun Shot Injury," Andrew V. Papachristos, Anthony A.
Braga, and David M. Hureau, Journal of Urban Health, December 2012; 89(6): 992-1003
DOI: 10.1007/sl 1524-012-9703-9
Accessed: July 14, 2015
8. "Behavioral Science at the Crossroads in Public Health: Extending Horizons, Envisioning the Future,"
Thomas A. Glass, Matthew J. McAtee, Social Science and Medicine, 2005, Number 62,1650-1671
Site: https://blogs.nursing.osu.edu/boch_10/files/2011/12/Glass_Thomas_A.pdf
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.044
Accessed: July 14, 2015
Gilchrist - Columbus, Ohio I 5
EJ 2020 Public Comments
343
-------
9. "Statistics 2.0: From Data Revolution to the Next Level of Official Statistics,"
Keynote Speech, Enrico Giovannini
Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, 2014 Policy Seminar
Official Statistics in a Changing Society-Making Choices and Balancing Tradeoffs, December 15-16, 2014
http: //w w w. copaf s. or g/seminar s/f csm2014policy. aspx
Speech: http://www.copafs.org/UserFiles/file/2014fcsm/KeynoteStatistics2_0.pdf
Accessed: July 14, 2015
10. "Why Measuring Progress Matters," Enrico Giovannini, OECD Observer, Number 262, July 2007
Site: http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/archivestory.php/aid/2283/Why_measuring_progress_matters.html
Accessed: July 14, 2015
11. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Progress and Social Performance
Joseph E. Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, Jean-Paul Fitoussi, September 14, 2009
Site: http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf
Accessed: July 14, 2015
12. "An Interview with W. Brian Arthur," The Development of Complexity Perspectives, November 8,2002
Site: http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~wbarthur/InterviewsandNews/ETAPAEInterview.pdf
Accessed: July 14, 2015
13. "Growing Green: How Green Infrastructure Can Improves Community Viability and Public
Health," Stacey Detwiler, American Rivers, Compton Foundation, June 2012
Site: https://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/green-infrastructure-docs/growing-green-
how-green-infrastructure-can-improve-community-livability.pdf
Accessed: July 14, 2015
14. "The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental, and
Social Benefits," Center for Neighborhood Technology, American Rivers, Kresge Foundation, 2010
Site: http://www.americanrivers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Value-of-Green-Infrastructure.pdf7506914
Accessed: July 14, 2015
15. "A Spatial Autocorrelation Approach for Examining the Effects of Urban Greenspace on
Residential Property Values," Delores Conway, Christina Q. Li, Jennifer Wolch, Christopher
Kahle & Michael Jerrett, Journal of Real Estate Financial and Economics (2010) 41:150-169
DOI: 10.1007/slll46-008-9159-6
Accessed: July 14, 2015
16. "Supervisors of Soil and Water Conservation District - Additional Powers,"
Ohio Revised Code, Title XV, Chapter 1515, Section 8, Part G
Site: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1515.08
Accessed: July 14, 2015
Gilchrist - Columbus, Ohio I 6
EJ 2020 Public Comments
344
-------
Texas Pipeline Association
Thure Cannon
President
June 15, 2015
Via e-mail to ciMntk^va'cpci.in>v
Mr. Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Justice
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Dear Mr. Lee:
The Texas Pipeline Association ("TPA") submits the following comments on EPA's
Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework ("EJ 2020"). TPA is an organization composed of 50
members who gather, process, treat, and transport natural gas and hazardous liquids materials
through intrastate pipelines in Texas. TPA's members will be affected by efforts outlined in the
draft framework because our members engage in activities that could be affected by federal
environmental justice initiatives.
1. Introduction.
EPA seeks input on EJ 2020, which according to EPA will help advance environmental
justice efforts in environmentally overburdened, underserved, and economically distressed
communities. As stated in the following comments, TPA believes that the draft EJ 2020
framework should be revised so that the agency's statement of its future environmental justice
efforts is clear, the applicability of such efforts is easily understood, and those efforts do not
impose undue burdens on the regulated community.
2. EPA should clarify its definition of "overburdened communities."
A central focus of EPA's environmental justice efforts is to address and alleviate impacts
on "overburdened communities." For example, EPA states that the goals of EJ 2020 are to
"deepen" an environmental justice practice within EPA programs to improve the health and
environment of overburdened communities1; collaborate with partners to expand EPA's impact
1 EJ 2020 Framework at I.
604 West 14th Street, Austin, Texas 78701
phone: (512) 478-2871 fax:(512)473-8476 Email: thure.cannon@texaspipelines.com
EJ 2020 Public Comments
345
-------
within overburdened communities; and demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to
overburdened communities.
The term "overburdened community," is key to the applicability of these future efforts.
Accordingly, we would urge EPA give grave consideration as to how this term is defined and to
provide clarification, as necessary. EPA has defined an "overburdened community" as one that
potentially experiences disproportionate environmental harms and risks as a result of cumulative
impacts or greater vulnerability to environmental hazards2; alternatively, EPA has used the term
to describe "the minority, low-income, tribal, and indigenous populations or communities in the
United States that potentially experience disproportionate environmental harms and risks as a
result of greater vulnerability to environmental hazards."3
If these definitions are to be used with regard to EPA's EJ 2020 efforts, we urge EPA to
consider adding additional criteria so that the general public and the regulated community have a
better understanding of when future environmental justice initiatives might be employed. In
determining whether a community should be considered as being subject to the EJ 2020 efforts,
TP A urges EPA to consider inclusion of such factors as whether a substantial percentage of the
population of the affected community has an annual income that is less than the poverty
threshold or whether a substantial percentage of the population of the affected community is part
of a minority group. In addition, in all cases EPA should consider whether the community is
actually disproportionately impacted by industrial development, regardless of whether it is an
economically disadvantaged area. A community that is not disproportionately burdened by the
effects of industrial development is not an "overburdened community," regardless of the socio-
economic status of its population.
3. TPA supports voluntary efforts to increase community awareness and
involvement.
Part of the EJ 2020 effort is focused on enhancing public participation in the permitting
process and enhancing communication with low socio-economic (which are often majority
minority) communities affected by industrial activities.4 TPA supports voluntary efforts aimed
at increasing public understanding of, and participation in, the permitting process as well as
efforts aimed at increasing communication between industry and local affected communities.
Indeed, TPA has been at the forefront of initiatives aimed at opening the lines of communication
between industry and local communities. For example, TPA worked in concert with elected
officials and community leaders to improve communications between the pipeline industry and
local governments in the Barnett Shale area of Texas. The result of this collaborative effort was
a document titled Best Practices for Pipeline and Municipality Relations, which addresses issues
such as public participation in pipeline routing, use of public rights-of-way, and steps aimed at
creating enhanced communication between industry and affected communities.
2 See, e.g., 77 Fed. Reg. 38052 (June 26, 2012).
3 EPA Plan EJ 2014, Legal Tools (Dec. 2011) at 1 n. 2.
4 EJ 2020 Framework at I.B, I.D.
2
EJ 2020 Public Comments 346
-------
TPA's efforts in the Barnett Shale area are an example of the proactive and voluntary
initiatives that industry is already undertaking to foster better communication and to engage local
communities. To the extent that EPA's environmental justice efforts encourage additional
initiatives that can be undertaken on a voluntary basis, TPA supports those efforts. Industry has
demonstrated a wiliness and capacity to engage in voluntary efforts to engage local communities
and keep them informed of local development activities. This being so, there is no reason for
EPA to development mandatory regulatory requirements to increase community awareness of,
and involvement in, new permitting and development activities by industrial sources.
4. EPA should not assume that environmental justice efforts are needed simply
because a certain type of permit is being applied for.
The draft EJ 2020 framework states that EPA intends to "build[] environmental justice
into EPA permitting."5 While EPA does not provide examples of the kinds of permits that might
be subject to future EPA environmental justice efforts, EPA in the past has indicated that
construction permits under the Clean Air Act (GAA), underground injection permits under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and certain permits under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) may have significant public health or
environmental impacts, such that they might be a proper focus of agency environmental justice
efforts.6
Assuming that EPA continues to view such permits as warranting particular focus in the
environmental justice context, TPA would note that current requirements already mandate
stringent pollution controls for the issuance of permits under those statutory programs.7 Current
regulations also require broad public participation during the application process for permits
issued under these programs. This being so, it would not be accurate to assume that enhanced
public participation, or other environmental justice efforts, are warranted every time an
application is made for one of these permits.
In determining which permit applications are worthy of enhanced public participation or
other environmental justice efforts, EPA should not begin the analysis by focusing on the kind of
permit that is being applied for. Rather, EPA should first identify the location of any
overburdened communities in relation to the proposed facility or project, the
upstream/downstream or upwind/downwind impacts of the facility on individuals in the
community at issue, the magnitude of the impact on those individuals, and similar factors to
determine whether enhanced public participation is warranted. Only then would it be appropriate
5 EJ 2020 Draft Framework at I.B.
6 See 77 Fed. Reg. 38054 (June 26, 2012); see also EPA Plan EJ 2014, Legal Tools (Dec. 2011).
7 For example: Use of BSER or BACT technology (CAA); prohibition of unauthorized injection and
movement of fluid into underground sources of drinking water, requirement of proper operation and
maintenance, duty to provide information, and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements (SDWA);
requirements establishing effluent limitations, monitoring and reporting obligations, upset and bypass
provisions, and use of best available technology economically achievable, or best conventional pollutant
control technology (CWA); and cradle-to-grave controls, including minimum technology requirements,
groundwater monitoring, air emission controls, and corrective action requirements (RCRA)).
3
EJ 2020 Public Comments
347
-------
for EPA to assess the specific nature of anticipated impact from the issuance of the permit on the
nearby community and whether the community would benefit from environmental justice efforts,
such as enhanced public participation. Simply put, we urge EPA to refrain from concluding that
environmental justice efforts are appropriate based solely on the type of permit being requested.
Environmental justice initiatives have traditionally sought to address perceived inequities
that can be caused by a company's decision to locate industrial facilities in low-income areas,
where real estate prices tend to be relatively low. In the natural gas industry, however, siting
decisions are not entirely driven by real estate prices; rather, these decisions are driven by the
location of the natural resource and the pathway to the marketplace. EPA should bear these
considerations in mind when it is developing methods to address environmental justice concerns.
Even if the facility is located in an overburdened community, TP A would urge EPA to take into
account whether or not siting of the facility is driven by factors other than simply the price of
real estate, such as the location of the natural resource.
6. Conclusion.
The clarifications discussed above are necessary in order to ensure that the public and the
regulated community have a clear understanding of the scope of EPA's environmental justice
efforts. Those efforts should not include the development and implementation of additional
mandatory regulations where voluntary guidance would provide the greater flexibility necessary
to address the needs of all stakeholders in a variety of situations. EPA should also make clear
that any strategies that result from the current EJ 2020 effort will be entirely voluntary. The
federal rules that are already in place are more than sufficient to ensure environmental protection
for all citizens, and there is no need for additional regulatory requirements.
Siting decisions in the natural gas industry are generally based on the
location of natural resources, and as such are outside of the industrial
development trends that environmental justice initiatives target.
Yours trul
Thure Cannon
President
EJ 2020 Public Comments
4
348
-------
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:
I uesday, July 14, 201b 12:43 PM
ejstrategy; Lee, Charles
Arnold,Tony; Eley, Carlton
Comments on Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Subject:
To: Charles Lee, Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice, US EPA
Dear Charles:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework. I offer these
comments as a long-time scholar of environmental justice and as someone who has been deeply involved in various
environmental justice projects, planning, and advocacy throughout the U.S. for the past 25 or more years. However,
these comments reflect solely my own personal viewpoints and do not necessarily reflect the position of the University of
Louisville or any other entity with which I am affiliated.
The Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework is an exciting first step towards taking federal environmental justice policies
and principles to the next level of development and implementation. As a framework, it is fairly broad and general. I
would like to suggest some additional ideas and approaches that are fully consistent with those that are expressed in the
draft framework but that could either deepen the framework or be used to implement the framework's general elements.
There is an urgency to facilitate resilience in historically marginalized communities, which are especially vulnerable to a
variety of social-ecological-institutional changes and disturbances, such as drought, floods, storms, sea-level rise,
overstressed or polluted water sources, environmental effects on health, land use and population changes, changing
vegetation and species patterns (including pest and disease migration), urban heat island effects, wildfires, declining
forests and tree cover, pollution, economic shocks, local-government fiscal crises, and the like.
An environmental justice strategy focused on community resilience and adaptive capacity does not aim just to strengthen
communities so that they can resist changes (resistance concepts of resilience) or to increase their capacity to bounce
back from disasters (bounce-back concepts of resilience). Instead, the strategies should aim to increase communities'
adaptive capacity to navigate transitions in linked social, ecological, and institutional systems and to use inevitable
disturbances and changes as opportunities for community transformation (social-ecological concepts of
resilience). Resilient communities are the ones that have resources for change, flexibility or adaptability, strong social
capital (e.g. cooperation, trust, collaborative innovation), well-functioning ecosystems, and mechanisms for both
participation in environmental governance and social learning. In order to facilitate resilience in historically marginalized
or vulnerable communities, I would urge several strategies:
First, develop and use resilience assessments or community vulnerability assessments in planning and program
design. These assessments should include but not be limited to vulnerability to disasters. Community resilience is much
broader than disaster resistance or bounce-back. Moreover, I would encourage the development and increased us of
community-resilience self-assessment tools that allow marginalized or vulnerable communities to engage in their own
assessments. There are a number of tools available and new ones are currently being developed to facilitate resilience
assessments in a variety of different ways (i.e., appropriate to different needs, goals, and conditions) and at varying
levels of scope and detail. The EPA can assist in improving access to these tools and helping to facilitate design or
modification of tools to make them easier to use.
Second, invest in ecosystem services that benefit low-income, minority, Native American, disabled, elderly, young, and
other historically vulnerable and/or marginalized groups. Ecosystem services - the beneficial and valuable functions that
natural ecological systems, such as wetlands, forests, and watersheds, provide to society and communities ~ are critical
to the health and functioning of our communities. All too often, our historically marginalized groups and communities are
not just overburdened by harms but also under-benefitted by infrastructure (including green infrastructure) and nature's
services, which are necessary to their health and well-being. Thus, federal policies and programs should evaluate the
distribution of ecosystem services, the access of vulnerable or marginalized groups to these services, and the participation
of those groups in environmental, natural resources, and land use governance affecting ecosystem services.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
349
-------
Third, support and facilitate the incorporation of environmental-justice principles and resilience strategies into land use
decision making, because land use is a major driver of change in complex and interlinked ecological, social, and
institutional systems. Land use patterns and decisions affect local community resilience and adaptive
capacity. Watersheds can be effective and valuable scales at which to engage in planning and multi-stakeholder
collaboration (including inter-governmental collaboration) in ways that link ecosystem services, environmental justice,
community resilience, and land-use policies with one another. The federal government can influence local land use
planning, regulation, and decision making by mandating actions, stimulating changes, facilitating progress, or partnering
to collaborate with localities and other stakeholders. The first two methods are controversial, given strong cultural
preferences in the US for local control of land use decisions and relatively strong private property rights. However, in my
opinion, the federal government could do more to facilitate incorporation of environmental justice into local land use
decision making and to partner with localities, marginalized communities, and many other stakeholders to improve land
use decisions, despite the many different and beneficial ways that the EPA and other federal agencies engage in
facilitation and partnership activities. In general, polycentric systems are more resilient and adaptive than monocentric
systems. Strong federal control over land use would likely put historically vulnerable communities at greater risk, not
lesser risk, of harm from any failed policies or uniform programs ill-matched to local conditions and needs. However,
facilitating polycentric action or partnering with many different stakeholders and governance institutions could help
considerably, while also being well-received politically and socially.
Fourth, develop multiple-method (or multi-modal) design of participatory processes that provide many different ways for
historically marginalized groups to participate meaningfully and effectively in environmental, natural resources, and land
use decision making or governance. Research on participatory preferences and the fit of participatory processes to
participant needs shows that people prefer many different types and means of participation in planning and program
design, implementation, and enforcement, and that there is no "one-size-fits-all." Moreover, most governance processes
are iterative, with many different decisions being made and remade over time. One-time opportunities to participate
formally (e.g., in hearings) are not adequate to ensure full and meaningful participation in how environmental and
resource decisions actually get made. Moreover, the use of formal legal processes can facilitate informal collaborative
processes. For example, in some cases, litigation escalates conflict and fails to solve environmental problems fairly, but in
other cases, litigation can stimulate opportunities for under-represented groups to participate in governance and better
multi-participant collaborative problem-solving in the long run. Participatory processes should be assessed against the
preferences of participants and people who would like to participate, and should be assessed for diversity of methods
over time.
Fifth, use adaptive planning processes for governance where planning is desired or legally mandated. Although scientists
and resource managers often prefer adaptive management processes for complex management of ecosystems and
related natural resources, there is a misperception that the kind of flexibility and experimental learning that characterize
adaptive management are inconsistent with planning. However, planning is often necessary for public goal-setting,
compliance with legal requirements, and incorporation of environmental-justice principles into decisions. Fortunately,
there is a well-developed theory and practice of adaptive planning, which integrates adaptation to changing conditions
into planning processes. In fact, I will be teaching an online, six-week, asynchronous professional-development course in
Adaptive Planning and Resilience through the University of Louisville, beginning in October 2015. This course is being
developed in order to meet a need for both environmental/natural-resources/land-use governance professionals and
leaders/members of historically marginalized communities to develop knowledge and skills in adaptive planning. As new
conditions, disasters, and disturbances affect communities and institutions, plans must be flexible enough to adapt. An
environmental-justice strategy would focus on enhancing the planning capacity of vulnerable communities.
Sixth, all federal, state, and local governance processes for the environment, natural resources, and land use should
include feedback loops that enable learning and adaptation. Feedback loops involve continual monitoring of management
actions and plan implementation, assessment or analysis of monitoring data, identification of key lessons learned, and
changes to (adaptation of) plans, policies, programs, and management activities to incorporate the lessons
learned. Learning includes both expert learning (e.g., scientific learning) and public learning (e.g., social learning). An
environmental-justice strategy requires feedback loops that evaluate effects of environmental, natural resources, and land
use decisions and actions on marginalized or vulnerable groups. However, it also requires involving these groups in
monitoring, assessment, learning, and adaptation. Diverse participation in feedback loop processes is
essential. Moreover, we need methods and tools by which these groups and communities can develop their own
feedback loops and communicate the information to various decision making entities.
2
EJ 2020 Public Comments
350
-------
I hope that these comments are useful to you and the EPA as you develop and implement a final ~ 2020 Action Agenda
Framework. Thank you for all that you do to advance and seek environmental justice. Please let me know if you have
any questions. All the best, Tony
Tony Arnold
Boehl Chair in Property and Land Use
Professor of Law
Affiliated Professor of Urban Planning
Ph.D. Faculty in Urban and Public Affairs
Chair of the Center for Land Use and Environmental Responsibility,
University of Louisville
Address:
Professor Craig Anthony (Tony) Arnold
Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
View my research on my SSRN Author page:
View the Center for Land Use and Environmental Responsibility's website: http://louisville.edu/landuse
Visit the Law School's microsite: www.brandeis.is
EJ 2020 Public Comments
3
351
-------
[Union of # * ucsusa.orj; Two Brattle Square. OamhrklKe, M \ t 617.547.5552 f M'.HM.'i-MtS
Concerned Scientists !s-5 K xu->s;uiw'Mnu- Wi^hitwim, nr :»><>(»<> ny t r
SOU 12th Si rvt'l Miile .Ml). Oakland. ll\ 91607 -1087 t 51U.K 1.5.1S7J t"51U,M-l,i.;7,HS
i )ric Noil h I .aS.»ik' St!«-t*i, Sink- !**(} i. < hira^o, 11. MlMi 2 -40t* -I t .M-J.rwH f M 1.H7H, l?i>1
July 14,2015
Dr. Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEPA, Office of Environmental Justice (2201-A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460
Dear Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice Lee,
On behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientist's 450,000 members and supporters,
we are writing in support of the EPA's efforts to advance environmental justice
through its programs, policies and activities in accordance with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. We strongly believe that environmental sustainability and
environmental justice can and must go hand-in-hand, and that over the long term one
cannot be achieved without the other. We welcome the opportunity to provide input
on the draft EJ2020 Action Agenda framework and would like to highlight
opportunities to strengthen the framework.
UCS recommendations:
1. To ensure a more robust incorporation of environmental justice considerations
in EPA policies, they must be made a key required component from the
beginning of a rulemaking process or permitting action and not just a
possibility, afterthought or late-stage add-on. The complexity and importance
of EJ issues cannot be adequately addressed without devoting sufficient time,
attention and resources to them throughout the rule-making process.
2. Environmental Justice analyses of major new rules must be made mandatory,
and done as part of, or alongside, the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) as part
of the proposed rule. If there is an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
the agency should explicitly solicit comments on how to incorporate EJ
concerns in the proposed rule. Simply using a traditional cost-benefit analysis
to evaluate the impact of a rule does not appropriately account for significant
impacts on certain communities that may not be easily monetized or may be
undervalued. We welcome the EPA's Guidance on Considering
Environmental Justice During the Development of Regulatory Actions and
EJ 2020 Public Comments
Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper
352
-------
look forward to the finalization of the companion Draft Technical Guidance
for Assessing EJ in Regulatory Analysis (EJTG) in 2015. We support many of
the recommendations made by the Scientific Advisory Board in April 2015 to
strengthen the EJTG.1 In particular, we reiterate the need to: provide clear,
specific options, and examples of best practices for EJ analyses; tighten the
EJTG to convey a stronger commitment to the requirement for EJ analysis
instead of erring on the side of flexibility; and develop guidance on how to
incorporate and evaluate cumulative impacts.
3. If a rule has already been proposed at the time that this framework is
finalized, the EJ analysis should either be done for the final rule or required as
part of the state implementation process. The EPA should extend to states the
requirement to take into account EJ considerations in their state
implementation plans, and provide clear guidance on how to do so.
4. The Agency must provide clear, actionable guidance for mandatory
implementation and reporting requirements for EJ analyses for all major
agency actions, else there is a risk that environmental justice will continue to
be treated as an optional consideration rather than an integrated component of
rulemaking and permitting. Agency staff and programs should be held
accountable for meeting these mandatory requirements. The draft framework
does not provide enough specific guidance for actions that must happen, and
instead leaves a lot of room for interpretation and much flexibility for
implementation.
5. The EPA should provide more guidance on which of the existing, or newly
developed tools, trainings, and resources are most appropriate for conducting
EJ analyses in specific scenarios, as well as offer advice on follow-up
monitoring and reporting to assess progress toward achieving identified goals.
The recently released Environmental Justice and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN),
and the California Environmental Protection Agency's environmental health
screening tool, CalEnviroScreen, C-FESRT and T-FESRT. are good examples
that should be replicated and used nationwide. The new EJSCREEN tool is a
step in the right direction but needs further development and strengthening,
for example, enabling users to compare data across locations and over a
period of time so that progress on EJ efforts can be tracked. Every effort
should be made to ensure that data underlying this tool stays up-to-date, is
1 SAB Review of the EPA's Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory
Analysis Online at
http://vosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/02ad90bl36fc21ef85256eba00436459/2D0917AD73Q5
93CF85257E3100505062/$File/EPA-SAB-15-008+unsigned.pdf
EJ 2020 Public Comments 353
-------
user friendly and accessible, and that users understand the utility and
limitations of the tool.
6. EJ analyses and tools must take into account the cumulative burden of
multiples stressors faced by EJ communities. Communities of color in the
U.S. disproportionately reside in neighborhoods with higher cancer risk from
toxic air contaminants,2 higher exposure to traffic-related criteria air
pollutants,3 and more environmentally hazardous sites.4 This unequal
distribution of exposures appears to contribute at least in part to health
disparities between racial and ethnic groups in environmentally-sensitive
diseases such as cancer and asthma.5 It is particularly important to evaluate
the cumulative impacts of multiple environmental stressors, rather than look
narrowly at the single, latest one being considered, and also to evaluate them
in the context of socioeconomic stressors that make communities more
vulnerable.6
7. An EJ screening tool must routinely be applied to all EPA rulemaking,
policies and actions, including permitting actions such as permits for siting
toxic landfills as well as for monitoring, compliance and enforcement. We
look forward to the finalization and implementation of guidelines for EJ
analysis for EPA permits as soon as possible.
8. The implementation of the EPA's EJ action agenda must be outcome-
oriented, and accompanied by clear markers of progress and metrics of
success. The metrics should be developed in collaboration with EJ partners so
as to ensure that their priorities are represented and closely tracked. In this
regard, we support the outcomes-oriented approach requested in the
2 Morello-Frosch R, Pastor M, Sadd J. Environmental Justice and Southern California's
"Riskscape" The Distribution of Air Toxics Exposures and Health Risks among Diverse
Communities. Urban Aff Rev. 2001;36(4):551-578. doi:10.1177/10780870122184993.
3 Clark LP, Millet DB, Marshall JD. National Patterns in Environmental Injustice and
Inequality: Outdoor N02 Air Pollution in the United States. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(4):e94431.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094431.
4 Mohai P, Saha R. Racial Inequality in the Distribution of Hazardous Waste: A National-Level
Reassessment. Soc Probl. 2007;54(3):343-370. doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.3.343.
5 Brender JD, MaantayJA, Chakraborty J. Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards
and Adverse Health Outcomes. Am J Public Health. 2011; 101(S1):S37-S52.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300183.
6 Morello-Frosch R, Zuk M, Jerrett M, Shamasunder B, Kyle AD. Understanding the
Cumulative Impacts of Inequalities in Environmental Health: Implications for Policy. Health
Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:879-887. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0153.
EJ 2020 Public Comments
354
-------
comments submitted by the Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on
Climate Change.
9. The EPA must engage proactively and in an ongoing way, including during
the rulemaking process, with stakeholders from the environmental justice
community, including holding action-oriented community listening sessions
and workshops in locations e.g., in urban settings that are relevant and
accessible for the EJ community, building capacity, sharing tools and know-
how, and taking proactive steps to incorporate feedback from stakeholders.
Disadvantaged communities may not have the resources to engage alongside
larger organizations or well-funded industry interests but it is incumbent on
the EPA to seek out and elevate their perspective.
10. The Agency should make a long term commitment to training its staff and
dedicating resources to implementing its EJ action agenda across the breadth
of Agency actions, particularly related to significant statutes like the Clean
Air Act and Clean Water Act. The Agency should highlight to the
Administration and Congress the importance of dedicated funding to fulfill
these goals, along with attendant staffing needs to continually update EJ tools,
engage with stakeholders, deploy resources, train users, and undertake
capacity building in communities, as requested.
Thank you for taking our comments into consideration as you work toward finalizing
this draft framework.
Sincerely,
Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Science and Democracy
Angela Ledford Anderson
Director, Climate and Energy Program
EJ 2020 Public Comments
355
-------
KATHY CASTOR
14TH DISTRICT, FLORIDA
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
205 CANNON BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
(202)225-3376
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND COMMERCE
DISTRICT OFFICE:
Subcommittee on Health
4144 NORTH ARMENIA AVENUE
SUITE 300
TAMPA, FL 33607
(813)871-2817
Subcommittee on
Energy and Power
Subcommittee on
(tagrejea af tl
Oversight and Investigations
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
Bouse of Hepresentatiuee
Washington. 1012D5X5-D9X4
www.castor.house.gov
REGIONAL WHIP
June 15,2015
The Honorable Regina McCarthy
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
RE: Environmental Justice 2020
Dear Administrator McCarthy:
I applaud the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its commitment to "environmental
justice" and for crafting the draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda (EJ 2020) framework. In response to the
release of the draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda and request for comments, I convened meetings with elected
and community leaders from my district to solicit their input. A list of the outstanding and
knowledgeable Hillsborough County and Pinellas County leaders who participated is provided below. I
have summarized our comments and concerns and EPA's initiatives and policies, including support for a
cross-agency strategy to benefit economically-distressed communities.
Enhance Grants to Local Communities for Job Training & Education - When granting funds and
assistance to communities to reduce or eliminate pollution, the EPA should focus on training, educating
and employing people in the affected communities to do the work, including local small businesses.
Environmental workforce development and job training grants could employ individuals in the affected
areas in the fields of hazardous and solid waste management, assessment, and cleanup associated
activities, chemical safety, emergency response, integrated pest management, and waste and stormwater
management. When conducting Brownfields and Superfund redevelopment, job training and
employment for individuals in the affected disadvantaged communities would put people and places
back to work and create more sustainable communities. Training folks in environmental services, health
and safety would also ensure a steady supply of labor for future oil or coal ash spills and the resulting
restoration activities.
Furthermore, reducing air pollution from power plants through energy conservation and renewable
energy could create thousands of local jobs. Energy conservation focuses on making buildings and
homes more energy efficient and these investments require a broad range of expertise in different
industries. Energy conservation will increase demand for electricians, heating/air-conditioning installers,
carpenters, construction equipment operators, roofers, insulation workers, industrial truck drivers,
EJ 2020 Public Comments
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
356
-------
construction managers and building inspectors. More solar energy would increase demand for
installation professionals, manufacturing, sales and distribution and project developers. We
respectfully urge you to focus environmental justice, education, job training and other environmental
remediation grants in low income communities and to provide job training and jobs to individuals in
those communities. We also request that the EPA consider leveraging its resources with Community
Redevelopment Areas where possible. Further, we suggest that the EPA consider making grants
available directly to local governments and non-profits agencies in addition or in lieu of recalcitrant state
governments.
Expand Brownfields- There are over 378 Brownfield sites in the state and of Florida's 50 highest
hazard-ranked Superfund sites, Hillsborough County has the two highest-ranked sites and Pinellas
County has one site. Incorporating Brownfield redevelopment into environmental justice initiatives and
prioritizing redevelopment in low income communities, as well as providing job-training, education and
employment to the people in these targeted areas, would help to both stem the issue of poverty and
create lasting, positive economic improvements in the areas surrounding Brownfield sites. Success in
developing these sites can already been seen in both Hillsborough County and Pinellas County, with
redevelopment being strategically used to attract investors and, in turn, jobs to impoverished areas.
For example, when the accreditation of the Old Mercy Hospital, located in a minority populated section
of St. Petersburg, was in jeopardy due to a perception of environmental contamination with the site, the
City of St. Petersburg and the EPA stepped in to renovate and upgrade the building. The project not only
created 80 jobs, but it saved the existing jobs from the hospital and the surrounding jobs it supports. In
Tampa, we have a great example of the growing "Healthfields" movement, improving access to health
and healthcare through Brownfield redevelopment.The Tampa Family Health Center in East Tampa
provides services to 16,500 patients a year in a severely underserved area. We need to invest much more
in Brownfield redevelopment, especially in the creation of health care facilities, recreational
opportunities, housing and access to healthy food in places where these resources are scarce. Robust
support for Brownfield redevelopment will clean up sites, create jobs and improve health.
Strengthen Clean Air Monitoring - Estimated lifetime cancer risks from hazardous air pollutants in
Florida are highest for Latinos and African Americans, especially those in the lower income categories.
In Hillsborough County, low income families are numerically worse off than the rest of the population
in the county for one or more of the following environmental burdens: cancer risks from hazardous air
pollutants, releases of toxic chemicals, superfund sites, facilities emitting smog and particulates. With
an increase in residential development near industrial areas in both Hillsborough County and Pinellas
County, increased monitoring of utility and other industrial sulfur dioxide emissions to ensure
compliance with standards are necessary, particularly in light of potential SO2 related health issues.
Increase Drinking Water and Clean Water Revolving Loans - Traditionally underserved communities
have historically lacked infrastructure modernization. Many of them have old water pipes that may
contain lead, which can damage the central nervous system and impact a child's learning abilities.
Increasing investments in Drinking and Clean Water State Revolving Funds in low income
EJ 2020 Public Comments
357
-------
communities, especially those with a history of contamination, would aid in further planning, designing,
and constructing water pollution control facilities to counteract water quality issues experienced within
those communities.
Combine Clean Power Plan with carbon reduction strategies and energy efficiency - In 2013, total
greenhouse gas emissions were the equivalent of over 128 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, which
contributes to climate change. While work reducing carbon production at the local level is advancing,
implementation of the Clean Power Plan in conjunction with local efforts will maximize potential
reduction of carbon emissions. This can be achieved by reducing carbon dioxide pollution from power
plants through energy efficiency and renewable energy and providing and prioritizing job-training and
employment in the associated occupations such as electricians, insulation workers, installers and
carpenters to individuals in low income communities. Furthermore, the EPA could assist local
governments in reducing carbon pollution by increasing the Diesel Retrofit grants, assistance in smart
growth planning and alternative modes of transportation.
Target Gulf of Mexico Restoration Initiatives - With billions of dollars expected to flow to the Gulf
Coast Restoration Trust Fund, per the historic RESTORE Act, a once-in-a -lifetime opportunity to
revitalize the Gulf of Mexico, states and local governments should consider restoration and economic
development projects in disadvantaged communities. EPA and its partner agencies should train
individuals in low income communities in cleanup associated activities and environmental restoration In
addition, the EPA should consider setting aside a portion of the work hours to be performed by
disadvantaged workers. The RESTORE Act calls for grants to be used for environmental restoration,
economic development, research, science, observation, monitoring and technology. We encourage EPA
and other RESTORE Act participants to keep in mind our neighbors in disadvantaged communities,
when proceeding with these initiatives.
Strengthen the Toxic Release Inventory - The economy of the State of Florida depends on a clean and
healthy environment and on a safe and healthy workforce and citizenry. While EPA and the State of
Florida have made progress over the past decade in reducing on-site toxic releases, there is great room
for improvement. As you know, the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) tracks certain toxic chemicals from
industrial facilities that pose a threat to human health and the environment. Florida ranks 4th in the
country with reported underground injection of TRI chemicals and 7th with reported releases of TRI
chemicals to the environment. However, TRI does not include many toxic chemicals nor does it include
other industries that release toxic chemicals.
No child or family should suffer disproportionately because they do not have the means to move
to a neighborhood that is not polluted or their community traditionally did not have the power to fight
the siting of noxious or dangerous uses in their neighborhood. I trust that the EPA through the EJ 2020
Action Agenda, will continue to champion improvements to environmentally overburdened and
underserved communities. Too often, these communities have been abandoned by a lack of investment
and environmental protection, causing a dearth of job opportunities and health disparities. By educating,
training and hiring disadvantaged workers to clean up contaminated sites and develop them into health
EJ 2020 Public Comments
358
-------
centers, parks, urban farms or housing, we can begin to address the underlying issues plaguing these
deprived communities. I look forward to working with you as you develop this important initiative. Our
community leaders and I invite you to Tampa and South St. Petersburg to view the investment
opportunities that await funding and to learn about our CRA efforts. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to contact me or my Legislative Assistant, Javier Gamboa at (202) 225-3376
or iavier.gamboa@mail.house.gov.
Sincerely,
K
U.S. Representative
Florida-District 14
EJ 2020 Public Comments
359
-------
Hillsborough County Leaders:
• Miles Ballogg - Brownfields Practice Leader, Cardno TBE Group
• Hooshang Boostani - Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission
• Jeanette Fenton - West Tampa Community Redevelopment Area
• Dr. Richard Garrity - Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission
• Alphanette Jenkins - on behalf of Hillsborough County Commissioner Les Miller
• Ed Johnson - Manager, East Tampa Community Redevelopment Area
• Dewayne Mallory - on behalf of FL Rep. Ed Narain
• Cedric McCray - on behalf of Tampa City Councilman Frank Reddick
• Mario Nieto - on behalf of FL Senator Arthenia Joyner
• Paula Noblitt - Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission
• Carlo Ramos - on behalf of FL Rep. Janet Cruz
• Walter Smith - President of W.L. Smith & Associates Consulting Inc. and NAACP
St. Petersburg Leaders:
• Mario Farias - Farias Consulting Group
• Winnie Foster - Sojourner Truth Center
• Sandra Gadsden- Edible Peace Patch Project
• Coy LaSister- Executive Director of Assisted Living Community Gardens, Inc
• Tony Macon- President, Deuces Live
• Darden Rice - St. Petersburg City Council
• Frank Wells - World Power & Water
• Dr. Yvonne Scruggs-Leftwich- President/CEO, Center for Community & Economic Justice
EJ 2020 Public Comments
360
-------
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO
SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ
Mail:
July 14,2015
Charles Lee
Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
USEPA, Office of Environmental Justice (2201 A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator Lee:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the EJ 2020 Framework document, which
builds on EPA's Plan EJ 2014.
EPA is correct in claiming progress on environmental justice during the last several years. These are
worthy accomplishments.
• EPA has completed guidance and policy documents related to several areas including
development of rules.
• EPA has considered how to use enforcement tools and actions to reduce exposures in
highly impacted communities. Increased enforcement of existing statutes and rules is
probably the fastest way to achieve actual gains in environmental quality for impacted
communities. Such efforts should be continued and increased.
• EPA has also allocated resources to assist with community projects of different types in
many areas. This reflects an understanding of the importance of place to health and the
need to work on community needs and priorities.
• Finally, EPA has after many years released the EJ Screen tool.
At the same time, our understanding of the significance of the interaction of multiple environmental
factors and conditions along with both susceptibility of individuals and groups and vulnerability of
communities has only increased. Research studies and screening tools such as the Cal EnviroScreen
show co-occurrence of multiple adverse environmental factors and conditions, enhanced vulnerability,
as well as the lack of positive environmental attributes such as parks, open space, and even food stores
in highly impacted communities. This demands a focused and integrated response from US EPA.
While the EJ2020 document has many positive themes, it does not seem to provide a strategy worthy of
the challenge. It identifies topics and areas in very general ways and does not indicate how EPA will
EJ 2020 Public Comments
361
-------
move forward on issues that have been difficult for it to address in the past. There do not seem to be any
conceptual or practical breakthroughs reflected in this document. Five areas of particular concern are
noted here.
1. Systematic approaches are overdue -
Addressing environmental justice requires systematic approaches that allow the agency and the
public to ascertain how much of the problem has been identified, how much has been addressed,
and what is left to be done.
One important step would be the development and implementation of metrics that can allow the
agency and the public to see where we stand, where progress has been achieved, and where it has
not. EPA recognizes the significance of metrics with its clean air policies, for example, and
produces documents and information sources that demonstrate the status of air quality,
improvements that have been made, and the challenges that remain. This allows us to see where
we stand and what results have been achieved from resources invested.
The new strategy does not seem to be offering any significant gains in developing a systematic
approach to assessing, documenting, tracking, and addressing environmental justice issues. This
is needed at this time and is feasible to do.
2. It's more than one rule-
The 2020 framework retains an emphasis on addressing environmental justice in each of the rule-
making processes run by the agency. This is certainly important as far as it goes. However, as
we know very well, one of the essential elements of environmental justice is to address the
cumulative burden that falls on communities. This comes from a combination of all of the
environmental factors and conditions, along with the susceptibilities and vulnerabilities of a
community and its people. The agency does not seem to have advanced in its thinking about
how to do this.
We need strategies that address multiple pollutants and outcomes rather than simply tinker
with the rule for each pollutant one at a time.
3. We can work for multiple results or benefits -
Environmental health and quality policies in the time of sustainability are evolving toward
actions that can improve multiple parameters. For example, emphasizing active transport
strategies have multiple benefits that include reductions in combustion that improves air quality,
reduction in greenhouse emissions, and positive benefits for health. Clean energy strategies that
reduce use of combustion sources also have multiple benefits for the environment, health, and
sustainability. Investment in such strategies in highly impacted communities can also bring
greater economic resources to people who need them. Deeper consideration of broader multi-
benefit strategies would bring significant gains to highly impacted communities.
4. EPA must update methods to match new science -
EJ 2020 Public Comments
362
-------
To address environmental justice through science related approaches, through a new research
strategy for example, will require EPA to update even some long-used approaches to
incorporate new science. This seems to be lagging at the agency in areas of rule making such as
the rules for categories of air toxics.
5. Engagement with communities must continue to improve -
Finally, while the document emphasizes engagement with communities, we still see too many
examples where communities are put through the ringer to achieve an outcome that protects or
improves public health. All too often the state and federal agencies let the more politically
powerful entities call the shots, leaving the communities to do all of the heavy lifting to get
sound remedies or results.
EPA has made some improvements in this area, but greater attention to engaging with
communities and working with them is needed and probably always will be. Metrics are
important here as well so that EPA can better understand itself how much of the need for
addressing environmental health and environmental justice issues in communities is being met.
In closing, I know that many dedicated people including you have worked tirelessly for many years to
better understand and address environmental justice in the face of an institution that is not particularly
responsive to these concerns. The fact that there is more to do does not dishonor the sincere efforts that
have been made by many people over many years.
Yet, the needs of the people demand more from the agency.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. They reflect my views and not those of any
institution or funder.
Very truly yours,
Amy D. Kyle, PhD MPH
Associate Adjunct Professor
EJ 2020 Public Comments
363
-------
uc Luskin School of Public Affairs
Luskin
Center
June 5, 2015
Re: Comments on the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
Sent via: ei strategy@epa.gov
Dear whom it may concern at the US Environmental Protection Agency:
On behalf of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, I am pleased to submit this comment letter
regarding the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework. This letter is a continuation of the
University of California, Los Angeles' engagement with the US EPA around issues of
environmental justice (EJ).
The UCLA Luskin Center commends the EPA for a solid Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda
Framework that contains many critical components. We recognize that it well designed to build
upon Plan EJ 2014 and in general advance the progress that the agency has made since the
Executive Order 128989 on environmental justice.
During development of Plan EJ 2014—a time when EPA was ramping up efforts to
systematically incorporate EJ considerations into its core activities—UCLA received a grant
from EPA to collaboratively organize "Closing the Environmental Justice Gap: A Workshop on
Advancing Evaluation Methods." This event held at UCLA in 2011 brought together
approximately 100 researchers and environmental justice leaders from across the nation to
develop the sub-field of EJ policy and program evaluation. The result of the workshop was the
report Pathways to Environmental Justice: Advancing a Framework for Evaluation. This
report/tool lays out a framework for regulators, grantees, researchers, and community members
interested in the effective design and implementation of EJ policies and programs. It built upon
existing EPA tools, such as the Guidelines for Evaluating an EPA Partnership Program, and
tailored these tools for an EJ context.
Now more than ever it is important to demonstrate EJ progress at both national and local levels.
Thus, we were heartened to see that the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework, Section III,
focuses on accountability, developing indicators of success, and measuring and demonstrating
outcomes. EJ 2020 should provide additional tools that EPA regional officers, grantees,
researchers, and community stakeholders can use for planning, evaluating, and adjusting EJ
programs and policies to ensure accountability and impact.
As such, we recommend that EPA leverage the report Pathways to Environmental Justice:
Advancing a Framework for Evaluation. It could be one of your foundational tools to help
stakeholders develop indicators of success and measure outcomes as part of a systematic
planning and evaluation approach involving logic models and performance management that will
lead to results that can be documented in a rigorous way. We welcome the opportunity to help
EJ 2020 Public Comments
364
-------
EPA utilize this report in the EJ 2020 Action Agenda, and even update it if appropriate to best
meet your needs moving forward.
In conclusion we again commend you on the release of the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda
Framework and look forward to next steps.
Colleen Callahan
Deputy Director
UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation
O: 310-267-5435
ccallahan@luskin.ucla.edu
Sincerely,
EJ 2020 Public Comments
365
-------
Subject:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:
Vannessa Frazier
Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:05 PM
ejstrategy
Moses, Althea
EPA comment on EJ strategies 2020
Hello:
As an Environmental Justice Stakeholder, I am writing to provide feedback on EPA Extended Public Comment
Period on the Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda.
I have concerns about "meaningful involvement" within the process. The strategy is just a strategy that is used
to a certain level and it falls off the radar.
I have attended many meetings and workshops, in which some where not EPA, but what I learned was that
"quality of life" written in grant guidance is a buzzword that means, "it does not include African-
Americans". This comment did not come from EPA or their partners, but I have read it in EPA documents-
duality of life) - This is disturbing. I do know of other buzzwords that cause me to be dismayed. I have been a
member of EPA listserve for over 15 years. I take all of the information from EPA to heart and work hard to
implement it. Through the EPA Brownfield Cleanup grant Cooperative agreement for the City of Howardville,
which speaks of local source hiring, prevailing wage, and apprenticeship to "Ensure" the affected population
would benefit, has been a struggle. I had to meet with the Attorney and new project officer, (not knowing that I
was in trouble).
TAB - Region 7 was pulled into the meeting because they failed to "make me understand". When I became
aware of what was going on, I advised my project officer and attorney that TAB did talk to me, put I was the
one pushing it and I passed the attorney a paper and stated, this is where I got it from.
It talked about a strategy "Ensuring" the benefit of the affected people, that was used in the Job Training grants,
but the strategy was upgraded to include ALL of EPA programs. ( source: EPA,2008)
We quickly got on the same page and everything was fine. I felt bad because I was in trouble and I didn't know
it. I explained to them that I would never do anything intentionally to hurt EPA or their programs, I love the
organization and what it stands for.
On a personal and confidential note: I think I have more experience and knowledge of EPA and their programs,
than some of the staff, (meaning some staff assigned to me, may not have been aboard in 2008, when that
strategy was implemented.
This include concerns about grant reviewers, who not only do not know the region, but express doubt that a
strategy that be accomplished, even when documentation was provided that it had been done before, and not
only that, but they proceeded to deduct points, which if anything, according to the guidelines, it should have
been a neutral score, and they made statements that were not true and deducted points for that. The rules for
grievances state, the grievance cannot be based on points. I think that rule is an "embedded barrier" and the
reviewer qualifications should be reviewed. Maybe I think too much, but I am giving an honest and heartfelt
opinion.
One last bit of confidential information, I often get questions, and questions about hearing from Althea. These
questions come from people from other Departments of EPA. Maybe that's a good thing, but it makes me feel
like I am being investigated. Whatever I do comes from EPA, I tell them that I have known Althea since 1998,
I saw and talked to her in 2005, 2008 and 2011. It has been 4 years. I would never do anything to hurt, harm or
EJ 2020 Public Comments
366
-------
compete at an unfair advantage to gain anything. Nor do I believe that Althea would do that and for the record,
it has never happened. I am a giver and helper of the Environment, doing it EPA way.
With that being said, my comments below regarding EJ 2020 Action Agenda should be viewed with the above
concerns in mind.
OF the 3 goals, number 1 is extremely important
1. "Deepen Environmental Justice PRACTICE -1 am starting to feel that some of the documents are just
"words on paper"
I feel the cooperative agreement that invokes EJ strategies should be honored. I also feel that problems,
involving implementation of EJ strategies causes delays in scheduling and put us way off course of our targeted
deadlines.
I believe in EPA and all of its programs, of which we can truly benefit if we are allowed to participate in a real
and true "meaningful involvement". I am a person who take words and put them into action, they grow legs and
walk off the paper. I like to see the outcomes of our efforts and goals. When we struggle with these issues, it
causes depression and make you reluctant to apply for additional grants.
I have been accepted (very competitive) to a Community Research cohort, to help us with data gaps when we
get ready to apply for a Federally Qualified Community Health Center, for the school. The class is in St. Louis,
every thursday, through graduation, August 20. So I will be leaving in route to St. Louis around 2:30. I don't
have to have a followup, I just want to make sure that I can tune in to EJ dialogue when the opportunity arise.
I am excited about the EJ meeting in Chicago, I plan on attending. I am not on the registration list right
now. The city had to send a check for my registration, but I should be on the attendee list shortly.
Ok, I gotta put on my productivity hat and get moving.
Be Blessed today and thank you for the opportunity to chime in.
Vannessa Frazier
Executive Director
Howardville Community Betterment
102 E. Eddie Ave
Howardville, Mo. 63869
573-688-2137-phone
573-688-5445-fax
573-233-0926-cell
vfrazier_hcb@yahoo.com
EJ 2020 Public Comments
2
367
-------
Subject:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:
Piazza, Millie (ECY)
Tuesday, July 14, 2015 8:10 PM
ejstrategy
Grass, Running
Public comment on the Environmental Protection Agency's draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda
framework
Re: Public comment on the Environmental Protection Agency's draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda framework.
Dear Office of Civil Rights:
The Washington State Department of Ecology appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the EPA's draft EJ
2020 Action Agenda framework. Ecology has a longstanding commitment to environmental justice, and continues to
develop strategies and actions that support Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and advance environmental justice for
Washington communities.
I want to thank you for developing a comprehensive framework that provides insight into the EPA's EJ next steps, and
serves as a practical model for those outside of the EPA to consider. As the Action Agenda advances, I am especially
interested in further dialogue and details on the following:
I. DEEPEN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PRACTICE WITHIN EPA PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
OF OVERBURDENED COMMUNITIES
• Ongoing efforts to share information on the EPA's internal EJ integration processes are greatly appreciated. As a state
partner, opportunities to learn about the implementation successes and challenges are invaluable.
• Clarity about the opportunities and implications of the Action Agenda for state partners is anticipated (e.g., details on
"engagement with states" when building EJ into EPA permitting).
• Clarification and development of a standardized method on how to "consider impacts on overburdened communities."
II. COLLABORATE WITH PARTNERS TO EXPAND OUR IMPACT WITHIN COMMUNITIES
• Continued and varied forms of knowledge dissemination to government partners and the public: The EPA's EJ Analysis
Seminar Series is an excellent example of both improving transparency and broadening participation in a progressive EJ
conversation. As a state agency EJ staff of one, I rely on communication, tools, and resources from my EPA Region 10 EJ
colleagues. Insight into federal EJ work supports and advances local efforts. Possible topics to explore are training on
NEPA EJ analysis, exploration of EJSCREEN and CDC's Tracking Network, other federal agency EJ steps and innovations.
• Increase opportunities to leverage resources and build community networks on national EJ challenges (e.g. CAFOs).
III. DEMONSTRATE PROGRESS ON OUTCOMES THAT MATTER TO COMMUNITIES
• Development of national metrics to demonstrate EJ and health equity progress. Federal movement to institute
accountability will serve as a model for local and state decision-makers.
VI. RELATED EFFORTS
• We anticipate the publication of the long-term Office of Civil Rights Strategic Plan. Title VI compliance raises
challenging questions on how recipients of federal financial assistance can implement actions to meet Title VI
requirements and how compliance is determined. Ecology encourages and anticipates clarification, guidance, training,
and capacity building from the EPA that will support meeting this federal requirement.
l
EJ 2020 Public Comments
368
-------
Thank you very much for your leadership on strategically addressing environmental injustice.
Sincerely,
Millie Piazza, Ph.D.
Environmental Justice Coordinator
WA State Department of Ecology
millie.piazza@ecy.wa.gov
(360)407-6177
EJ 2020 Public Comments
2
369
-------
West End Revitalization Association - WERA
PO Box 661, Mebane, NC 27302
Email: weral usa@earthlink.net - Omega Wilson's Cell:
Are you getting the basic amenities your taxes paid fo
DATE: April 151. 2015
COMMENTS and RECOMMENDATIONS
RE: DRAFT EPA EJ-2015 to 2020 Framework
It positive to see that the new Environmental Justice Framework has reach President
Obama's Cabinet level support. In August 2011, President Barack Obama approved the
Environmental Justice Memorandum of Understating (MOU) with the secretaries of 18
branches of the federal government signing this historic MOU.
The following areas of national concern were quoted in the President Obama's EJ MOU
August 2011:
(1) implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
(2) implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended;
(3) impacts from climate change; and
(4) impacts from commercial transportation and supporting infrastructure ("goods
movement").
These efforts will include interagency collaboration. At least every three (3)
years, the Interagency Working Group will, based in part on public
recommendations identified in Annual Implementation Progress Reports, identify
important areas for Federal agencies to consider and address, as appropriate, in
environmental justice strategies, annual implementation progress reports and
other efforts.
A. Since August 2011, many dedicated and long suffering community and tribal
leaders, and their collaborating legal and research partners, have pushed for
stronger implementation of environmental justice in NEPA as its relates to
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that support permitting for land use,
zoning, and site construction of government and industrial facilities that distribute
and/or emit air/water/soil pollutants. Recommendation: Include and address
this glaring omission in the EJ-2020 Framework to strengthen
implementation of environmental justice in NEPA as its relates to
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that support permitting for land
use, zoning, and site construction of government and industrial facilities
that distribute and/or emit air/water/soil pollutants.
l
EJ 2020 Public Comments
370
-------
B. Since, August 2011, the Title VI Alliance for Accountability and Transparency
(collaborative of EJ community leaders, attorneys, researchers, and more) has
pushed for a "real" response to Title VI compliance to the EPA's Office of Civil
Rights. It still appears that EPA's Office of Environmental Justice is several steps
ahead of EPA's Office of Civil Rights in addressing Title VI complaints filed by
and on behalf of environmental justice communities and tribal areas that have
long overdue in redress and corrective action at the federal, regional, and state
levels. Recommendation: The reference of Title VI in the Draft EJ-2020
Framework must include more than just "words". Include measurable
outcomes at the federal, regional, and state level on "Interagency and
Intergovernmental Solutions" basis. Move Interagency Working Group
(IWG) activities from "listening sessions" to "solutions workshops" with
federal and state agencies at various level of government providing the
necessary resources and corrective actions measured at the community
and tribal levels.
C. April 2015, it was great to hear President Barack Obama push climate change
issues as infrastructure and public health concerns on national and international
news. Recommendation: Include in the EJ-2020 Framework President
Obama's commitment to have press conferences that the push for
compliance and enforcement of civil rights, public health, and
environmental laws that support compliance and enforcement for
environmental justice. A specific would be sanctions on states' funding
when there is not full compliance, enforcement, and transparency before or
after releasing billions in federal taxpayers' money to "recipients".
D. Presidents Obama's 2011 EJ Memorandum of Understanding highlights "goods
movement" (impacts from commercial transportation and supporting
infrastructure). Yet, there is not one single mention of Goods Movement in the
Draft EJ-2020 Framework! I, Omega Wilson, was one the community
perspective members of EPA National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) that worked on Goods Movement Recommendations from 2007 to
2010. Recommendation: In respect for President Barack Obama'
Environmental Justice Memorandum of Understanding - August-2011 and
the 18 federal branch secretaries who signed on, include in the EJ-2020
Framework a timeline and interagency appropriations for implementation
and enforcement of the EPA NEJAC Goods Movement Recommendations -
2009. Include regional and state staffing with operating guidelines for
compliance and responses to local complaints.
E. The EPA EJ 2020-Framework is missing so many of the necessary structural
components that support the long-term protection and corrections related to air,
water, and soil quality that improve quality of life. The national and international
growth model has to address risky and hazardous ways economies and
populations grow. Recommendation: Include in the EPA EJ 2020-Framework
language and strategies that address impacts that EPA's National
2
EJ 2020 Public Comments
371
-------
Environmental Justice Advisory Council(s) have worked on for two
decades:
1) Goods Movement (air, marine, rail, and highway corridors),
2) Agribusiness (confined animal feeding operations, pesticides, land /
watershed / wetland preservation, and water resources),
3) Energy (coal mining industry, coal ash, hydraulic fracking)
4) Solid Waste (landfills, recycling, ground water contamination)
It is regrettable and un-excusable for millions of dollars and thousands of paid and
volunteer human hours to have been invested on EPA NEJAC recommendations and
they are subsequently still being disregarded in the present and for future years.
I trust that these renewed recommendations find their way in the new EJ 2020-
Framework.
Respectfully Submitted,
Omega R. Wilson, President / Project Manager - Founding Board Chair - 1994
West End Revitalization Association (WERA)
Background:
•s President Barack Obama-Elect's Environmental Justice Forum - December 2008
¦S U.S. EPA's National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) 2007-2010
•S U.S. EPA's Environmental Justice Achievement Award - 2008
•s National Title VI Alliance for Accountability and Transparency 2011 -Present
•s North Carolina Environmental Justice Network 2000-Present
•s Environmental Justice Advisor, Haw River Assembly Riverkeeper-NC 2010-Present
1 April 15. 1889, Asa Philip Randolph was born. Randolph received numerous awards for
decades of leadership in the civil rights, labor rights, and poltical rights movements. His
contributions to what we call "goods movement" was documented as early as 1919 with the
organization of African-American shipyard and dock workers at rail and marine ports and
that connected to expanding highway corridors. One of Randolph's greatest railroad
successes came in 1925 when he was elected a President of the Brotherhood of Sleeping
Car Porters. In his senior years, Asa Philip Randolph was one of the close confidents,
mentors, and strategists for Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s efforts that resulted in the March
on Washington of August 28, 1963, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Voting Right Act of 1965.
Amtrak named one of their best sleeping cars, Superliner II Deluxe Sleeper 32503, the "A.
Philip Randolph" in his honor. "A. Philip Randolph Pullman Porter Museum'is in
Chicago's Pullman Historic District.
3
EJ 2020 Public Comments
372
-------
William Geary
Sent: Monday, June
To: ejstrategy
Subject: Comments regarding the DRAFT EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework
To The Environmental Justice Work Group at EPA re: the Framework for the EJ 2020 Action Agenda:
As the EPA structures the Framework for its EJ 2020 Action Agenda as the EPA's next overarching strategic plan for
environmental justice and I would strenuously recommend that there is an urgent need for EPA to review its present
policies concerning the imminent health risks posed by uncontrolled burning of used oil in space heaters within areas
where blue collar employees are working. Because of the nature and economics of the automotive and industrial
workplaces where this practice is employed and the general demographic of the lower income employees who are
employed in those settings, these workplaces are generally in environmentally overburdened, underserved and
economically-distressed communities and in lower income neighborhoods where the bulk of those workers reside.
The current EPA policy enabling the combustion of used oil in small space heaters - developed originally in the 1980's
and 1990's - results in the emissions of toxic heavy metals such as zinc, cadmium, chromium and other harmful
GHG's. With little or no emission controls, these space heaters produce nearly 90% more emissions than would occur if
the used oil were re-refined for sustainable use, and often expose workers to other harmful carcinogens due to a lack of
proper ventilation. EPA estimates this practice burns approximately 150 million gallons of used oil per year (EPA/625/R-
94/010). Furthermore, with no way to police what other harmful materials may also be incinerated in those workplace
space heaters, it is difficult to determine the compounded environmental and health impacts of such emissions on the
blue collar employees working there and on the residents living nearby.
This practice is inconsistent with the technological and regulatory advances we have made in the United States since the
1980's- and 1990"s and essentially constitutes an outdated Third World Practice in America at a time when we have
been called to action to deter global warming. As far back as the Regan Administration, EPA Assistant Administrator
Winston Porter expressed concern about the risks of space heathers and stated in part on September 22, 1988 - "....we
are concerned about the risks posed by improperly maintained or operated spaces heaters" and he suggested a need
to develop technical standards and regulatory measures to deal with those risks - "....and further evaluate regulatory
options to address risks posed by space heaters." (RCRA Permit Policy Compendium, EPA/530-SW-91-0621, ppl37-
138).
As EPA moves its next plan toward environmental justice over the next 5 years it is time to give consideration to those
economically distressed workers who have been denied environmental justice by toiling in workplaces that contain
noxious emissions from space heaters at a time when it is no longer necessary to use those heaters as a source of heat
when our energy resources are expanding to cleaner, safer and healthier options. Certainly, nearly 30 years after the
EPA expressed legitimate concerns about this practice, these economically underprivileged workers deserve to be better
protected than they have been and as well protected as those of us who work in offices. This issue should certainly be
part of the framework for EJ 2020.
Thank you for your consideration.
William J. Geary, Esq.
Attorney at Law
Massachusetts and Washington, DC
EJ 2020 Public Comments 373
------- |