MEETING SUMMARY
of the
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 3, 4, and 6 2001
Seattle, Washington
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Charles Lee Peggy Shepard
Designated Federal Officer Acting Chair
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
(2201 A)
December 2001
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ej
Office of Environmental Justice
To Obtain Copies
Copies of this report may be obtained by writing or calling:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Justice
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (MC 2201A)
Washington, DC 20460
Telephone: (202) 564-2515
and requesting: NEJAC Meeting Summary December 2001
You may also review this report it, along with the previously published reports, on the web site:
This report and recommendations has been written as a part of the activities of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), a public advisory committee providing extramural
policy information and advice to the Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The Council is structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of matters related
to the Environmental Justice program. This report has not been reviewed for approval by the EPA
and, hence, the contents of this report and recommendations do not necessarily represent the views
and policies of the EPA, nor of other agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal government, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute a recommendation for use.
-------
PREFACE
The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) is a federal advisory committee that
was established by charter on September 30, 1993, to provide independent advice, consultation,
and recommendations to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on
matters related to environmental justice. The NEJAC is made up of 24 members, and one DFO,
who serve on a parent council that has six subcommittees. Along with the NEJAC members who fill
subcommittee posts, an additional 32 individuals serve on the various subcommittees. To date,
NEJAC has held seventeen meetings in the following locations:
Washington, D.C., May 20, 1994
Albuquerque, New Mexico, August 3 through 5, 1994
Herndon, Virginia, October 25 through 27, 1994
Atlanta, Georgia, January 17 and 18, 1995
Arlington, Virginia, July 25 and 26, 1995
Washington, D.C., December 12 through 14, 1995
Detroit, Michigan, May 29 through 31, 1996
Baltimore, Maryland, December 10 through 12, 1996
Wabeno, Wisconsin, May 13 through 15, 1997
Durham, North Carolina, December 8 through 10, 1997
Arlington, Virginia, February 23 through 24, 1998 (Special Business Meeting)
Oakland, California, May 31 through June 2, 1998
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 7 through 10, 1998
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
Atlanta, Georgia, May 23 through 26, 2000
Arlington, Virginia, December 11 through 14, 2000
Washington, DC, August 8 through 10, 2001
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
The NEJAC also has held other meetings which include:
Public Dialogues on Urban Revitalization and Brownfields: Envisioning Healthy and
Sustainable Communities, held in Boston, Massachusetts; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Detroit, Michigan; Oakland, California; and Atlanta, Georgia in the Summer 1995
Relocation Roundtable, Pensacola, Florida, May 2 through 4, 1996
/'
-------
Environmental Justice Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Roundtable, San
Antonio, Texas, October 17 through 19, 1996
Environmental Justice Enforcement Roundtable, Durham, North Carolina, December 11
through 13, 1997
International Roundtable on Environmental Justice on the U.S./Mexico Border, San
Diego, California, August 19 through 21, 1999
As a federal advisory committee, the NEJAC is governed by all provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) of October 6, 1972. Those requirements include:
Members must be selected and appointed by EPA
Members must attend and participate fully in meetings of the NEJAC
Meetings must be open to the public, except as specified by the EPA Administrator
All meetings must be announced in the Federal Register
Public participation must be allowed at all public meetings
The public must be provided access to materials distributed during the meeting
Meeting minutes must be kept and made available to the public
A designated federal official (DFO) must be present at all meetings of the NEJAC (and its
subcommittees)
The NEJAC must provide independent judgment that is not influenced by special interest
groups
Each subcommittee, formed to deal with a specific topic and to facilitate the conduct of the business
of the NEJAC, has a DFO and is governed by the provisions of FACA. Subcommittees of the
NEJAC meet independently of the full NEJAC and present their findings to the NEJAC for review.
Subcommittees cannot make recommendations independently to EPA. In addition to the six
subcommittees, the NEJAC has established a Protocol Committee, the members of which are the
chair of the NEJAC and the chair of each subcommittee.
Members of the Executive Council of the NEJAC are presented in the table on the following page. A
list of the members of each of the six subcommittees are presented in the appropriate chapters of
the report.
EPA's Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) maintains transcripts of, summary reports on the
meetings of the NEJAC, and copies of material distributed during the meetings. Those documents
are available to the public upon request.
Comments or questions can be directed to OEJ through the Internet. OEJ's e-mail address is:
environmental-justice-epa@.epa.gov
Executive summaries of the reports on the meetings of the NEJAC are available in English and
Spanish on the Internet at the NEJAC's World Wide Web home page:
/'/'
-------
(click on the link to the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council)
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
(2001)
Designated Federal Official:
Chair:
Mr. Charles Lee, Associate Director for Policy
Ms. Peggy Shepard
and Interagency Liasion, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Environmental
Justice
Members
Ms. Rose Augustine
Mr. Harold Mitchell
Mr. Larry Charles
Mr. David Moore
Mr. Fernando Cuevas
Ms. Mary Nelson
Ms. Anna Frazier
Ms. Graciela Ramirez-Toro
Mr. Michel Gelobter
Mr. Alberto Saldamando
Ms. Eileen Guana
Ms. Jane Stahl
Mr. Richard Gragg
Ms. Wilma Subra
Ms. Savonala Home
Ms. Jana Walker
Ms. Jennifer Hill-Kelly
Mr. Kenneth Warren
Mr. Robert Harris
Ms. Pat K. Wood
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo
Mr. Tseming Yang
/'/'/
-------
This page left intentionally blank
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
PREFACE i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
CHAPTER ONE: MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 REMARKS 1-2
2.1 Remarks of the Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10 1-2
2.2 Remarks of Local Elected Officials, Community Members, and Tribal Leaders 1-2
3.0 POLICY DIALOGUE ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WATER QUALITY, FISH
CONSUMPTION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 1-5
3.1 Overview of the Fish Consumption Report 1-5
3.2 Fish Consumption, Research Methods, and Approaches to Risk Assessment 1-8
3.3 Fish Consumption and the Exercise of Existing Legal Authorities 1-9
3.4 Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories 1-10
3.5 Fish Consumption Concerns Among American Indian Tribes and Alaskan Native
Villagers 1-10
4.0 DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN OF THE NEJAC 1-11
4.1 Goals and Objectives 1-11
4.2 Implementation of the Strategic Plan 1-14
5.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS 1-16
5.1 Update on the Interagency Environmental Justice Implementation Work Group 1-16
5.2 Report on the Community-Based Health Research Model 1-17
5.3 Update on the Federal Facilities Work Group 1-17
5.4 Update on the Pollution Prevention Work Group 1-19
5.5 Briefing on the Cumulative Risk Technical Panel of the EPA Risk Assessment Forum 1-19
5.6 Update on the Implementation of Permitting Recommendations 1-21
6.0 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1-25
6.1 Acknowledgments 1-25
6.2 New Business 1-25
v
-------
Section Page
CHAPTER TWO: VIRTUAL TOUR AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.0 VIRTUAL TOUR HELD ON DECEMBER 3, 2001 2-1
2.1 Frank Roberts, Coeur d'Alene Tribe, Idaho 2-1
2.2 Daniel Morfin, Farm Worker, Granger, Washington 2-1
2.3 Jeri Sundvall, Environmental Justice Action Group, Portland, Oregon 2-2
2.4 Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, Inupiat Community of Arctic Slope, Barrow, Alaska 2-2
2.5 Lee Tanuvasa, Korean Woman's Association, Tacoma, Washington 2-3
3.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD HELD ON DECEMBER 4, 2001 2-3
3.1 Dr. Mildred McClain, Citizens for Environmental Justice, Savannah, Georgia 2-3
3.2 Chief Johnny Jackson, Columbia EPED, Underwood, Washington 2-3
3.3 Barbara Harper, Tyakama Nation, Yakima, Washington 2-3
3.4 Marcia Henning, Washington Department of Health, Olympia, Washington 2-4
3.5 Tom Miller, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, Oregon 2-4
3.6 Joanne Bonnar Prado, Washington Department of Health, Olympia, Washington 2-4
3.7 Enoch E. Shiedt, Maniilaq Association, Kotzebue, Alaska 2-5
3.8 Art Invanoff, Native Village of Unalakleet, Unalakleet, Alaska 2-5
3.9 Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, Inupiat Community of Arctic Slope, Barrow, Alaska 2-5
3.10 Wilbur Slockish Jr., Columbia River Education and Economic Development,
The Dalles, Oregon 2-6
3.11 Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network, Bemidji, Minnesota 2-6
3.12 Kendra Zamzow, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Anchorage, Alaska 2-6
3.13 Hilda Booth, Native Village of Noatak, Noatak, Alaska 2-7
3.14 Lincoln Loehr, Heller Ehrman, Seattle, Washington 2-7
3.15 Bill Doyle, Sierra Club, Seattle, Washington 2-7
3.16 Coleen Poler, Mole Lake Sakoagon Defense Committee, Crandon, Wisconsin 2-7
3.17 Cheryl Steele, Elem Indian Colony, Clearlake Oaks, California 2-8
3.18 Dottie Chamblin, Indigenous Women's Network 2-8
3.19 Jeffrey Thomas, Puyallup Tribal TFW Program, Puyallup, Washington 2-8
3.20 June Martin and Jesse Gologergen, Alaska Community Action on Toxics,
Anchorage, Alaska 2-8
3.21 Doris Bradshaw, Defense Depot Memphis Tennessee Concerned Citizens Committee,
Memphis, Tennessee 2-9
3.22 Richard Moore, Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 2-9
3.23 Violet Yeaton, Port Graham Village Council, Port Graham, Alaska 2-9
3.24 Pamela K. Miller, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Anchorage, Alaska 2-10
3.25 Jonathan Betz-Zall and Kristine Wong, Antioch University Seattle, Seattle,
Washington 2-10
3.26 John Ridgeway, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington 2-11
3.27 Holly Welles, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California 2-11
3.28 Winona LaDuke, White Earth Land Recovery, Ponsford, Minnesota 2-11
3.29 Sara Koopman, Amazon Alliance, Seattle, Washington 2-11
Section Page
VI
-------
CHAPTER THREE: MEETING OF THE AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 3-1
2.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE 3-1
2.1 NEJAC Strategic Plan 3-1
2.2 Activities of the Work Groups 3-3
2.2.1 Fish Consumption Work Group 3-3
2.2.2 Permitting and Utilities Work Group 3-5
2.2.3 Urban Air Toxics Work Group 3-5
2.3 Staffing of Work Groups 3-6
3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS 3-6
3.1 Draft Fish Consumption Report 3-6
3.2 December 2002 Meeting of the NEJAC 3-7
4.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS 3-8
vii
-------
Section Page
CHAPTER FOUR: MEETING OF THE HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 4-1
2.0 REMARKS 4-1
3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS 4-1
3.1 Presentation on the Status of Research 4-1
3.2 Presentation on Risk Assessment and Methodology 4-3
3.3 Presentation on the Toxic Substances Control Act and EPA's High Production Volume
Challenge Program 4-4
3.4 Presentation on the Structure of the Subcommittees of the NEJAC 4-6
4.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC DIALOGUE 4-6
4.1 Mr. Walter Redmon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 4-6
4.2 Ms. Heather Halsey, State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research .. 4-7
4.3 Written Comment Submitted by Ms. Kendra Zamzow, Alaska Community Action
on Toxics 4-7
4.4 Written Comment Submitted by Mr. Wilbur Slockish, Jr., Columbia River Education and
Economic Development 4-8
5.0 ACTION ITEMS 4-8
Vlll
-------
Section Page
CHAPTER FIVE: MEETING OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 5-1
2.0 REMARKS 5-1
3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS 5-2
3.1 Klamath River Inter-Tribal Fish and Water Commission 5-2
3.2 Presentation on Survey of Fish Consumption by Tulalip Tribes 5-2
3.3 Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network 5-3
3.4 Presentations by Members of the Alaskan Native Community 5-4
3.5 Dr. Roseanne Lorenzana, EPA Region 10 5-5
3.6 Presentations by Other Tribal Representatives 5-5
4.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE 5-6
4.1 Discussion of the Pre-Meeting Discussion Draft Fish Consumption Report 5-6
4.2 Discussion of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee Strategic Plan 5-7
5.0 OTHER CONCERNS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE 5-7
5.1 Precautionary Principle 5-7
5.2 Regulatory Enforcement 5-7
5.3 Representation of Alaskan Native Peoples on the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee 5-8
5.4 Tribal Sovereignty 5-8
IX
-------
Section Page
CHAPTER SIX: MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 6-1
2.0 REMARKS 6-1
3.0 DISCUSSION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG WATER QUALITY, FISH CONSUMPTION, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 6-1
3.1 Environmental Justice and Indigenous Peoples in the Great Lakes Region 6-1
3.2 Transfrontier Risks Posed by POPs and the Global Treaty on POPs 6-2
3.3 Report on EPA OIA and Biodiversity 6-3
3.3 Overview of the Effects of POPs on the Indigenous Peoples of Alaska 6-4
3.4 Transportation of POPs in the Arctic Area and Contaminated Military Sites in Alaska .. 6-4
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS 6-5
4.1 Update on the Activities of EPA OIA in Africa 6-5
4.2 Cultural Diversity Within EPA OIA 6-6
4.3 Update on U.S.-Mexico Border Activities 6-6
4.3.1 EPA Region 9 6-6
4.3.2 EPA Region 6 6-7
4.3.3 Update on the Activities of Grassroots Organizations 6-7
5.0 PRESENTATION BY THE DELEGATION FROM THAILAND 6-8
6.0 ACTION ITEMS 6-9
x
-------
Section Page
CHAPTER SEVEN: MEETING OF THE WASTE AND FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 7-1
2.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND ITS WORK GROUPS 7-1
2.1 Year in Review 7-1
2.2 Subcommittee Historical Overview 7-2
2.3 Update on the Federal Facilities Work Group 7-3
3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS 7-4
3.1 Update on the Activities of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 7-4
3.2 Update on Mossville, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana 7-5
3.3 Brownfields Minority Worker Training Program 7-6
3.4 Update on Brownfields and Environmental Justice Pilot Programs 7-7
3.4.1 Update on Issues Related to Land Use 7-8
3.4.2 Update on Brownfields Legislation 7-9
4.0 SUMMARY OF DIALOGUE ABOUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN 7-9
5.0 ACTION ITEMS 7-10
xi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This executive summary presents highlights of the sixteenth meeting of the National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC), held December 3 through 5, 2001 at the Renaissance Madison Hotel in
Seattle, Washington. Each of the six subcommittees of the NEJAC met for a full day on December 5,
2001. On December 4, the NEJAC hosted a public comment period that focused on fish consumption and
contamination offish populations. Approximately 300 persons attended the meetings and the public
comment period.
The NEJAC is a federal advisory committee that
was established by charter on September 30, 1993
to provide independent advice, consultation, and
recommendations to the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on matters
related to environmental justice. Ms. Peggy
Shepard, West Harlem Environmental Action,
serves as the chair of the Executive Council of the
NEJAC. Mr. Charles Lee, Associate Director for
Policy and Interagency Liaison, EPA Office of
Environmental Justice (OEJ), serves as the
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Executive
Council. Exhibit ES-1 lists the chair, the vice-chair,
and the DFO of the Executive Council, as well as
the individuals who serve as chairs and vice-chairs
of the six subcommittees of the NEJAC and the
EPA staff appointed to serve as DFOs for those
subcommittees.
OEJ maintains transcripts and summary reports of
the proceedings of the meetings of the NEJAC.
Those documents are available to the public upon
request. The public also has access to the
executive summaries of reports of previous
meetings, as well as other publications of the
NEJAC, through the World Wide Web at
(click on the publications icon). The summaries
are available in both English and Spanish.
REMARKS
Mr. Ron Kreizenbeck, Deputy Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 10, welcomed the
participants in the meeting of the NEJAC to Seattle.
He stated that EPA Region 10 includes the states o
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska and is
home to many diverse, low-income communities;
communities of color; and more than 270 native
tribes, the members of which subsist on fish, plants
and wildlife. The degradation of habitats and
depletion of resources threatens the very way of life
of those people, he continued. Mr. Kreizenbeck
then stated that issues related to subsistence life
styles must be addressed to ensure equal
environmental protection, regardless of race,
income, culture, or ethnicity.
Exhibit ES-1
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
CHAIRS AND DESIGNATED FEDERAL
OFFICERS (DFO)
Executive Council:
Ms. Peggy Shepard, Chair
Mr. Charles Lee, DFO
Air and Water Subcommittee:
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo, Chair
Ms. Eileen Guana, Vice-Chair
Ms. Alice Walker, co-DFO
Dr. Wil Wilson, co-DFO
Enforcement Subcommittee:
Ms. Savonala Home, Chair
Mr. Robert Kuehn, Vice-Chair
Ms. Shirley Pate, DFO
Health and Research Subcommittee:
Ms. Rose Marie Augustine, Chair
Ms . Jane Stahl, Vice-Chair
Ms. Brenda Washington, co-DFO
Ms. Aretha Brockett, co-DFO
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee:
Ms. Jennifer Hill-Kelly, Chair
Ms. Jana Walker, Vice-Chair
Mr. Daniel Gogal, DFO
Mr. Bob Smith, alternate-DFO
International Subcommittee:
Mr. Alberto Saldamando, Chair
Mr. Tseming Yang, Vice-Chair
Ms. Wendy Graham, DFO
Puerto Rico Subcommittee:
Dr. Graciela Ramirez-Toro, Chair
Ms. Teresita Rodriguez, DFO
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee:
Ms. Veronica Eady, Chair
Mr. Reiniero Rivera, DFO
ES-1
Seattle, Washington, December 3-6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
Governor Gary Locke, (D), sent greetings to the members of the NEJAC, welcoming them to Seattle. In
his letter, Governor Locke emphasized that the issues related to water quality and fish consumption were
especially important to the residents of Washington. Exhibit 1-2 in Chapter One of this report contains a
copy of that letter.
Ms. Rosa Franklin, State Senator, Washington State Legislature and former member of the NEJAC,
commented on the timeliness of the current meeting of the NEJAC, held to discuss the relationship
between among water quality, fish consumption, and environmental justice. While contaminated air and
toxic streams affect all citizens, she continued, the changing demographics in the state of Washington and
the Pacific Northwest have brought a new urgency to the issue of fish consumption. Therefore, she said,
there is an urgent need in the region to further identify and quantify the types and magnitudes of risks to
communities and tribes that subsist on wild fish, plants, and other wildlife. Ms. Franklin stressed that the
activities of the NEJAC could have a long-term effect on the health of those communities.
Ms Velma Veloria, Washington State Representatives and former member of the NEJAC, explained that
the state of Washington had worked over the past three years to ensure that water is clean and that fish
populations continue to flourish in the state of Washington. She discussed environmental justice
legislation passed in the state, including a bill that charged the state's Department of Ecology and
Department of Health with jointly preparing a report on environmental risks faced by low-income and
minority groups; legislation that reformed the way work at cleanup sites is taxed; and legislation that
requires the Department of Health to examine the health effects of noise, particularly in the vicinity of the
city of Seattle's international airport.
Ms. Yalonda Sinde, Community Coalition for Environmental Justice, stated that her organization had been
the first non-profit environmental justice group in the Seattle area. She then expressed her excitement
about the opportunity to bring issues related to fish consumption and water quality before the NEJAC
during the current meeting.
Mr. Moses Squeochs, Yakima Nation and member of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee, stated his
appreciation for the efforts of the NEJAC, but he also expressed concern that such a federal advisory
committee is needed to carry out the laws related to environmental justice enacted by the Congress of the
United States. Continuing, he said that the "hunter-gatherer" way of life continues to be practiced and that
there is a strong intent to preserve that way of life. He then stated that the search for justice, fairness, and
equality in relation to environmental issues must continue.
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
The members of the Executive Council received the following presentations:
Members of the NEJAC Fish Consumption Work Group provided an update on the NEJAC's Draft Fish
Consumption Report. During their presentation, the members of the work group reviewed the findings of
the work group, as outlined in the Draft Fish Consumption Report that had been compiled in preparation
for the December 2001 meeting of the NEJAC. The members of the Fish Consumption Work Group also
presented a number of "overarching recommendations" based on the conclusions presented in the draft
report. The members of the NEJAC then discussed the report and the recommendations at length,
suggesting revisions in the draft report and identifying additional recommendations. Members of the
NEJAC requested that final comments on the Draft Fish Consumption Report be submitted to OEJ by
January 31, 2002. The anticipated date for completion of the report is March 15, 2002. Mr. Lee stated
that a conference call was to be scheduled with affected communities, tribes, and stakeholders to discuss
the report.
Ms. Shepard presented the NEJAC's Strategic Plan to the members of the Executive Council. The plan
incorporates the issues raised and conclusions reached during the special business meeting of the
Executive Council of the NEJAC, held in Washington, D.C. in August 2001, and outlines the strategy of
the NEJAC for: (1) redesigning its activities to better fulfill its role as an advisor; (2) collaborating with EPA
to provide alternative mechanisms through which communities can bring site-specific issues to the
attention of EPA; and (3) developing, through a deliberative process that involves all stakeholders, an
effective work product that addressed issues related to environmental justice that are of principal concern
ES-2
Seattle, Washington, December 3-6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
to communities. The strategic plan will guide the work of the NEJAC through September 27, 2003, Ms.
Shepard announced.
Mr. Lee identified a series of tasks and provided assignments to members of the NEJAC to assist in
implementing the strategic plan. The tasks are:
Finalization of the NEJAC Policy Advice Development Model
Finalization of the NEJAC Model for incorporating community issues and concerns into the
NEJAC policy dialogue
Development of definitions of consensus and consensus-building
Development of a scoping report from the Ad Hoc Scoping Work Group on Cumulative Risk
Issues
WORK GROUP REPORTS AND COMMENTS
The members of the Executive Council of the NEJAC received reports and comments from the following
individuals:
Ms. Eileen Guana, Southwestern University School of Lawn and Vice-Chair of the Air and Water
Subcommittee, made a presentation on the Interagency Environmental Justice Implementation
Work Group.
Mr. Brandon Carter, EPA Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), provided an
update on the Federal Facilities Work Group.
Ms. Wilma Subra, Louisiana Environmental Action Now, member of the Air and Water
Subcommittee, and chair of the newly formed Pollution Prevention Work Group, presented an
update on the status of the development of the work group.
Mr. Lee reported that the Federal Facilities Work Group will work in coordination with and report to the
NEJAC Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee because the primary support for this work group is being
provided by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), which also supports that
subcommittee. OSWER has committed to adding another member to the subcommittee to provide
interface with the work group, he said.
Other presentations received by the Executive Council of the NEJAC were:
Mr. Barry Hill, Director, EPA OEJ, reported on the status of EPA's efforts to implement
recommendations included in the report of the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) report titled
Opportunities for Advancing Environmental Justice: An Analysis of U.S. EPA Statutory Authorities.
The ELI report reviews EPA's major environmental regulations that govern air and water quality,
waste management, use of pesticides and other chemicals, and the public's right to know. The
report identifies specific statutory authorities that can be used to promote environmental justice in
the full range of EPA program functions, including the establishment of standards and the
permitting process.
Ms. Ann Goode, Senior Consultant, Center for the Economy and Environment, National Academy
of Public Administration (NAPA), made a presentation on NAPA's research and evaluation of
EPA's efforts to address the widely recognized fact that low-income communities and
communities of people of color that are exposed to significantly greater environmental and public
health hazards than other communities face. NAPA's research and associated recommendations,
reported Ms. Goode, are presented in a report titled Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting:
Reducing Pollution in High-Risk Communities is Integral to the Agency's Mission." In the report,
she continued, NAPA recommends that EPA make changes in four distinct areas related to
environmental justice: leadership, permitting procedures, setting of priorities, and public
participation.
ES-3
Seattle, Washington, December 3-6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
Mr. Martin Halper, Senior Science Advisor, EPA OEJ, provided an overview of EPA's draft
Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment prepared by the Cumulative Risk Technical Panel of
the EPA Risk Assessment Forum, a standing committee of senior EPA scientists. The purpose of
this briefing is to help NEJAC prepare to address the issues of cumulative risk, which will be the
policy issue area to be discussed in 2003.
VIRTUAL TOUR AND RELATED DIALOGUE
Members of the NEJAC participated in a "virtual tour" dialogue of selected communities that are affected
by issues related to environmental justice, fish consumption, and water quality. Representatives of five
community organizations presented information about the contamination of waterways on which Native
Americans and impoverished people depend for survival and the loss of Native American heritage and
culture, as well as issues related to the exposure of farm workers to pesticides and herbicides. The topics
discussed are described briefly below.
Mr. Frank Roberts, Coeur d'Alene Tribe, Idaho, discussed the exposure of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe to
contamination caused by strip mining practices carried out on properties located near tribal lands. Mr.
Roberts explained that, although contamination currently is being cleaned up, preservation of tribal culture
has been threatened because the tribe cannot use the land for traditional purposes.
Mr. Daniel Morfin, Granger, Washington, explained that the application of herbicides and pesticides for
agriculture use is contaminating rivers and exposing farm workers to contaminants. The incidence of
respiratory ailments in the Granger area is high, and existing regulations are not being enforced, said Mr.
Morfin.
Ms. Jeri Sundvall, Environmental Justice Action Group of Portland, Portland, Oregon, pointed out the high
rate of cancer among Native American fishermen. In addition, she charged, Native Americans are being
robbed of their heritage and are expected to become assimilated into the broader culture.
Ms. Rosemary Ahtuangaruak Inupiat Community of Arctic Slope, Barrow, Alaska, expressed concern that
state agencies often "favor profit" over protection of the interests and concerns of tribes. Ms.
Ahtuangaruak explained that, although federal agencies have declared fish populations safe to eat, the
methodology for assessing risk does not consider the higher-than-average rates of fish consumption
among Native Americans.
Ms. Lee Tanuvasa, Korean Woman's Association, Tacoma, Washington, reported that her organization
was conducting a study to determine the safety of shellfish consumed by communities of Asian Pacific
Island people. She requested assistance in overcoming the language barrier and in determining how best
to present the findings of the study to the communities affected by the issue.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
The Executive Council of the NEJAC hosted a public comment period on December 4, 2001, at which
approximately 29 people participated. Described below are a summary of key concerns citizens
expressed during the evening session.
A majority of the public comments focused on the issue of contaminated waterways and the land
on which Native Americans and other impoverished people depend for living a subsistence life
style. Commenters pointed to rates of cancer and respiratory ailments among Native American
populations that are higher than the rates among non-Native populations in the United States.
The commenters stated that the inability of Native peoples to "live off the land" has led to a decline
in the transfer of spiritual and cultural values from generation to generation. The best way to
reduce contamination in waterways is to eliminate the source of the pollution, declared a number
of commenters.
Several commenters spoke about the ineffectiveness of risk assessments. Risk assessments, as
currently conducted, do not account for the cumulative effect of numerous chemicals on the
environment, they stated. Rather, those risk assessments examine only a single chemical, they
ES-4
Seattle, Washington, December 3-6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
claimed. Risk assessments focus only on cancer and fail to consider other health issues, they
added. Further, they do not account for the effect of chemicals on sensitive populations, several
commenters noted.
A number of commenters criticized EPA for failing to make an adequate effort to hold the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) accountable for the contamination of communities located on or
near military installations. EPA is not enforcing existing environmental regulations that govern
DoD facilities, the commenters claimed.
OTHER CONCERNS AND COMMITMENTS OF THE NEJAC
During their meeting, the members of the Executive Council of the NEJAC recommended that a work
group be established to address communications within the NEJAC and between the NEJAC and EPA
program offices. In addition, the members agreed to review and provide comments on the Framework for
Cumulative Risk Assessment. Formal development of the guidance will begin in 2002.
SUMMARIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS
Summarized below are the deliberations of the subcommittees of the NEJAC held on December 5, 2001.
Air and Water Subcommittee
The members of the Air and Water Subcommittee of the NEJAC received the presentations and reports
described below and discussed the topics summarized.
Mr. James Hanlon, EPA Office of Science and Technology (OST), provided preliminary comment on the
feasibility of implementing the recommendations presented in the NEJAC's Draft Fish Consumption
Report. Mr. Hanlon commended the Fish Consumption Work Group for its efforts and emphasized that
the availability of resources for the most part will determine what EPA can accomplish. Mr. Hanlon also
reviewed the logistics associated with the completion of the report and its submittal to the EPA
Administrator.
Mr. Lee presented an overview of and led discussions about the NEJAC Strategic Plan. He also
discussed the meeting of the NEJAC scheduled for December 2002 that will focus on issues related to
pollution prevention and environmental justice.
Mr. Jeff Bigler, EPA OST, provided to the Fish Consumption Work Group an update on plans to revise
volume four of EPA's Guidance Document for Assessing Chemical Contamination Data for Use in Fish
Advisories to incorporate awareness of issues related to environmental justice.
Mr. Peter Murchie, EPA Region 10 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), presented to
the Air Toxics Work Group an overview of EPA's air toxics program.
The members of the subcommittee discussed the need to establish priorities among the recommendations
presented in the Draft Fish Consumption Report to (1) help EPA focus its efforts and (2) avoid
overwhelming the agency with numerous recommendations. The members agreed that, although the list
of recommendations may appear lengthy, individual items can be grouped under a few overall themes.
The members of the subcommittee discussed the potential effect of the NEJAC Strategic Plan on the
manner in which the subcommittee conducts its business. The members agreed that the subcommittee
must focus its efforts on only a few key issues, rather than attempting to "cover the whole waterfront" as it
had done in its early days. The members also agreed to explore methods of evaluating the effectiveness
of the subcommittee's work groups on specific issues.
The members of the subcommittee emphasized that the work of the Fish Consumption Work Group must
be used as a model to guide planning for the meeting of the NEJAC to be held in December 2002. The
members also requested that, in preparation for that meeting, the newly formed Pollution Prevention Work
ES-5
Seattle, Washington, December 3-6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
Group should examine issues related to (1) environmental restoration, (2) clean production, (3) low-impact
development, and (3) the costs and benefits of pollution prevention.
Members of the Fish Consumption Work Group discussed the plans of EPA's Office of Water to revise
volume four of its Guidance Document for Assessing Chemical Contamination Data for Use in Fish
Advisories. The members of the work group agreed to (1) review the document and provide comment on
it to EPA and (2) identify and recommend individuals to serve on various EPA stakeholder work groups
and as technical consultants for the issuance of fish advisories. The members of the subcommittee also
discussed the future of the Fish Consumption Work Group, once the Draft Fish Consumption Report has
been completed. The members recommended that the work group expand its scope to explore other
issues related to water quality, such as total maximum daily loads (TMDL), confined animal feeding
operations (CAFO), and water permits.
The Permitting and Public Utilities work groups participated in a joint session, during which they agreed to
combine the two groups into a single work group. The members of the work groups discussed EPA's
White Paper No. 3 on flexible permitting, a report on a new source review study prepared by EPA's Office
of Air and Radiation (OAR), and other issues related to the permitting process. The members of the newly
combined work group agreed to develop a document that will describe "best practices" for permitting that
are sensitive to environmental justice issues, as well as review and provide comment on the report on a
new source review study the release of which is expected in January or February 2002. Members of the
work group also expressed concern that staffing of the work group was inadequate, in light of the number
of issues the group had taken under consideration.
The members of the Air Toxics Work Group discussed EPA's air toxics program. The members agreed to
review and provide comment on EPA OAR's Work Plan for the National Air Toxics and Integrated Air
Toxics Strategy.
Health and Research Subcommittee
The members of the Health and Research Subcommittee of the NEJAC received the presentations and
reports described below and discussed the topics summarized.
Mr. Patrick C. West, Emeritus Faculty, Environmental Sociology, School of Natural Resources and
Environment, University of Michigan, commented on research needed in the realm of environmental
justice and application of that research. Mr. West stated that lack of research should not be a barrier to
action, that existing information can be used, and that current research must be investigated to identify the
information to support action. Mr. West stressed that systematic and qualitative assessment of both
cumulative effects and co-risk factors must be included in the assessment of risks for such sensitive
groups as communities of color, low-income communities, and Native American tribes.
Ms. Tala Henry, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, EPA National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, provided information about the parameters that are factors in the calculation of risk.
She emphasized that there is no specific procedure for the calculation of risk and that the default
parameters are not applicable under certain circumstances, such as assessment of the risks to sensitive
groups. Therefore, she explained, partnerships between experts and communities must be fostered so
that defensible and appropriate risk parameters can be established.
Mr. Wardner G. Penberthy, EPA Chemical Control Division, presented an overview of Section 4 of the
Toxic Substances and Control Act, which focuses on chemical testing. He provided detailed information
about EPA's High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge program, a voluntary testing program for facilities
that produce large volumes of chemicals. The goal of the program is to increase the availability to the
public of baseline data on the effects on health and the environment for approximately 2,800 HPV
chemicals, reported Mr. Penberthy.
Mr. Jeffrey Morris, EPA Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development (ORD),
recommended a change in the structure of the subcommittees of the NEJAC. Citing EPA's goals related
to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Mr. Morris explained that, because health and
ES-6
Seattle, Washington, December 3-6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
research issues related to environmental justice cross boundaries among the various subcommittees,
such issues should be handled by a special interest work group, rather than an individual subcommittee.
The members of the subcommittee conducted a number of discussions about the accurate calculation of
risk for sensitive groups. The specific recommendations they agreed upon are:
It is essential that various factors related to cultural and spiritual concerns be included in models
for assessing risk. In addition, such factors as culture shock and cultural disintegration must be
addressed.
Parameters used in the calculation of risk must be specific to each particular community.
Parameters that currently are not included in risk assessment models include peak exposure and
consumption of whole fish, rather than the more widely used parameters of chronic exposure and
consumption of only the fillet of a fish.
The types of foods identified as components of a subsistence diet should include many more
foods that are not consumed by the general population.
Co-risk and cumulative risk factors should be used as a more accurate gauge of "true risk"
because people are exposed to more than one chemical at a time.
If the recommendations of the subcommittee on the subject of calculation of risk are to be
adopted, the definitions of "health" for a community and of what is to be considered "normal" must
be reconsidered.
The subcommittee recommended that the NEJAC consider the subsistence consumption needs of such
groups as Native Hawaiians and people in the Virgin Islands who were not considered as the report was
developed. The members of the subcommittee agreed that inclusion of those groups would help achieve
recognition of cultural groups that traditionally have been ignored in research related to environmental
justice.
The members of the subcommittee agreed that the need for research often is used as a barrier to action
and acknowledged that the information available is adequate to support the initiation of work. There is an
abundance of information that, although originally was not applied to issues of environmental justice, can
be reevaluated for its significance in the field of environmental justice, they noted. In addition, the
members recommended that extensive investigation of previous research be conducted to identify
available resources.
The members of the subcommittee agreed that the evaluation of HPV chemicals and the distribution to the
public of the baseline health data are crucial actions. Although some members expressed concern about
whether industry could be trusted to report reliably on production, the members agreed that there are
many safeguards related to testing and that the penalty for falsification is severe.
The subcommittee recommended increased cooperation between government agencies and local
organizations in sharing data and calling upon the expertise of indigenous organizations. Noting that local
people have first-hand knowledge and understanding of their communities and can gather information
more efficiently than outsiders, the members recommended that research be best conducted by local
groups, with the assistance and support of EPA.
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
The members of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee of the NEJAC received the presentations and
reports described below and discussed the topics summarized.
Mr. Merv George, Administrator, Klamath River Inter-Tribal Fish and Water Council and member of the
Hupa Tribe, provided background information about the history of the council, outlined the five issues the
council addresses, and submitted his recommendations for improving the Draft Fish Consumption Report.
ES-7
Seattle, Washington, December 3-6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
He stressed that the Hupa and Yura tribes constantly must balance environmental and economic issues
when developing standards for water quality.
Ms. Gillian Mittelsteadt, Environmental Policy Analyst, Tulalip Tribes Natural Resource Program, and Mr.
Daryl Williams, Developer, Tulalip Tribes Natural Resource Program, presented the results of their study
that examined the consumption by members of the Tulalip Tribe offish taken from Puget Sound. Ms.
Mittelsteadt described the statistical framework of the study and outlined the benefits and lessons learned
through completion of the study. Mr. Williams discussed the problems that arise because, he said,
programs allow the trading of pollution emissions credits. Mr. Williams emphasized the negative effects
such programs have on tribal communities.
Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director, Indigenous Environmental Network and former chair of the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee, presented his recommendations for improving the Draft Fish
Consumption Report. He urged that the NEJAC consider the negative effects of radioactive contaminants
on habitats and focus attention on precautionary actions, rather than traditional risk assessment. He also
recommended that the NEJAC promote outreach to tribal communities to help those communities develop
a better understanding of the mission and responsibilities of the NEJAC.
Dr. Roseanne Lorenzana, liaison between Region 10 and EPA ORD, presented a list of five specific
recommendations for consideration by the subcommittee. She also presented the report Comparative
Dietary Risks: Balancing the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption, for which a risk assessment model
was used to define the conditions under which consumption of fish is a healthful dietary choice. She
urged that the subcommittee advise EPA to work with tribes to develop guidelines on cumulative risk that
are appropriate to the needs of tribes.
Ms. June Martin, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, began her presentation by telling the story of Annie
Aloa, a health aide in her village who had spoken out on behalf of the tribal community and who had been
awarded a grant by the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to survey the health
problems of members of the tribe. Ms. Martin then discussed the failure of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to clean up the military facility located near her village.
Ms. Ahtuangaruak, who is a native of the village of Nuigant, Alaska, expressed her concern about and
recommendations for improving the representation of Alaskan Natives on the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee. She also urged that, in the Draft Fish Consumption Report, the subcommittee address the
tribal lands of Alaskan Natives, such as Prudhoe Bay. Residents of those lands, she pointed out, rely on
fishing and whaling for subsistence.
Ms. Pam Miller, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, expressed concern about the health of Alaskan
Natives tribal communities that are located on or near sites that have been abandoned by DoD. She also
voiced the concern of tribes about persistent organic pollutants (POP) that originate thousands of miles
south of Alaska, travel northward, and accumulate over northern Alaska. She requested that the
subcommittee advise EPA to hold DoD accountable for previous contamination and to focus on the
phased elimination of POPs.
Mr. Enoch Sheidt, Subsistence Coordinator, Maniilaq Association, and Mr. Francis Chin, Environmental
Justice Coordinator, Maniilaq Association, emphasized the importance of a subsistence lifestyle to
Alaskan Natives who are nomadic and migrate to locations where food is available. Consequently, the
presenters reported, tribes do not recognize the concept of "on reservation" and "off reservation." To an
Alaskan Natives, fishing is not merely a method of obtaining food, but rather is a spiritual experience, they
explained. In addition, Mr. Chin stated that the unemployment rate in the Indian community is 90 to 95
percent. Therefore, a subsistence lifestyle is an essential way of life that cannot be compromised, he said.
Mr. Art C. Ivanoff, Native Village of Unalakleet, expressed his concern about the effects of climate change
on the health of Alaskan Natives. Mr. Ivanoff requested that the Draft Fish Consumption Report include
climate change as a factor that affects the quality of fish. Climate change has depleted greatly the running
stock of salmon, while the migration patterns of salmon and animals used for food have not been studied
sufficiently, he explained.
ES-8
Seattle, Washington, December 3-6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
Ms. Cheryl Steele, Elem Indian Colony, stated that fish advisories do not address issues related to the
consumption offish sufficiently. She urged that EPA provide indigenous peoples better guidance about
contaminated fish populations and that the agency work with local communities to eliminate sources of
contamination.
Mr. Kevin McKernan, Yurok Tribe, urged EPA to acknowledge those tribes that have developed and
adopted water quality standards. He stated that the use of EPA core standards might direct resources
away from tribes that have their own standards.
Ms. August Rozema, Swinomish Tribe, stated that the subcommittee and the NEJAC must "spread the
word" about its future meetings. She also encouraged the subcommittee to clarify the definition of the
word "fish" provided in the Draft Fish Consumption Report to include both fin- and shellfish.
The members of the subcommittee requested that the Alaskan Native community provide them more
information about issues related to fish consumption and water quality standards. After listening to
testimony offered by representatives of Alaskan Native communities, the members recognized that the
concerns of all indigenous peoples throughout the world, including those of Hawaii and the Caribbean,
also must be represented equally.
The members of the subcommittee discussed the effectiveness of risk assessment in adequately
addressing issues related to fish consumption, noting that traditional risk assessment models currently do
not include reference to pollution prevention and sustainability. The members recommended that a
"precautionary principle" approach to risk assessment replace the traditional model to account for the
benefits of preservation. The members also noted that risk assessment currently does not take into
account the fact that the variable average grams per day (gpd) used in most models cannot be
extrapolated to the lifestyle of members of indigenous communities, who consume many more fish in a
much shorter period of time than do members of other groups, thereby increasing their risk to a level
disproportionate to that affecting other groups.
The members expressed concern that fewer than 20 WQSs created by individual tribal communities have
been approved. Additional discussion focused on the difficulties tribal communities encounter in their
efforts to achieve the standards outlined in the WQSs because of economic setbacks.
The members of the subcommittee agreed to advise the NEJAC to urge EPA to augment its education
programs for tribal communities by providing more information about the role of the NEJAC. In addition,
the members recommended that tribes be included regularly in the deliberative process and that the
subcommittee change its role from that of "consultation" to that of "collaboration," a role that would
include deliberative dialogue. Such a change would improve communication between the NEJAC and
indigenous communities, they suggested.
International Subcommittee
The members of the International Subcommittee of the NEJAC received the presentations and reports
described below and discussed the topics summarized.
Mr. Goldtooth discussed the need to focus on issues of environmental justice related to transborder
matters that affect the First Peoples of North America and indigenous tribes in the Great Lakes basin. He
reported that First Nations and tribes in the Great Lakes basin suffer a disproportionate share of
environmental problems associated with the transport of POPs. The effects of POPs are intensified among
people who rely on a subsistence diet, he pointed out.
Ms. Katy Taylor, Assistant Director of Community Health Services, Alaska Native Tribal Health Services,
presented an overview of recent studies of the effects of POPs on the health of Alaskan Native women
and children who rely on subsistence consumption as the mainstay of their diets.
Ms. Miller provided information about the movement of POPs, facilitated by air and ocean currents, into
Alaska and the Arctic region. She also discussed contamination of DoD sites in Alaska.
ES-9
Seattle, Washington, December 3-6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
Ms. Amy Fraenkel, EPA Office of International Activities (OIA), addressed the transborder risks associated
with exposure to POPs. She also presented information about progress toward completion of the Global
Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty (also known as the Stockholm POPs Convention). She emphasized
that environmental justice groups must work to influence the process of planning how the United States
will implement the provisions of the treaty.
Ms. Eileen Henninger, EPA OIA, stated that it is important that the NEJAC provide comment to OIA on
issues related to biodiversity. Some of the work in that area will bring about major worldwide reductions in
the use of key harmful chemicals in farming and industrial applications, she said.
Mr. Lionel L. Brown Jr., Senior Information Management Officer, EPA OIA, presented an update on the
efforts of OIA to promote environmental awareness in Africa. Many areas in Africa are experiencing rapid
urbanization, he reported, adding that OIA has been working to educate local communities about issues
related to environmental justice. Mr. Brown also emphasized the heavy reliance on fish in the diets of
African people.
Mr. Enrique Manzanilla, Director, Cross Media Division, EPA Region 9, provided background information
about EPA's work related to the border areas of the United States and Mexico. He reviewed the activities
undertaken by Region 9 during the two years since the Roundtable on Environmental Justice on the U.S.-
Mexico Border was held in San Diego, California and reported on the success of outreach efforts
conducted by the Region 9 Border Liaison Office, located in San Diego.
Ms. Olivia Balandran, Office of the Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6, presented an update on the
outreach activities of the region's border office. She reported that the recent activities of that office
included efforts to respond to the recommendations presented at the roundtable meeting on the U.S.-
Mexico border.
Ms. Nelda Perez, Small Grants Coordinator, EPA Region 6 OEJ, presented information about activities
related to grants awarded to groups located in the U.S.-Mexico border area.
Mr. Richard Moore, Executive Director, Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, and
former chair of the NEJAC, described letters his organization had written to EPA Administrator Christine
Todd Whitman and President Bush. Mr. Moore discussed the effects of increased militarization along the
U.S.-Mexico border that has taken place since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He also
requested that the subcommittee complete the reports produced for the Roundtable on Environmental
Justice on the U.S.-Mexico Border and prepared by the NEJAC Farm Worker Work Group.
Mr. Apichart Thongyou, Secretary General, Thailand Research and Action for Development Institute,
discussed efforts undertaken in Thailand to reduce adverse effects on conditions of concern to the
environmental justice community that are caused by modernization and the development of heavy
industry. He and several other members of the delegation of visitors from Thailand discussed several
studies that examined heavy contamination by industry and its effect on fishermen who rely on fishing for
subsistence. Mr. Thongyou also described the work of EPA and its counterpart in Thailand to create a
public participation process, reauthorize environmental laws, and create a new ministry for the
environment.
The members of the subcommittee also participated in discussions related to various topics:
The members of the subcommittee identified similarities in the shortcomings of enforcement and
public participation efforts in Thailand and other nations. They discussed the value of, and the
need for, an international environmental network to support the transfer of information and data.
The members of the subcommittee concluded that the NEJAC and OIA should collaborate to build
a strong relationship between the work of OIA in Africa and the environmental issues addressed
by the NEJAC.
The members of the subcommittee discussed OlA's strategy of deploying culturally diverse teams
to represent EPA in international discussions. The members concluded that such a strategy is
ES-10
Seattle, Washington, December 3-6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
essential in engaging communities in discussions of treaties and encouraging collaboration
between the United States and other countries in the sharing of resources.
The members agreed that practices that contaminate water in one country and thereby affect the
health of residents of another country illustrate the "interconnectedness" of the global
environment. The members noted the similarity of the predicaments of subsistence fisherman in
the United States and other nations.
The members of the subcommittee concluded that there is a significant opportunity for the
NEJAC to participate in the development of the plan for the implementation by the United States
of the Stockholm POPs Convention. They also agreed to provide comment to OIA about the level
of implementation of the treaty. In addition, the members discussed the need to include in the
treaty provisions for a system for tracking the movement of POPs across the borders of the United
States.
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
The members of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC received the presentations
and reports described below and discussed the topics summarized.
Mr. Michael Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER), and Ms. Linda Garczynski, EPA OSWER, provided an overview of the direction new
senior managers plan for OSWER. They discussed the vision, mission, priorities, and values of the office,
reviewed changes that are taking place, and identified several key priorities for OSWER:
Pursuit of the One Cleanup Program Initiative, which is designed to make the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) programs more consistent with one another and to
increase the right-to-know component of each.
Establishment of revitalization and reuse as core issues of the OSWER action agenda.
Implementation of recycling and pollution prevention programs to encourage partnerships and
demonstration pilot projects in the area of reduction in source contamination.
Implementation of the Retail Initiative, which is designed to increase focus on public involvement
in the use of solid and hazardous waste and improve dialogue among communities.
Implementation of work force development programs to strengthen the effort to train new staff of
OSWER to meet its future challenges.
Mr. Samuel J. Coleman, EPA Region 6, provided an update on issues of environmental justice that affect
the community of Mossville, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. Mr. Coleman identified several specific
milestones:
Installation of an enhanced air monitoring network sanctioned by the Lake Area Industrial Alliance
and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Protection (LDEP).
Achievement of overall compliance with the requirements of LDEP and establishment of
parishwide dioxin screening as a standard procedure.
Creation of an advisory council that works closely with the community, industry, and LDEP.
Conduct a pilot health symposium designed to address health problems associated with exposure
to environmental hazards and contaminants.
Ms. Sharon Beard, NIEHS, made a presentation on worker education and training.
ES-11
Seattle, Washington, December 3-6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
Mr. Carter; Dr. Mildred McClain, Executive Director, Citizens for Environmental Justice; and Ms. Doris
Bradshaw, Executive Director, Defense Depot Memphis Tennessee Concerned Citizens Committee, made
a presentation on the role of FFRRO in working with communities affected by adverse environmental
conditions. They explained that FFRRO plans to:
Identify and evaluate key issues of concern to such communities.
Provide a forum for dialogue between members of local communities and representatives of
government agencies.
Compile a list of resources available to communities and stakeholders that can help support
increased public participation.
Formulate a set of recommendations to the NEJAC, including the identification of "best practices"
for improving environmental cleanups and ways in which the NEJAC can best address issues
related to federal facilities.
The members of the subcommittee discussed the development of a strategic plan for the subcommittee.
Key issues they identified included the creation of a work force development committee and examination
of the role of the subcommittee on the Pollution Prevention Working Group. Additional themes they
identified included exploration of EPA's role in fostering strategic planning by communities for the re-use
and revitalization of contaminated sites, action to be taken after cleanup has been completed, and use of
lessons learned through demonstration projects conducted by the Integrated Work Group on
Environmental Justice and other outstanding projects.
The members of the subcommittee discussed at length three pending action items for 2002:
Transfer of the Federal Facilities Work Group to the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee and
addition of another member to that work group.
Provision of assistance to FFRRO in its efforts to integrate issues related to land use,
development, and redevelopment into the programs and procedures of EPA.
Identification of models, such as the Washington Naval Yard and other sites, to be used as
positive examples of OSWER's work with communities to achieve revitalization and reuse.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the NEJAC is scheduled for December 9 through 12, 2002 in Baltimore, Maryland.
The meeting will focus on pollution prevention. Planned activities include one opportunity for the public to
offer comments. More information about the upcoming meeting will be available on the NEJAC's Internet
home page at (click on the link to the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council) or by telephone on EPA's toll-free environmental justice
hotline at 1 (800) 962-6215.
ES-12
Seattle, Washington, December 3-6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
CHAPTER ONE
MEETING
OF THE
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The sixteenth meeting of the Executive Council of
the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) took place Thursday, December 3 through
6, 2001, in Seattle, Washington. Ms. Peggy
Shepard, West Harlem Environmental Action, serves
as the newly appointed chair of the Executive
Council. Mr. Charles Lee, Associate Director for
Policy and Interagency Liaison, U.S., Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Environmental
Justice (OEJ), continues to serve as the Designated
Federal Officer (DFO) for the Executive Council.
Exhibit 1-1 presents a list of members of the
Executive Council who were present and identifies
those members who were unable to attend.
Approximately 300 people attended the meeting.
On December 5, 2001, each member of the
Executive Council who was present on that day
participated in the deliberations of the NEJAC
subcommittees. Chapters Three through Seven of
this meeting summary describe those deliberations.
In addition, the Executive Council hosted one public
comment period on the evening of December 4,
2001, as well as participated in a "virtual tour" of
environmental justice sites in EPA Region 10 on
December 3,2001. Approximately 30 people offered
comments during the public comment session.
Chapter Two presents a summary of the public
comments offered and the presentations made
during the virtual tour.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Executive Council, is organized
in six sections, including this Introduction. Section
2.0, Remarks, summarizes the remarks offered by
various speakers. Section 3.0, Discussion of the
Relationship Between Water Quality, Fish
Consumption, and Environmental Justice, provides
a summary of the testimony provided by the Fish
Consumption Work Group of the NEJAC and
describes the recommendations discussed by the
members of the work group and the members of the
Executive Council. Section 4.0, Draft Strategic Plan
of the NEJAC, presents a summary of the
discussions ofthe members of the Executive Council
about matters related to the NEJAC strategic plan.
Section 5.0, Presentations and Reports, provides
summaries of reports and presentations made to the
Executive Council on various other topics. Section
6.0, Miscellaneous Business, presents summaries of
Exhibit 1-1
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 3 through December 6, 2001
Ms. Peggy Shepard, Chair
Mr. Charles Lee, DFO
Mr. Larry Charles
Ms. Veronica Eady
Ms. Anna Frazier**
Ms. Eileen Guana
Dr. Richard Gragg, III
Dr. Michael Gelobter*
Mr. Robert Harris*
Ms. Savonala "Savi" Home
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo
Ms. Mary Nelson
Dr. Graciela Ramirez-Toro
Ms. Jane Stahl
Mr. Dean Suagee
Ms. Wilma Subra
Ms. Jana Walker
Mr. Kenneth Warren
List of Members
Who Were Unable To Attend
Ms. Rose Augustine
Mr. Fernando Cuevas
Ms. Jennifer Hill-Kelley
Mr. Harold Mitchell
Mr. David Moore
Mr. Alberto Saldamondo
Ms. Pat Wood
Mr. Tseming Yang
* Attended December 3 and 4, 2001 only
**Attended December 4 and 6, 2001 only
discussions by the members of the Executive
Council of other items before the council, including
recognition of those members whose terms were
soon to expire.
Chapter Two of this report presents a summary of
the virtual tour and public comment sessions held
December 3 and 4, 2001. Chapters Three through
Seven of this report present summaries of the
deliberations of each ofthe subcommittees that met
1-1
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
on December 5,2001. Appendix A presents a list of
the proposed revisions of the draft Fish Consumption
Report and recommendations proposed for additions
to it.
2.0 REMARKS
This section summarizes the remarks of the Deputy
Regional Administrator of EPA Region 10 and
representatives of local community organizations
and the Washington State legislature. Exhibit 1-2
provides a copy of the letter sent by Washington
Governor Gary Locke to the NEJAC.
2.1 Remarks of the Deputy Regional
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 10
Mr. Ron Kreizenbeck, Deputy Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 10, welcomed the
members of the NEJAC, commenting on the
appropriateness of the selection of Region 10 to host
the current meeting, with its focus on subsistence
fish consumption, water quality, and environmental
justice. He explained that EPA Region 10, which
includes the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho,
and Alaska, is home to many diverse, low-income
communities, communities of color, and more than
270 Native American tribes and Alaskan Native
villages. Many of those communities and tribes
subsist on fish, plants, and wildlife, he said, and the
harvesting, preparation, and consumption of wild
species is prevalent, as well as fundamental to the
heritage and traditions of their cultures. Mr.
Kreizenbeck stressed that the degradation of
habitats and the depletion of resources threatens the
very way of life of those communities and tribes.
Mr. Kreizenbeck also pointed out that, for many such
communities, there is no practicable alternative to
the resources of the land. Therefore, he continued,
it is not feasible to switch to or substitute other food
resources if the resources of their land are
contaminated. Moreover, he stated, for the
communities of concern, to abstain from
consumption of such resources is unimaginable for
cultural, traditional, or religious reasons. A
subsistence lifestyle, he stressed, is more than
simply a tradition — it is fundamental to the very
concept of self-determination.
Continuing, Mr. Kreizenbeck stated that issues of
environmental justice arise during the everyday work
at EPA Region 10, as the Agency issues and
reviews permits, reviews and approves water quality
standards, works on environmental impact
statements, performs risk assessments, and
develops monitoring plans. Addressing subsistence
issues as the Agency pursues those activities is
necessary to ensure that all communities receive
equal environmental protection, he said. Lacking
equal environmental protection for all, regardless of
race, income, culture, or ethnicity, he declared, there
can be no environmental justice.
2.2 Remarks of Local Elected Officials,
Community Members, and Tribal Leaders
Ms. Rosa Franklin, State Senator, Washington State
Legislature and former member of the NEJAC,
commented on the timeliness of the current meeting
of the NEJAC, held to discuss the relationship
between among water quality, fish consumption, and
environmental justice. While contaminated air and
toxic streams affect all citizens, she continued, the
changing demographics in the state of Washington
and the Pacific Northwest have brought a new
urgency to the issue offish consumption. Therefore,
she said, there is an urgent need in the region to
further identify and quantify the types and
magnitudes of risks to communities and tribes that
subsist on wild fish, plants, and other wildlife. Ms.
Franklin stressed that the activities of the NEJAC
could have a long-term effect on the health of those
communities.
Ms. Velma Veloria, State Representative,
Washington State Legislature and former member of
the NEJAC, noted that the convening of the NEJAC
in the state of Washington to discuss this issue of
fish consumption and environmental justice
reaffirmed that the quality of salmon and fish is a
concern not only of the fishing industry, but also of
tribes and other minority populations.
Ms. Veloria informed the members of the NEJAC
that the state of Washington had done much to
ensure that its water is clean and that fish remain
healthy. She explained that, in 1994, she, Ms.
Franklin, and several other legislators had introduced
a bill before the state legislature that requested that
the Washington Department of Ecology and the
Washington Department of Health jointly prepare a
report on the environmental risks that threaten low-
income and minority groups. She noted that the
initial funding to supportthe work had been obtained.
Ms. Veloria commented that the victory had been "an
incredible first step" in addressing the
disproportionate adverse effects of hazardous and
solid waste sites on low-income communities and
peoples of color.
1-2
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Exhibit 1-2
urn i nru
MAir OF MMSMSGTm
UFMU O lit GOVERNOR
f I I #•»» ¦ tUtmpit wstkmjfim WfflWMWW • I«1
A s governor -of die siate of WasliMigjHwi, I nro pteswd to »«lcomc you to the 17* mMiinjj
el the National Eavitondnwul lusuc* Advisory Council m]luJ-iIc i dca$and infftmuiiMi arrhrij.'
^.ikebnkifr jjrnups rqine«ain1ed nil lhe MFJAC and !h^ general puhl ic The policy
(iiieaion being eomidkred, "Whai is- retafcmship Newecn wjiicf ifuality* fish
CHiswtipiiMt and fnvirnsncstHl iusnc*'" is esp«all>' Important »the cirtlaena itiuU- vLsin nBemraabtt one
Best wishes file a successful mweling ur«J are cnjuyahle day n Washington!
Greetings from the Governor
December J, 200!
tkary Lod
Giivenwr
o
1-3
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
In 1997, Ms. Veloria continued, the legislature
worked to incorporate environmental health into the
state's overall public health improvement plan. That
effort, she explained, had allowed the Washington
Department of Health to consider environmental
health risks to communities when performing
assessments of public health. She added that, in
that same year, legislation had been enacted that
reformed the way in which the work at clean-up sites
is taxed.
Ms. Veloria explained that, before the legislation was
passed, the owner of a cleanup site was taxed at a
particular rate if the owner cleaned up the site
voluntarily, but was taxed at a lower rate if the owner
waited until the Washington Department of Ecology
formally placed the site on a list of sites that required
cleanup. Such a tax system, she pointed out,
encouraged owners to delay cleanup, thereby
increasing the potential that contamination from the
sites would spread. By changing the system to
include a uniform tax for cleanups, she added, the
legislature removed site owners' incentive to delay
cleanup.
Continuing, Ms. Veloria stated that, in 1998, the
Washington state legislature enacted legislation that
requested that the Washington Department of Health
investigate the health effects of noise, particularly in
the vicinity of Washington's Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport (SEATAC) and review existing
studies of noise pollution to evaluate whether
disadvantaged groups are subject to
disproportionately high levels of exposure to
unhealthy noise pollution. Further, she continued, in
early 2001, the legislature's Agriculture and Ecology
Committee conducted a hearing on proposed
legislation that would require that the public be
notified of releases of hazardous substances.
Specifically, she explained, notices would be mailed
to residents, land owners, and businesses located
within one mile of a facility involved in such a release
and would provide detailed information about the
chemicals involved, the address of the facility, and
the date of the release. While the legislation has not
yet been enacted, she added, it is to be reintroduced
in 2002.
Mr. Moses Squeochs, Yakama Nation and member
of the NEJAC Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee,
observed that, while he appreciates the responsibility
and effort of the NEJAC, he is troubled that such an
"extra effort" is necessary to enforce legislation that
has been enacted by the Congress of the United
States. For example, he pointed out, federal law
requires that federal agencies identify the need to
ensure the protection of populations that exhibit
patterns of subsistence consumption of fish and
wildlife and to assist in providing such protection.
Federal law also requires that federal agencies
collect, maintain, and analyze information about the
consumption patterns of populations that rely
primarily on fish or wildlife for subsistence, added Mr.
Squeochs. He stressed that EPA has been charged
with implementation of federal environmental
statutes. He asked why it has been so difficult for
EPA to carry out that responsibility.
Continuing, Mr. Squeochs explained that he
represents the 14 Confederated Tribes and Bands of
the Yakama Nation that reside in the interior mid-
Columbia River basin. After reciting the names of
the 14 tribes and bands, he explained that each of
those communities, along with many other
indigenous communities, continue to maintain a
subsistence, or "hunter-gatherer," way of life and
sustain the customs and practices of their valuable
and rich heritage. He also commented that there is
a renewed and important effort among indigenous
peoples to restore their language and preserve their
culture, which reflects and maintains a deep
connection to the Earth, "their Mother."
Mr. Squeochs shared his remembrance of the first
time he had recited as a small child in school the
words of the Pledge of Allegiance "...with liberty and
justice for all." Ironically, he continued, more than 50
years later, he finds himself participating as a
member of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee in
an attempt to make such justice a reality for all and
to achieve some sense of fairness and equality. In
closing, Mr. Squeochs, stated his hope that the
NEJAC would continue to make history in the search
for justice.
Ms. Yolanda Sinde, Community Coalition for
Environmental Justice, also welcomed the members
of the NEJAC to the city of Seattle. She first noted
that the Community Coalition for Environmental
Justice, a multiracial organization, had been the first
official nonprofit environmental justice group formed
in the Seattle area. She then invited the members of
the NEJAC to attend a community reception to be
held that evening.
Ms. Sinde then briefly expressed her concern about
rumors that the NEJAC might be dissolved. She
stressed the importance of maintaining the
connection the NEJAC provides between EPA and
environmental justice communities and asked that
representatives of EPA or members of the NEJAC
address the concern during the meeting.
1-4
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
3.0 POLICY DIALOGUE
ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
WATER QUALITY, FISH CONSUMPTION,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The NEJAC, in its continuing efforts to provide
independent advice to the Administrator of EPA in
areas related to environmental justice, focused its
sixteenth meeting on the relationship between water
quality, fish consumption, and environmental justice.
On Tuesday, December 4, the members of the
NEJAC heard a panel presentation by the members
of the Fish Consumption Work Group of the NEJAC.
The NEJAC had established the work group to assist
in developing a report and recommendations on this
issue.
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo, Benton County Board of
Commissioners and chair of the Air and Water
Subcommittee, served as facilitator during the policy
dialogue. She began the discussion by reminding
the members of the NEJAC of the purpose of the
current meeting of the NEJAC. She explained that
the issue that the NEJAC had been asked to
consider and provide recommendations on was:
"How should EPA improve the quality,
quantity, and integrity of our Nation's aquatic
ecosystems in order to protect the health
and safety of people consuming or using
fish, aquatic plants, and wildlife?"
Ms. Jaramillo then stated that, in preparation for the
meeting, a report, Fish Consumption Report: Pre-
meeting Discussion Draft, had been developed to
provide a context for the discussions. The Fish
Consumption Work Group, she continued, had
prepared the report, with the assistance of Ms.
Catherine O'Neill, Associate Professor, Seattle
University School of Law.
3.1 Overview of the Fish Consumption Report
Ms. Jana Walker, Law Offices of Jana Walker and
vice-chair of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee,
provided an overview of the fish consumption report.
Ms. Walker first explained that the report is a
discussion draft intended to promote open dialogue
among the members of the NEJAC, as well as to
encourage public comment on its content. She
stated that the work group would welcome
comments on the draft report through January 2002.
Ms. Walker reported that the draft report includes a
background section and four chapters. The
background section explores the reasons
contamination of fish and aquatic ecosystems
Members of the NEJAC discuss presentations made by the
members of the NEJAC Fish Consumption Work Group.
causes concern about environmental justice. It does
so, she continued, through the perspectives of real
people who have suffered the harmful effects of such
contamination. She explained that, while there are
important differences among affected groups,
communities of color, low-income communities, and
tribes generally consume greater quantities of fish
than do other segments of the population and
depend on healthy fish and aquatic ecosystems to a
greater extent and in different ways than does the
general population. Therefore, she continued, these
communities and tribes are forced to bear a
disproportionate share of the environmental effects
that result from pollution of the waters.
Continuing, Ms. Walker explained that fish not
caught commercially are a healthy, cheap, and
readily available source of protein in the diet.
Persons who subsist chiefly or solely on such fish
therefore are more likely to be members of
communities of color, low-income communities, or
tribes. Affected groups also may consume or use
fish, aquatic plants, and wildlife for cultural,
traditional, or religious reasons. They also may eat
different parts of the fish than do other segments of
the population, and they may prepare the fish in
different ways, as well. Conventional
understandings about catching, harvesting,
preparing, and eating fish do not capture such
practices adequately.
Ms. Walker then pointed out that communities of
color, low-income communities, and tribes also may
be exposed to different, and often numerous, types
of exposures to environmental pollutants than is the
case among the general population. Many toxins
and toxic chemicals persist in the environment for
very long periods of time and bioaccumulate in fish,
plants, wildlife, and ultimately the people who eat
them, she explained. Although the specific health
risks posed by such multiple exposures are
unknown, she said, it has been documented that
1-5
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
many of the chemicals of concern are highly toxic to
humans. Such chemicals, continued Ms. Walker,
can cause reproductive, neurological, and endocrine
disorders; cancer; and negative developmental
effects in children.
Ms. Walker stressed that "healthy waters and
watersheds mean healthy people." She
acknowledged that EPA has made progress in
addressing water pollution over the past 30 years,
but declared that much more must be done because,
today, only 60 percent of the nation's lakes, rivers,
and estuaries are clean enough to be used for
fishing and swimming. Continuing, Ms. Walker
pointed out that 40 percent of assessed waters are
degraded to the point that they no longer support
theirdesignated uses. Further, some 300,000 miles
of rivers and streams and more than 5 million acres
of lakes do not meet water quality goals, she added.
Many of those waters are not safe for swimming and
cannot support healthy fish, she said.
Ms. Walker then reported that Chapter 1 of the draft
fish consumption report evaluates the tools that EPA
uses to define, evaluate, and respond to the adverse
health effects of exposure to contaminated aquatic
ecosystems. She explained that fish consumption is
the primary route of exposure to many toxic
contaminants. To establish environmental
standards, EPA uses exposure data related to the
ingestion of contaminated fish, she said. To develop
those national water quality standards and criteria,
she went on, certain assumptions must be made
about how much fish people eat, which parts of the
fish they eat, and which people are eating those fish.
However, such exposure assumptions often reflect
only the habits of the general population; the
increased potential for exposure among populations
that consume larger quantities of fish, such as
communities of color, low-income communities, and
tribes, are not considered.
Providing an example, Ms. Walker stated that, until
recently, federal water quality standards were based
on the exposure assumption thatthe average person
consumes only 6.5 grams per day (g/day) of fish.
However, studies of rates of consumption of fish in
tribal, low-income, and minority communities have
revealed rates that are more than 100 times the
value assumed by EPA. Ms. Walker added that the
draft report provides ample evidence that ethnic
minorities and tribes are more likely to eat the whole
fish, including the skin, head, and tail, and that those
parts contain higher levels of pollutants than the filet,
which is the part of the fish most likely to be
consumed by individuals in the general population.
Continuing, Ms. Walker said that Chapter 1 of the
report also discusses the issues related to aggregate
or multiple exposures and cumulative risks, noting
that current EPA methodologies proceed as if
humans are exposed to only one contaminant at a
time.
In summary, Chapter 1 of the fish consumption
report addresses issues related to assumptions
made by EPA about patterns of fish consumption,
said Ms. Walker. Exposure assumptions must be
revised to reflect the lives and circumstances of all
people, including those subject to high levels of
exposure, she emphasized.
Chapter 2 of the fish consumption report focuses on
EPA's risk reduction strategies that require risk
producers, usually the polluters, to clean up, reduce,
or prevent environmental contamination, Ms. Walker
then reported. The chapter also examines existing
legaI authorities u nder federaI envi ronmentaI statutes
that might be exercised more effectively to address
contaminants of concern and to protect the health of
people who consume large quantities of fish, she
added.
Chapter 3 of the fish consumption report, continued
Ms. Walker, examines EPA's risk avoidance
strategies, under which affected communities and
tribes are asked to change their practices to avoid
exposure to harmful contaminants. She explained
that the chapter examines the role fish consumption
advisories should play in protecting the health of
people who consume or use fish and concludes that
the role of such an advisory varies, depending on the
community or tribe affected by it. Chapter 3 also
identifies several significant concerns related to
reliance on fish advisories, she said.
Ms. Walker then stated that Chapter 4 of the fish
consumption report addresses considerations unique
to the 556 federally recognized tribes, including 229
Alaskan Native villages. She explained that, while
tribes share many of the concerns described in the
preceding chapters, their unique political and legal
status distinguishes them from all other affected
groups in many ways and warrants separate
treatment in the report. Unlike other affected groups,
tribes also are government entities and regulators
that exercise broad inherent sovereignty over their
members, territories, and resources, she said.
Chapter 4 also discusses the unique susceptibilities
of tribes to the adverse effects of pollution on health.
In closing, Ms. Walker stressed that the fish
consumption report is not intended to ignore or
belittle the progress EPA has made in addressing
1-6
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
water pollution. However, she stated, it is clear that
many obligations remain unfulfilled and much work
remains to be done. As the members of the NEJAC
continue their discussions over the coming months,
she suggested, their challenge will be to develop
meaningful advice about the approach EPA should
take in the effort to improve the quality of aquatic
ecosystems, thereby protecting the health of all
people who consume fish, especially highly exposed
communities and tribes.
In response to the overview of the fish consumption
report provided by Ms. Walker, Mr. Jim Hanlon, EPA
Office of Water (OW) Office of Science and
Technology recognized the high quality of the work
produced by the work group. He then expressed his
belief that the report will be important to EPA as the
Agency works to address issues related to fish
contamination. He remarked that EPA had made
great strides in improving water quality over the past
10 years, but acknowledged that much work remains
to be done. Mr. Hanlon reminded the audience that
the objectives of EPA OW are to ensure that water is
safe to drink; that water resources are safe for
aquatic recreation; that fish are safe to eat; and that
our water resources provide a balanced, high-quality
system that supports aquatic life.
Mr. Hanlon then stated that, only 10 years earlier,
fewer than five states in the country used risk-based
methodologies to develop fish consumption
advisories. However, he continued, through
cooperation with the states, EPA OW had developed
a set of guidelines that states used in developing the
fish consumption advisories that are now in place.
The guidelines include guidance on sampling
methodologies, analytical methodologies of
laboratories, risk management, and risk
communication. Mr. Hanlon then reported that more
than 40 states now use risk-based methodologies to
develop fish consumption advisories for their
populations.
In conjunction with the Minnesota Department of
Health, Mr. Hanlon continued, EPA recently had
sponsored a conference in Chicago, Illinois, that was
attended by more than 400 people, representing all
50 states and more than 50 tribal entities. The focus
of the conference was risk communication related to
fish consumption. The proceedings of that
conference had been released, he said, and would
be discussed during the meeting of the Air and
Water Subcommittee to be held on December 5,
2001. Mr. Hanlon added that he also would discuss
with the members of the Air and Water
Subcommittee the further actions that the agency is
considering. Those actions would focus on the
1-7
development of additional tools to assist states in
improving their risk communication capabilities.
Responding to Ms. Walker's comments about
outdated methodology forthe development of human
health criteria, Mr. Hanlon stated that EPA recently
had replaced a document that had been in use since
the early 1980s with updated information that is
based on available statistical information about
average consumption levels for general populations,
sport fishers, and subsistence populations. He noted
that the release of the updated information
represented an important transition from the use of
historical bioconcentration factors to the use of
bioaccumulation factors in the derivation of water
quality criteria. The new approach has the effect of
lowering the acceptable criteria by a factor of as
much as 100. Mr. Hanlon added that the new
methodology also recognizes, for the first time, the
concept of relative source contribution. That is, he
explained, individuals do not receive their entire body
burden of a particular toxic pollutant from
consumption offish tissue alone, but rather from a
combination of exposure routes, all of which must be
considered.
Continuing his discussion of the activities of EPA
OW, Mr. Hanlon stated that the office, in cooperation
with the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), recently completed its second
mailing to health care providers. Through the
mailing, he explained, packages of information about
the contamination offish was disseminated to more
than 135,000 health care providers across the United
States, including pediatricians, obstetricians,
gynecologists, family physicians, physician's
assistants, and midwives. Mr. Hanlon then stated
that EPA does not believe that consumption
advisories are the solution to problems related to the
contamination of fish. Rather, he said, such
advisories are temporary measures taken to advise
the public about health risks that may be associated
with the consumption of contaminated fish.
Mr. Hanlon then reported that EPA's Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) Program is making "giant steps
forward." Exhibit 1-3 presents the definition of
TMDL. During 2002, he continued, some 2,000
TMDL projects will be underway nationwide. He
added that approximately 33 states operate under
consent agreements or court orders that require that
the states and EPA step forward and complete
development schedules reflecting the priority ranking
of each pollutant.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Hanlon emphasized that
the "Achilles heel" of the national water program
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
continues to be the lack of robust information or data
about watersheds throughout the United States.
Referring to Ms. Walker's comment that 40 percent
of assessed water bodies do not meet standards for
their designated uses, Mr. Hanlon pointed out that
only 20 to 25 percent of the nation's water bodies
have been assessed.
Ms. Shepard also offered several comments about
the information presented in the draft fish
consumption report. She stated that in her own
state, New York, many groups have been in
consultation with the state Department of
Environmental Conservation about fish advisories for
the Hudson River, in which contamination has been
known to exist for many years. However, she
pointed out, authorities have posted no fish
consumption advisories related to the river. Ms.
Shepard said that, along the Hudson River,
subsistence fishers are selling fish to local fish
markets. EPA, she suggested, should find a way to
mandate that fish advisories be posted. She
suggested furtherthat a public information campaign
be mounted to reach affected communities. Ms.
Shepard then stated that the glaring disparity
between how water quality standards, enforcement,
and cleanup are implemented confirms continuing
unequal enforcement in communities that are among
the most highly exposed to contaminants —
communities of color, low-income communities, and
tribes. She then stated her belief thatthe information
presented in the draft report reinforces recognition of
the need for accelerated investigation projects and
protocols for determining the cumulative effects of
multiple exposures.
Finally, Ms. Shepard commented that financial
resources should be made available to affected
groups so that they can educate their own
communities in their own languages and in a manner
that reflects their own cultures and customs.
3.2 Fish Consumption, Research Methods, and
Approaches to Risk Assessment
Dr. Patrick West, Professor Emeritus, University of
Michigan, provided a detailed summary of
information about research methods and approaches
to risk assessment that agencies use to define,
evaluate, and respond to the adverse health effects
caused by contamination of aquatic environments.
Chapter 1 of the draft fish consumption report
presents that information.
Dr. West stated that the contamination of fish,
aquatic plants, and wildlife is an especially pressing
concern for many communities of color, low-income
communities, and tribes, whose consumption and
use practices differ, often profoundly so, from those
of the general population. He explained that
members of those communities often consume far
greater quantities offish, aquatic plants, and wildlife
than does the general population. Further, they
consume and use different species and parts than
the general population, and they employ culturally
different methods of procuring and preparing the fish,
aquatic plants, and wildlife that they use. Therefore,
continued Dr. West, communities of color, low-
income communities, and tribes are among the
segments of the population that are most highly
exposed to contaminants in the fish, plants, wildlife,
and aquatic environment. He explained that
available literature documents that the 95th
percentile fish consumption rates for various affected
communities and tribes range from 225 g/day to 489
g/day. Yet, he pointed out, EPA regularly and
routinely approves a human consumption rate of 6.5
g/day in risk assessment methodologies.
Dr. West then discussed policy related to fish
consumption in a legal and cultural context. He
stated thatthe contamination offish, aquatic plants,
and wildlife also is troubling to many communities of
color, low-income communities, and tribes because
such groups consume and use fish, aquatic plants,
and wildlife in different cultural, traditional, religious,
historical, economic, and legal contexts than what
agencies have defined as the general population.
For example, tribes have rights guaranteed by treaty
to take fish. The unique legal obligations established
under such treaties are relevant to EPA's decisions
that affect the health of the fish and the fishery
resource, he said.
Dr. West explained that fish consumption and use of
fish often is prescribed by the culture and tied closely
to the collective and individual identity of a
community or tribe. The existence of such different
contexts is demonstrated abundantly by both
testimonial evidence and study in social science, he
continued. For the reasons he had identified, said
Dr. West, current fish consumption practices are, in
an important sense, indispensable for many
communities and tribes.
Dr. West then discussed the possibility of a
"suppression effect" related to fish consumption. He
explained that a suppression effect occurs when a
fish consumption rate for a given group reflects a
current level of consumption that is diminished
artificially from the appropriate baseline level for the
group. Suppression effects may occur because of
contamination or fear of consuming contaminated
items (members of a group consume fewer fish than
1-8
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
they naturally would because they fear that the fish
are contaminated) or depletion of resources
(members of a group consume fewer fish than they
naturally would because fewer fish are available for
consumption), he said. He explained that, when
standards are based on fish consumption rates that
are not adjusted for suppressed consumption, the
standards initiate a "downward spiral," with more
contamination permitted, leading to a greater
suppression effect, and so on.
Continuing, Dr. West stated that current risk
assessment methods do not account adequately for
susceptibilities and co-risk factors that affect
individual responses to environmental contaminants.
Co-risk factors include underlying health status,
quality of diet, genetics, socioeconomic status,
access to health care, and other factors. For
example, he said, low-income socioeconomic status
may combine with and intensify health effects of
consuming contaminated fish in environmental
justice communities.
Dr. West then stated that current risk assessment
methods also evaluate risks as if humans were
exposed to a single contaminant at a time by a single
route of exposure. He explained that members of
environmental justice communities, however, often
are exposed to numerous contaminants, at a given
time or in succession, often by more than one route
of exposure. For example, he stated, the 13
Confederated Bands of the Yakama Nation fish in
the Columbia River; more than 100 contaminants
have been identified in the tissues offish taken from
that river.
Dr. West then observed that the efforts of affected
communities and tribes are integral in producing
relevant, accurate, scientifically defensible data. He
said that affected communities and tribes therefore
must be involved at every stage of research on the
issues he had discussed, from identifying research
needs to designing research methods; interpreting
the policy implications of the finding of such
research; and determining the importance of the
research to the agency's risk assessment,
management, remediation, and emission permitting
processes.
Continuing his remarks, Dr. West stated that
environmental justice communities also have a
broader policy role to play beyond the arena of
research. He stated that tribal populations
throughout the country have challenged the NEJAC
and EPA to "walk in their moccasins" — to see and
experience the importance offish consumption and
related use of subsistence resources taken from the
waters and the land and the harsh effects of pollution
and pollution policy as the tribes themselves
experience them. The same ideal, Dr. West added,
holds true for other environmental justice
communities and cultures.
Dr. West then stated that, at the recent conference
in Chicago that Mr. Hanlon had mentioned, he had
heard members of tribes and other environmental
justice communities repeatedly urge EPA to take a
broader, more holistic view that goes beyond the
very important, but very short-term, narrow, and
focused, policy of exclusive reliance on advisories.
Dr. West then asked the members of the NEJAC if
they would be willing to "walk in the moccasins" of
affected communities and, with renewed
determination, take on the difficult issues of
prevention and remediation.
3.3 Fish Consumption and the Exercise of
Existing Legal Authorities
Ms. Walker provided a summary of the information
presented in Chapter 2 of the fish consumption
report. She stated that approximately 40 percent of
assessed waters in the United States do not support
use for fishing or swimming. She added that some
10 percent by volume of all sediments under waters
in the United States are contaminated heavily; the
list of sediments in surface waters that require
cleanup is long, she said, and the number of fish
consumption advisories rises each year. Ms. Walker
explained that, because people of color, low-income
people, and American Indians and Alaskan Natives
are disproportionately among the populations that
experience the greatest exposure to contamination,
any lapses in the efforts of agencies to prevent,
reduce, clean up, and restore contaminated aquatic
environments will impose a disproportionate burden
on those affected groups. Referring to the regulation
of mercury emissions, Ms. Walker noted her
understanding that, in the near future, EPA was to
address rule-making for the regulation of mercury
emissions from institutional, industrial, and
commercial boilers. She stated that such regulation
is needed.
Continuing, Ms. Walker stated that a rule regulating
mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants
might not be proposed until December 2003.
Meanwhile, she pointed out, coal-fired power plants
are the single largest source of air emissions of
mercury in the country. She then stated that a rule
regulating emissions of mercury from chloroalkaline
plants is needed. Although only approximately one
dozen such plants are located in the United States,
1-9
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
she explained, each plant is a very significant source
of such emissions. In some cases, a plant may be
the most significant local source of emissions of
mercury. She then cited as an example two
chloroalkaline plants in Louisiana that contribute
more mercury emissions than all the coal-fired power
plants in the state combined.
Continuing her presentation, Ms. Walker stated that
EPA's guidance documents and standards consider
a higher level of cancer risk to be "acceptable" for
"more highly exposed subgroups" than for the
general population. That standard is inequitable and
deeply troubling, as a matter of environmental
justice, because it is people of color, low-income
people, and American Indians and Alaskan Natives
who make up the "more highly exposed subgroups,"
she said.
3.4 Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories
Ms. Marianne Yamaguchi Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Project provided a summary of the
information about fish and wildlife consumption
advisories that Chapter 3 of the fish consumption
report presents. Ms. Yamaguchi pointed out that fish
advisories are just one component of a
comprehensive strategy for the management of
health risks. She also noted that fish advisories are
a strategy for risk avoidance rather than risk
reduction. She explained that, typically, advisories
are intended to provide information about the nature
and the extent of contamination and its potential
adverse effects on health. Their purpose, she noted,
is to encourage consumers to avoid consuming
contaminated species and to suggest alternative
ways in which people could continue to eat fish.
However, she added, fish advisories are not effective
in many environmental justice communities because
fish substitutes are not readily available or because
changes in fish consumption practices may cause
great anguish or cultural harm. Therefore, said Ms.
Yamaguchi, a comprehensive strategy for the control
of health risks should go beyond the issuance offish
advisories.
Continuing, Ms. Yamaguchi observed that, while
advisories are useful, if they are to be effective, they
must be tailored to the specific locations and
communities of concern. She pointed out that there
is no "one-size-fits-all" strategy and suggested that
attempts to ensure consistency across broad regions
or among population groups may not be useful or
appropriate.
She stated that affected communities and tribes play
an integral role in relevant, appropriate, and effective
risk communication efforts. Affected communities
and tribes, she continued, therefore must be involved
as partners, or in the case of tribal governments, as
"co-managers," at every stage of the communication
process — in identifying needs and priorities, in
developing content for advisories that is appropriate
for the groups of concern, in helping to prepare
translations and communicate the message, and in
helping to interpret communities' responses to risk
management efforts.
3.5 Fish Consumption Concerns Among
American Indian Tribes and Alaskan Native
Villagers
Mr. Dean Suagee, Vermont Law School discussed
information presented in Chapter 4 of the fish
consumption report. Mr. Suagee stated that the
political and legal status of tribes is unique among
affected groups and so warrants separate treatment.
As sovereign entities, federally recognized tribes
maintain a government-to-government relationship
with the federal government and its agencies, he
explained. Continuing, Mr. Suagee stated that the
unique legal status of tribes includes a trust
responsibility on the part of the federal government
and, for many tribes, treaty rights, as well. He then
remarked that EPA must demonstrate respect forthe
unique status of Native American tribes and Alaskan
Native villages.
Mr. Suagee explained further that, in general, there
is no environmental protection infrastructure in Indian
country because Indian country had been overlooked
during the development of the first federal
environmental laws. He stated that, because tribes
do not have the same kinds of resources as states
have to devote to program development, tribes are
for the most part dependent on EPA and other
federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), the Indian Health Service (IHS), and
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
Turning to the role of tribes as regulators in
protecting the environment, Mr. Suagee stated that,
although tribal governments and EPA are
responsible for implementing water quality standards
in Indian County and on Alaskan Native lands, only
16 of the 565 federally recognized tribes and
Alaskan Native villages have water quality standards
that have been promulgated or approved by EPA.
Therefore, continued Mr. Suagee, there are
considerable gaps in water quality standards in
Indian country, as well as gaps related to other
statutes.
1-10
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Mr. Suagee then noted that EPA had been engaged
for some two and one-half years in consultations with
tribes related to EPA's proposal to promulgate core
federal water quality standards for Indian country.
The proposed rule finally was signed on January 19,
2001, he said. However, he continued, the rule
became subject to the moratorium on new rules and
was "passed back" to EPA by Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). Mr. Suagee then explained that,
during the November 2001 meeting of the Tribal
Caucus of the T ribal Operations Committee (TOC) in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, he had been told that
OMB provided two suggested options when the rule
was returned to EPA. He then noted that he was
unsure of the current status of the rule. He
remarked, however, that the Tribal Caucus was near
consensus that EPA should move forward to
promulgate the current rule as a proposed rule.
Mr. Suagee also stated that, because of the
historical difference in the way Alaskan Natives have
been treated, the implications of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act and case law interpreting that
act, and the use of the term "reservation" in the
provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Clear Air
Act that authorize treatment of tribes like states, the
solutions for Indian country that are available in the
lower 48 states are not available in Alaska.
Mr. Suagee then stated that EPA also should explore
the development of more appropriate designated
uses for culturally important water bodies in Alaska
than those currently in place. Although those issues
had not yet been included in the draft fish
consumption report, suggested Mr. Suagee, the work
group and the NEJAC should revise the report to
include a recommendation that is specific to Alaskan
Natives.
The members of the Executive Council then
discussed the draft fish consumption report and
developed proposed revisions and additional
recommendations. Appendix A presents a list of
those proposed revisions and additional
recommendations.
4.0 DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN
OF THE NEJAC
Ms. Shepard presented the strategic plan of the
NEJAC to the members of the Executive Council.
She explained that the strategic plan incorporates
the issues raised and conclusions reached at the
August 2001 meeting of the Executive Council, held
in Washington, D.C. Ms. Shepard advised that the
introduction section of the strategic plan will be
revised to reflect the Executive Council's
appreciation for the efforts of past NEJAC members,
especially the efforts of those who had served as
founding members. In addition, these revisions will
note the past contributions of NEJAC in advancing
policy development within the EPA related to
environmental justice.
4.1 Goals and Objectives
Over the previous year, Ms. Shephard noted, the
NEJAC had been reviewing its role and discussing
how the NEJAC could best promote environmental
justice and fulfill the mission set forth in its charter.
In general, said Ms. Shepard, the members of the
NEJAC had concluded that they can better fulfill the
mission of their charter by refocusing their own
processes and work products, while redirecting the
site-specific issues to the appropriate EPA regional
offices that have both the responsibility to address
such issues and the authority to do so. She stressed
that, during its meetings, the NEJAC would continue
to solicit public comment on policy issues before the
NEJAC.
Ms. Shepard then read the revised mission
statement for the NEJAC that is presented in the
strategic plan. The mission statement reads as
follows:
"The NEJA C is a federal advisory committee
that provides timely, relevant, cogent, and
independent advice to the EPA
Administrator on matters of environmental
justice to ensure the fair treatment of all
peoples, including minority, low-income, and
indigenous populations and federally
recognized tribes, and often overlooked
populations, such as agricultural workers."
Continuing, Ms. Shepard explained thatthe Strategic
Plan outlines the strategy of the NEJAC to (1)
redesign its activities to better perform the advisory
role its charter establishes; (2) collaborate with EPA
to provide regional and other alternative mechanisms
other than meetings of the NEJAC, such as regional
listening sessions, through which communities can
bring site-specific issues to the attention of EPA; and
(3) develop, through a deliberative process that
involves all stakeholders, an effective work product
grounded in issues of importance to environmental
justice communities. She added that the strategic
plan is to guide the work of the NEJAC through
September 27, 2003.
Ms. Shepard stressed that disproportionate adverse
effects on communities of color, low-income
communities, and tribes are at the very heart of
1-11
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
environmental justice. They also, she continued, are
the impetus of the grassroots activism that prompted
the development of several key products, including
President Clinton's Executive Order 12898 on
Environmental Justice and the subsequent formation
of the NEJAC, along with numerous other products
over the years. The NEJAC, she declared, will
continue to make strong recommendations to EPA
on the conduct of regional listening sessions and
other mechanisms that will take place in the coming
year, as well as recommendations on follow-up to
those sessions.
Ms. Shepard then briefly outlined the six goals for
the Executive Council of the NEJAC and its
subcommittees, which, she noted, are presented in
the strategic plan. Those goals, she said, will guide
the NEJAC in accomplishing its mission.
First, Ms. Shepard explained, a work product goal
was developed to identify several methods of
providing cogent, timely, relevant, and effective
advice, both formal and informal, to the EPA
Administrator. Second, the strategic plan sets forth
a process goal aimed at developing and
implementing a deliberative, consultative, and
collaborative process on which the NEJAC can base
its advice to the EPA Administrator, she said. A third
goal is the public participation and public input goal
that outlines how the NEJAC actively will employ
mechanisms for soliciting the views of minority, low-
income, indigenous, and agricultural worker
populations and of federally recognized tribes, she
continued. She explained that the third goal
addresses (1) public participation at meetings of the
NEJAC, (2) the incorporation of community concerns
and issues into the policy dialogue of the NEJAC,
and (3) public participation at the regional level.
Continuing, Ms. Shepard stated that a fourth goal
included in the strategic plan is an organizational and
procedural goal. She explained that, the purpose of
the fourth goal is to obtain better briefings from EPA
about its initiatives and activities and to become
better able to communicate externally with the larger
environmental justice movement, communities, other
stakeholders, government and industry. The
NEJAC, she said, would request that EPA initiate a
review of the NEJAC organizational structure and
procedures. Implementation of the initiative will
enable the NEJAC to more effectively and efficiently
develop advice and render it to the EPA
Administrator, she said.
A fifth goal presented in the strategic plan, Ms.
Shepard continued, is a communications goal that
outlines a communication plan for improving the flow
of information from EPA to the NEJAC and for
creating a listserv to enable members of the
Executive Council and DFOs to discuss matters
properly between meetings of the NEJAC. Last, she
said, the strategic plan includes the goal of
developing an effective orientation program for new
members of the NEJAC and its subcommittees.
Ms. Shepard then publicly thanked Ms. Jaramillo,
who chaired the committee that drafted the strategic
plan, and the members of the drafting committee, Mr.
Kenneth Warren, Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-
Cohen and member of the Enforcement
Subcommittee; Ms. Wilma Subra, Louisiana
Environmental Action Now and member of the
Health and Research Subcommittee; and Ms.
Veronica Eady, Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs and chair of the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee.
Ms. Jaramillo commented that the development and
implementation of the plan would be a dynamic
process. That is, she continued, the strategic plan
will "grow and move with the times." She also
echoed Ms. Shepard's praise for Ms. Subra, Mr.
Warren, and Ms. Eady for their hard work in writing
the strategic plan.
Ms. Jane Stahl, Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, stated her belief that the
strategic plan would set the stage for a wonderfully
productive collaboration between the NEJAC, which
was created to help give communities a voice in the
world of environmental protection and environmental
management, and the organizations and
bureaucracies that are supposed to be doing that
work on behalf of all communities and
constituencies.
The importance of the plan, Ms. Stahl continued, is
that it provides the NEJAC and communities with a
structure through which they can move forward.
Everyone is on the same side, she stressed, but
different individuals bring different talents and
different views to the table. She stated that all
stakeholders must communicate and work with one
another, but that they should do so in a structured
fashion. In that way, she observed, they will achieve
an end result, rather than bringing about increased
division and controversy over issues that are
important to all stakeholders.
In closing, Ms. Stahl expressed her belief that the
organized process presented in the strategic plan
would help not only the NEJAC as a group to
achieve its goals, but also the communities that the
NEJAC serves to accomplish the same outcome.
1-12
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
She added that implementation of the strategic plan
also would help EPA move forward in addressing
issues that are important to communities that have
been "excluded from the table" in the past.
Dr. Graciela Ramirez-Toro, Interamerican University
of Puerto Rico and chair of the Puerto Rico
Subcommittee, applauded the work of the drafting
and writing committee (that developed the draft
strategic plan. She then offered several suggestions
for revision or clarification of the plan. First, she
suggested that the strategic plan include some
discussion of the ways in which the work groups will
include individuals, such as technical experts, who
are not members of the NEJAC. She also suggested
that the strategic plan outline at least a general time
line and protocol for scheduling conference calls.
Finally, Dr. Ramirez-Toro suggested that the
strategic plan be revised to identify the role of
members who live in a particular region during
listening sessions held in that region.
Ms. Savonala "Savi" Home, Land Loss Prevention
Project and chair of the Enforcement Subcommittee,
congratulated the members of the Executive Council
for dealing with the reality that the NEJAC is a
federal advisory committee and therefore must
conform to the requirements of the act that governs
such a body. She echoed the concern voiced by Dr.
Ramirez-Toro that the strategy for and goals of the
regional listening sessions should be defined more
clearly in the draft strategic plan. In particular, she
noted, the plan should describe clearly how
comment and advice generated during regional
listening sessions would be funneled to the
Executive Council of the NEJAC.
Responding to Ms. Home's concerns, Ms. Stahl,
while noting that she was pleased that the EPA
regions have moved forward in accepting the notion
of regional listening sessions, expressed agreement
that a means of conveying information to the NEJAC
should be included in the strategy developed for the
regional listening sessions. Ms. Stahl added that the
NEJAC must monitor the issues that arise during
those sessions so that its members will be cognizant
of such issues on a national level, ratherthan leaving
them confined only to a regional level.
Expressing concern that EPA might find it necessary
to secure state participation, Ms. Shepard asked Ms.
Stahl to discuss her perspective on the role of state
governments in the regional listening process. Ms.
Stahl responded that she believed that the states
would want to participate in the listening sessions.
She pointed out that there are issues of
environmental justice in all states. The states, she
said, cannot afford to withhold participation. Ms.
Stahl then expressed her belief that the listening
sessions would prove to be an effective way for EPA
to engage the states on a regional basis. She stated
further that she hoped that the regional sessions will
be conducted in a manner that will be an opportunity
for sharing of concerns and of information, rather
than an avenue for the "demonization" of state
bureaucracies or state environmental agencies.
Mr. Lee warned against the implementation of the
regional listening sessions lacking an "action plan" or
guidance on the format of the sessions, how the
sessions will be evaluated, and how action taken in
response to issues raised during the sessions will be
measured. He stressed that it is the business of the
NEJAC to encourage and advise EPA to ensure that
the agency develops a standard operational and
procedural process for the regional listening
sessions. He suggested that, in the future, NEJAC
may, if it chooses, to provide advice and
recommendations on regional listening sessions.
Ms. Subra commented that each EPA regional office
had provided the drafting and writing committee with
a report on the status of the issues on which that
region was working. She suggested that the
information provided be disseminated to
communities in each region so that members of the
communities can review the actions of regional
offices. Ms. Subra noted that, if repeated on at least
an annual basis, such action also could serve as an
effective mechanism by which the EPA regional
offices can provide information to the NEJAC on the
regional issues and initiatives.
Referring to the involvement of the states in the
regional listening sessions, Ms. Subra commented
that some state agencies perform at a "less-than-
appropriate" level. Therefore, she continued,
citizens look to the EPA regional office for
assistance. Ms. Subra stressed that it is important
that both the EPA regional offices and the states
attend the listening sessions, so that tasks and
responsibilities can be delegated. She added that it
will be important that the NEJAC "keep its finger on
the pulse," continuing to be fully cognizant of what
issues have been identified, what individual or entity
has been assigned to address those issues, and
whether the issues are being addressed.
Ms. Eileen Guana, Southwestern University School
of Law and vice-chair of the Air and Water
Subcommittee, pointed out that the NEJAC does not
have oversight authority over the EPA regional
offices. However, she added, the NEJAC can work
to prompt the establishment of a standard of
1-13
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
accountability for the regions and a voluntary
mechanism for informing the NEJAC of activities
conducted by the regions.
Mr. Warren pointed out two importantthemes that he
said were apparent in the strategic plan. First, the
proposed deliberative process, which intends that
the NEJAC focus on delivering work products to EPA
that can be integrated into EPA policy and practice,
is the most effective way the NEJAC can influence
environmental justice, he said. Another key theme
of the strategic plan, he continued, is that the
proposed processes are collaborative —
collaborative processes between the NEJAC and
EPA and between the NEJAC and communities are
envisioned in the strategic plan, he noted. Mr.
Warren also stressed that the development of a
communication plan is a key element of the strategic
plan. He said that a communication plan that
provides for a number of channels of communication
with EPA will allow the members of the NEJAC to
better understand EPA's actions, in turn allowing the
NEJAC to act more effectively to accomplish the
mission set forth under its charter.
Ms. Anna Frazier, DINE' CARE and member of the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee, informed the
members of the NEJAC that she had talked with
several representatives of grassroots organizations
who wish to comment on the draft strategic plan.
Those individuals would offer their comments during
the public comment period to be held in conjunction
with the current meeting ofthe NEJAC, she reported.
Mr. Robert "Bob" Harris, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company and member of the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee, stressed that the draft strategic
plan establishes a foundation that will allow the
NEJAC to have influence nationwide in resolving
problems because the plan involves all stakeholders.
Mr. Harris commended EPA's regional
administrators for their understanding of the
importance of the role that they must play in
developing and implementing the strategic plan and
for the role they will play in bringing together all
stakeholders in their regions.
Ms. Shepard then turned to Mr. Lee for remarks
about specific plans for implementation of the draft
strategic plan.
4.2 Implementation ofthe Strategic Plan
Mr. Lee first pointed out that the decision to "refocus"
the NEJAC did not arise from a discussion that had
started six months earlier, but had resulted from
discussions that began some five or six years ago.
He then emphasized that the draft strategic plan
effectively incorporates community involvement and
public participation. For example, he said, the draft
fish consumption report is an excellent example of a
work product of the NEJAC that was developed
through a deliberative process and based on the
views of communities about the issues and concerns
of importance to those communities. Such
processes and products have the potential to
translate effectively into true improvements for
communities, he stressed.
Mr. Lee then reviewed the NEJAC's schedule for
2002, as set forth on page 12 ofthe draft strategic
plan. He first stated that the Pollution Prevention
Work Group was to be established formally in
January 2002. Mr. Lee added that Ms. Subra and
Mr. Warren were to serve as co-chairs ofthe work
group.
Continuing, Mr. Lee reported that the Fish
Consumption Work Group was to make its report
and the recommendations associated with it final by
March or April 2002. Similarly, he added, the
Interagency Environmental Justice Implementation
Work Group was to complete its strategies report
and recommendations on the same timetable.
Also in April 2002, Mr. Lee continued, OEJ was to
provide a document that sets forth uniform
procedures for the operation of subcommittees. He
explained that the draft strategic plan ofthe NEJAC
identifies five elements that are key to the successful
operation ofthe subcommittees and work groups of
the NEJAC: leadership; membership; the role of
DFOs; support from and communication with EPA
program offices; and development of strategic goals
and plans. Recognizing that there are significant
differences among the subcommittees ofthe NEJAC
with respect to the five elements of success, OEJ, in
consultation with the NEJAC, will develop
procedures that will provide an operational baseline
for all subcommittees and work groups, explained
Mr. Lee. In developing the procedures, he added,
the NEJAC, in consultation with the OEJ and
relevant EPA program offices, was to develop a
process for evaluating the effectiveness of the
subcommittees ofthe NEJAC. Ms. Shepard would
lead that initiative, said Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lee identified a series of tasks and provided
assignments to members ofthe NEJAC to complete
these tasks. The tasks are:
Finalization of NEJAC Policy Advice
Development Model
1-14
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Finalization of NEJAC Model for Incorporation
Community Issues and Concerns into NEJAC
Policy Dialogue
Development of a definition of consensus and
consensus-building
Scoping report from Ad Hoc Scoping Work
Group on Cumulative Risk Issue
Continuing, Mr. Lee stated that the NEJAC also
would complete its work on the above tasks by June
30, 2002.
Mr. Lee explained that, as prescribed in the draft
strategic plan of the NEJAC, the subcommittees of
the NEJAC were to be asked to prepare annual
strategic plans and progress reports to be submitted
to the Executive Council of the NEJAC, OEJ, and the
appropriate EPA program offices. He said that each
subcommittee should submit a new or revised
strategic plan to OEJ by September 30, 2002.
Progress reports, he continued, would be due each
year at least 30 days before each meeting of the
NEJAC. The progress reports should describe in
detail the subcommittee's progress in meeting the
goals stated in its strategic plan, he noted.
Finally, Mr. Lee stated that the next meeting of the
NEJAC was to be held in Baltimore, Maryland in
December 2002. The issue that the NEJAC would
be asked to consider and provide recommendations
about during that meeting, he announced, was to be:
"How can EPA promote innovative pollution
prevention approaches to ensure a clean
and healthy environment and improve the
quality of life for all people, including low-
income communities, minority communities,
and Tribes?"
Ms. Home asked how the reports, procedures, and
processes developed for implementation of the
strategic plan were to be incorporated into the
current document. She also noted some ambiguities
in the language of the current version of the
document, asking whether it would be possible to
amend the current text. Mr. Lee responded that
suggested revisions of the text and the products
developed for implementation over the time period
covered by the plan would be incorporated into a
revised document after December 2002.
Returning his attention to the implementation of
public participation at the regional level, Mr. Lee
stated that OEJ is developing a process that EPA
regional offices can implement in hosting listening
sessions. He stated that many questions must
considered during development of the process,
including:
Who should be invited to participate
How the various regions can integrate the
listening sessions into their regional plans
Whether sub-regional meetings should be
conducted, when appropriate
Mr. Lee then stated that, once a draft strategy for
conducting the regional sessions has been
formulated by OEJ, in conjunction with the EPA
regional offices, OEJ was to provide a report to the
NEJAC. He stated that the NEJAC then would
advise EPA about the implementation of the strategy
for the regional listening sessions and provide the
agency recommendations about that effort.
Ms. Stahl suggested that members of the NEJAC
should be able to work directly with the regional
offices of EPA to engage in the regional listening
sessions, noting that the Executive Council could
glean many "lessons learned" from the public
comment period process. She also commented that
the members of the NEJAC perhaps could confer
with EPA regional administrators during a meeting of
the NEJAC.
Dr. Richard Gragg, III, Florida A&M University and
member of the Health and Research Subcommittee,
commented that the public also should have the
opportunity to provide comments on the process for
conducting regional listening sessions.
Ms. Eady expressed her belief that the listening
sessions would be a useful addition to EPA's
strategy for increasing public participation. However,
she also expressed concern that the sessions would
not lead to action by the EPA regional offices,
pointing out that, in the past, citizens often had
traveled to address the NEJAC only after regional
authorities ignored them. She also expressed
concern that the NEJAC would not be able to
monitor the activities of 10 EPA regions. Ms.
Shepard responded that communities still would
have the opportunity to address the NEJAC during
public comment periods. Ms. Shepard agreed,
however, that reporting to the NEJAC about the
progress of the listening sessions would be an
important issue to be considered during the
development of the process for those sessions.
1-15
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
5.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations and
reports made to the Executive Council of the NEJAC.
5.1 Update on the Interagency Environmental
Justice Implementation Work Group
Ms. Guana provided an overview of the draft
document, The National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council's Report on Integration of
Environmental Justice in Federal Agency Programs.
That document was developed by the Interagency
Environmental Justice Implementation Work Group
to present information about the progress of the
federal government in integrating environmental
justice into the policies, programs, and activities of its
agencies in a manner consistent with the provisions
of existing laws and Executive Order 12898. The
draft report, she explained, provides an analysis of
information presented during the December 2000
meeting of the NEJAC, which had been held in
Arlington, Virginia.
Ms. Guana reported further that the work group
faced particular challenges in developing
recommendations for EPA about interagency
implementation on the basis of the panel discussions
heard during the December 2000 meeting. She said
that the policy issue related to interagency
implementation is broad. Many of the presentations,
she continued, did not provide complete descriptions
of the pertinent activities of agencies because the
presentations, of necessity, were limited in length.
Some individuals, Ms. Guana explained further,
made very general presentations that failed to
provide specific information. Although other
presenters provided a few, very specific examples of
an agency's activities, time limitations prevented
them from providing details about those activities,
she added.
The work group faced another challenge in
organizing the report, continued Ms. Guana.
Different agencies have different missions and work
under completely different legal authorities, she
explained. She pointed out that it was problematic
for the work group to present the report in a way that
could capture that diversity without inviting
comparisons that may be unfair, given the differing
activities and legal authorities of the various
agencies of the federal government.
Continuing, Ms. Guana stated that a third challenge
that the work group faced in developing the report
was that they could not verify independently that
agencies were doing what they said they would be
doing or to evaluate the effectiveness of the efforts
of the agencies.
To meet those challenges, said Ms. Guana, the
members of the work group drew on various
additional sources in an attempt to obtain more
complete information about the actions of federal
agencies. Such sources, she noted, included the
web sites of the various agencies. She pointed out
that the sources were not independently verified
sources, a circumstance that introduced yet another
limitation on the information included in the report.
Discussing the structure of the report, Ms. Guana
stated that, to provide a legal context for the
discussion of the activities of the agencies, the report
began with a discussion of legal authorities. She
noted that the discussion of legal authorities was
limited principally to those authorities granted the
various agencies under environmental statutes.
However, she noted, many agencies have authorities
under other statutes. To her knowledge, she said,
the agencies have not performed a systematic study
of all their legal authorities within the context of
environmental justice. Therefore, she reported, in its
report, the work group had recommended to the
NEJAC that the NEJAC advise EPA to request each
federal agency to undertake a review of all its legal
authorities.
Ms. Guana then pointed out that the report also
included information about legal developments that
had taken place since the December 2000 meeting
and the potential implications of such developments
for the environmental justice movement. She cited
the Supreme Court decision in the Sandoval case in
which a divided court said the Civil Rights Act of
1964 does not authorize private lawsuits that
contend state government policies have a
discriminatory effect. Title VI of the act allows a suit
only if litigants can prove discrimination was
intentional, the court ruled.
Continuing, Ms. Guana noted that the work group
had organized the report in a mannerthat would alert
the reader to the differences among agencies in
terms of their potential for exerting influence on
environmental issues and their varying levels of legal
authority. The report includes a table that
categorizes the agencies by the nature of their
activities, she added. Continuing, she explained that
the work group also made an effort to convey an
understanding of the types of activities in which the
various agencies are engaged, including an analysis
of activities the various agencies have in common.
1-16
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Concluding her remarks, Ms. Guana stated that the
intent of the report was to provide the reader with a
complete and fair picture, or "baseline snapshot," of
the actions in which the various agencies currently
are engaged. The report, she suggested, therefore
can be used in the future to measure progress in
integrating environmental justice into the policies,
programs, and activities of the agencies. She added
that the report could be helpful to the agencies
themselves by providing information about the
activities of sister agencies in areas of common
interest that may assist them in determining how
they can address environmental concerns related to
their own missions. Ms. Guana then stated that the
work group welcomes suggestions and comments
from the members of the NEJAC about
strengthening the report and making it more useful to
EPA and other federal agencies.
Ms. Walker suggested that a representative of the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee be invited to
participate in preparing the final report. She stated
that the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee had
made several recommendations to the work group
as the report was being drafted; she noted that those
recommendations had not been included in the
report. Ms. Guana responded that the work group
had focused first on the organization of the
information in the report. She added that the work
group would be interested in reviewing the
recommendations of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee and incorporating those suggestions
into the final report.
Ms. Stahl expressed her understanding that all the
subcommittees had provided recommendations
during the planning stages of the report. She
suggested that the recommendations of all the
subcommittees be reviewed as the final report is
prepared.
Ms. Walker then asked when the final report was
expected to be available. Mr. Lee responded that
the final report was to be completed and distributed
in March or April 2002.
5.2 Report on the Community-Based Health
Research Model
Mr. Lee provided an update on the status of the
report on the community-based health research
model that the NEJAC had undertaken to develop.
He reminded the participants in the meeting that, in
response to issues discussed during the meeting of
the NEJAC in Atlanta, Georgia, in May 2000, a 20-
member work group, made up of members of the
NEJAC and representatives of HHS and EPA, had
been formed to develop such a model. The final
report of that work group had been distributed to the
Executive Council in early 2001, he added.
Mr. Lee explained that a primary theme of
community-based health research models was the
need for interagency collaboration. To provide a
meaningful response to the recommendations set
forth in the health report, EPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD), in collaboration with OEJ
and EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances (OPPTS), had developed a
strategy for interagency collaboration in the area of
community-based health research. The strategy,
continued Mr. Lee, had been forwarded to the office
of the EPA Administrator for review. He stated that
he expected a response from the Administrator in the
near future. That expectation expressed, Mr. Lee
then tabled discussion of the proposed strategy,
pending receipt of that response.
5.3 Update on the Federal Facilities Work Group
Mr. Brandon Carter, EPA Federal Facilities
Restoration and Reuse Office and DFO of the
Federal Facilities Work Group of the NEJAC,
provided an update on the activities of the work
group.
Mr. Carter explained that the task of the work group
is to identify and evaluate key issues related to the
activities and operations of federal facilities that are
of concern to environmental justice communities.
The objectives of the work group, he stated, are to:
Formulate national policy recommendations to
address such concerns
Provide a forum for the conduct of dialogue
communities
Compile a list of resources available to
communities and stakeholders
Produce a written report that summarizes the
findings and recommendations ofthe workgroup
Mr. Carter stated that the work group had begun
reviewing case studies in January 2001 to identify
the key issues related to federal facilities that are of
concern to environmental justice communities and to
gather information that could serve as a basis for the
development of the work group's policy
recommendations. He noted that work group also
evaluated the effectiveness of previous policy
recommendations made by various other federal
advisory committees. He also noted that, during the
1-17
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
meeting of the NEJAC in December 2000, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department
of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI) had signed a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) that ensured their cooperation
with the Federal Facilities Work Group and assigned
staff members to collaborate with the work group.
Mr. Carter then announced that the work group
expects to submit a final report to the NEJAC before
the December 2002 meeting of the NEJAC to be
held in Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. Lee reported that
the NEJAC Federal Facilities Work Group will work
in coordination with and report to the NEJAC Waste
and Facility Siting Subcommittee. This will improve
coordination between EPA and the NEJAC because
the primary support being provided to this work
group is being provided by the OSWER, which also
supports the NEJAC Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee. OSWER has committed to adding
another member to the subcommittee to provide
interface with the work group, he said.
Ms. Subra asked whether the working group was to
evaluate the level of consistency between cleanup
efforts at federal facilities and those at other cleanup
sites, such as Superfund sites. Mr. Carter
responded that the work group was reviewing case
studies from a representative sample of various
types of sites, including a formerly used defense site
(FUDS), a base realignment and closure (BRAC)
site) site, and a DOE site. The work group, he
stated, would compare the principles and
recommendations that are being implemented bythe
various authorities. Mr. Carter added, however, that
such a comparison is difficult because the authorities
that regulate how and by whom sites are cleaned up
differ significantly.
Mr. Subra then asked whether the work group had
considered the possibility that inactive federal
facilities currently undergoing cleanup will be
reactivated in response to the terrorist attacks of
September 11,2001. She asked whether it would be
necessary to complete cleanup at a site before new
activities could begin. Mr. Carter responded that
sites that have been identified by Congress under
the BRAC Program would not reopen because those
properties are to be transferred out of the ownership
of the DoD. Other sites that are put on standby by
the federal government could be reactivated, he
noted. Many sites on the National Priority List (NPL),
a list of national priorities for sites with known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, are
active facilities that continue to operate while
undergoing cleanup, explained Mr. Carter.
Ms. Stahl reminded Mr. Carter and the members of
the Executive Councilthatthe Environmental Council
of States (ECOS) also had provided
recommendations to the EPA Administrator through
resolution. Ms. Stahl suggested that, as it develops
its report, the work group draw on staff of ECOS as
a resource.
Ms. Eady asked whether the work group was to
address the recurring issue of the determination of
the lead agency when more than one federal agency
has legal authority over cleanup of a federal facility.
Mr. Carter responded that the work group planned to
address the issue, commenting that issues related to
the authority of the lead agency and that of EPA
authority under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan (NCP)
are "implicit in the issues related to federal facility
sites."
Ms. Subra pointed out that one issue linked to
federal facilities with increasing frequency over the
past few years is contamination with perchlorate, a
soluble oxidating agent used in the manufacture of
explosives. Ms. Subra asked Mr. Carter whether, in
its report, the work group would address specifically
issues related to perchlorate. Mr. Carter responded
that the report was not intended to address issues
related to specific contaminants or implementation of
measures to address such specific contaminants
under cleanup programs. However, he continued,
EPA currently is developing a new maximum
concentration level (MCL) for perchlorate. He then
agreed to provide the Executive Council of the
NEJAC updates on the status of the development of
the MCL.
Dr. Gragg asked whether the report would identify
the number of communities that may be affected
directly by environmental conditions at federal
facilities and the status of cleanup efforts at the
facilities identified. Mr. Carter responded that the
work group had examined the possibility of
cataloguing environmental justice communities that
are located at or near federal facility sites but had
discontinued the effort because of constraints
imposed by limitations on resources. Instead, the
work group decided to focus the report on the
implementation of cleanup programs at federal
facilities, he said. Mr. Carter added that the work
group would be able to identify the total number of
federal facility sites.
Ms. Mary Nelson, Bethel New Life and member of
the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee,
commented that, to ensure that contamination does
1-18
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
not reoccur at cleanup sites, standards for
prevention should be included in the report.
Mr. Lee commented that lessons learned from
several positive developments in the cleanup of
federal facilities could be incorporated into the report.
For example, he said, the cleanup and restoration of
the Metlakatla Indian community of Metlakatla,
Alaska, an environmental justice and national
Brownfields showcase community, successfully
involved DoD, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). He also
mentioned the success of Bridges to Friendship, an
environmental justice demonstration project
underway at the Washington Navy Yard in southeast
Washington, D.C. Mr. Lee noted that the progress
such efforts illustrate is significant.
5.4 Update on the Pollution Prevention Work
Group
Ms. Subra, co-chair of the newly formed Pollution
Prevention WorkGroup, provided a brief overview of
the preliminary objectives of that work group.
Ms. Subra stated that the primary objective of the
work group would be to evaluate how existing
technologies, mechanisms, and programs for
pollution prevention can be implemented in
environmental justice communities to improve the
quality of the environments of those communities. In
light of information presented by the Fish
Consumption Work Group, she said, her work group
will consider how pollution prevention efforts can
reduce contamination of aquatic environments.
Continuing, Ms. Subra reported that the working
group also would investigate mechanisms for
measuring the effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures.
Ms. Subra informed the members of the Executive
Council that she and Mr. Warren, co-chairs of the
working group, were to submit to EPA a list of
potential members of the work group before the end
of 2001. She requested that the members of the
Executive Council submit names of suggested
members of the work group to her and Mr. Warren.
Mr. Barry E. Hill, Director, EPA OEJ, added that the
members of the Executive Council also should
recommend to EPA consultants that have
experience in pollution prevention.
Ms. Walker requested that a representative of the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee be appointed to
serve on the work group. She also asked that the
work group consider whether an evaluation of the
issue of the "precautionary principle" would be
appropriate in light of the objectives of the work
group.
Ms. Jaramillo suggested that the work group also
evaluate the cost and benefits of environmental
restoration, clean production, and low-impact
development.
Mr. Suagee reported that his clinic currently is
working with three tribes to develop tribal
environmental policy and acts, specifically by
creating an environmental review process for the
tribes. The purpose of the effort, he explained, is to
avoid pollution and other environmental degradation
that might arise as a result of economic
development. Mr. Suagee then volunteered to
participate on the work group.
Ms. Eady noted that there are several valuable
resources in the state of Massachusetts, including
the Toxicities Reduction Institute and the Center for
Sustainable Production. She volunteered to suggest
some individuals representing those organizations as
potential members of the Pollution Prevention Work
Group.
Dr. Gragg suggested that the work group also
consider pollution prevention at DOE and DoD
facilities.
Mr. Larry Charles, ONE/CHANE and member of the
International Subcommittee, specifically asked that
Ms. Dianne Wilkins, Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality be selected to represent the
International Subcommittee on the Pollution
Prevention Work Group.
5.5 Briefing on the Cumulative Risk Technical
Panel of the EPA Risk Assessment Forum
Mr. Lee introduced Mr. Martin Halper, EPA OEJ, to
provide an overview of the current draft Framework
for Cumulative Risk Assessment prepared by the
Cumulative Risk Technical Panel of the EPA Risk
Assessment Forum, a standing committee of senior
EPA scientists. The purpose of this briefing is to
help NEJAC prepare to address the policy issue area
for 2003, which is slated to be cumulative risk.
Mr. Halper explained that the framework document
was developed to provide a basic structure and
definition of key principles for EPA's cumulative risk
assessments. In the future, he said, the framework
document will be used as a foundation for
comprehensive guidance for cumulative risk
assessment. Mr. Halper noted that, in some cases,
concepts introduced in the framework document
1-19
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
require the application and knowledge of methods
that currently are not available. Therefore, he
continued, the document also outlines research and
development needs that must be met to support
evaluation of cumulative risks.
Mr. Halper singled out two elements of the
framework document that he considered particularly
significant to the environmental justice movement.
First, he said, the chapter on planning, scoping, and
formulation of problems requires that public officials,
experts on risk, community leaders, and interested
and affected parties seek agreement on the purpose,
scope, and approach for the risk assessment
through extensive dialogue before the assessment
begins. Second, he continued, the framework
document addresses the concepts of the
vulnerability, and specifically the susceptibility, of a
population as important factors in the assessment of
cumulative risk. Mr. Halper explained that a
vulnerable population is a population at increased
risk of adverse effect. The concept, he explained
further, includes individuals or sensitive subgroups
that may be highly susceptible to risk because of a
number of possible factors, such as stage of life,
prior exposure, or existing state of disease.
Mr. Halperthen stated that the framework document,
which includes traditional quantitative considerations,
as well as qualitative considerations, has the
potential to affect the ways in which EPA and other
federal agencies operate.
Continuing, Mr. Halper stated that, in general, the
framework document has been applauded
universally. He then said that a full peer review of
the document was to be conducted in the fall of
2002. After the framework document is final, he
continued, the first steps in the development of a
formal guidance document will include the
development of new studies and the evaluation of
existing studies that can be used as case studies
and the testing of some of the concepts of
cumulative risk assessment identified in the case
studies. He added that the development of the
guidance document would take approximately two
years.
Ms. Guana asked whether the framework document
addresses the concept of peak periods of exposure
as a qualitative consideration in cumulative risk
assessment. She also asked whetherthe framework
document identifies an optimal geographic scale at
which to assess cumulative risk, noting that an
assessment of only large-scale exposures might
mask the effects of a number of small sources of
exposure.
Mr. Halper reminded the members ofthe NEJACthat
the framework document is not a guidance
document. Therefore, specific methods for
evaluating peak-period exposures and determining
the optimal geographic scale for a risk assessment
are not included in the document, he said. However,
he continued, the framework document does point
out that the duration and geographic scale of
exposure are important considerations that should
be included in a cumulative risk assessment. He
added that such considerations can be site-specific
and should be discussed by all stakeholders during
the planning and scoping phase of a cumulative risk
assessment.
Calling attention to the preface of the framework
document, Mr. Suagee pointed out that tribes had
not been included in the extensive peer review ofthe
document. He stressed that tribal peoples should be
involved in the review process. Dr. Gragg noted that
the list of reviewers in the preface did not appear to
include representatives of environmental justice
communities or other affected groups. Mr. Halper
responded that those groups would be included in
the formal peer review process. Mr. Lee also
stressed to Mr. Halper that the experiences and
expertise of the members of the NEJAC and their
relationships with tribes, environmental justice
communities, states, and other entities make the
members important and valuable resources for the
panel in developing the framework document and
future guidance documents on cumulative risk
assessment.
Mr. Lee noted that the NEJAC Ad Hoc Scoping Work
Group is being asked to address two questions in
preparation for addressing the cumulative risk issue.
The questions will address:
What are some focused approaches (specific
definitions, conceptual frameworks, questions,
methodologies, areas, etc.) to the issue of
cumulative risks (and impacts) that will make a
significant contribution at this time to addressing
environmental justice concerns related to the
issue?
How can the NEJAC make best use of its own
capacities (membership, constituencies,
outreach and deliberative processes, knowledge
base, etc.) to address the issue of cumulative
risks (and impacts)?
Dr. Gragg asked whether the framework document
addresses the issue ofthe "precautionary principle"
as a strategy for risk management. Mr. Halper
responded that the document does not discuss
1-20
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
principles of risk management, but rather addresses
issues and considerations that are important in
evaluating cumulative risk.
Ms. Shepard asked about the implications of the
document for state permitting programs. She asked
whether state environmental quality review acts or
new legislation that specifically identifies cumulative
risk as a required consideration would be necessary
before the concepts presented in the framework
document could influence state permitting
processes. In response, Mr. Halper expressed his
belief that the document will provide an impetus to
the adoption of the concept of cumulative risk in the
approach to assessment.
5.6 Update on the Implementation of Permitting
Recommendations
Mr. Hill made a presentation on the status of EPA's
implementation of recommendations made in the
report of the Environmental Law Institute (ELI)
"Opportunities for Advancing Environmental Justice:
An Analysis of U.S. EPA Statutory Authorities." The
ELI report reviews the principal environmental
regulations of EPA) that govern maintenance of air
and water quality, management of waste, regulation
of the use of pesticides and chemicals, and
fulfillment of public right-to-know legislation, reported
Mr. Hill. The report also identifies specific statutory
authorities for promoting environmental justice in the
full range of EPA program functions, including
permitting and the setting of standards, he said.
Mr. Hill then described the context in which the ELI
report was developed. He first shared an
observation of one of the framers of the Constitution
of the United States, "This is a government of laws
and not of men". Therefore, observed Mr. Hill, if
there is no law, there can be no regulations.
Because there is no stand-alone federal
environmental justice statute, he continued,
supporters of the environmental justice movement
must look at the existing laws and implementing
regulations to determine whether and how
environmental justice is in fact embedded in those
laws.
Continuing, Mr. Hill noted that, to integrate the
concept of environmental justice into the regulatory
process, supporters of environmental justice must
answer two questions:
"What is the legal authority?"
"Assuming the legal authority exists, how can
environmental justice be incorporated
administratively into permitting programs?"
Mr. Hill then presented the five steps necessary to
incorporate environmental justice into EPA's
regulatory process. The starting point, he said, is the
advice and recommendations of the NEJAC. In
response to discussions that took place at its 1999
meeting, he continued, the NEJAC had issued a
report in July 2000 that focused on permitting
authorities under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and
the Clean Water Act (CWA). In that report, he said,
the NEJAC had recommended that EPA examine all
the statutes under which it exercises regulatory
authority to determine whether the legal authority to
incorporate environmental justice into the agency's
regulations is embedded in those statutes.
Continuing, Mr. Hill stated that the next step in
incorporating environmental justice into EPA's
regulatory process is legal analysis of existing
statutes, as recommended by the NEJAC, and
evaluation of how environmental justice can be
incorporated in EPA's regulatory process from an
administrative point of view. At the request of OEJ,
ELI had performed a legal analysis, Mr. Hill
explained, examining every statute underwhich EPA
exercises authority, to identify opportunities to use
existing statutory authorities to advance
environmenta. ustice. He also noted that, in
December 2000, Mr. Gary Guzzi, EPA Office of
General Counsel, had issued a memorandum that
stated that environmental justice indeed is
embedded in existing laws and implementing
regulations. Therefore, there is no need for a stand-
alone environmental justice statute, declared Mr. Hill.
With regard to the incorporation of environmental
justice from an administrative point of view, Mr. Hill
stated that OEJ had asked the National Academy of
Public Administrators (NAPA) to evauate how
environmental justice might be incor orated into the
permitting process under RCRA, th CWA, and the
CAA. Mr. Hill then announced that, after his
presentation, Ms. Ann Goode, senior consultant for
NAPA, was to discuss the findings of that
organization's evaluation.
The third step, Mr. Hill continued, is training. A
training collaborative made up of representatives of
EPA headquarters, EPA regional offices, industry,
and community groups has been convened to
develop a basic course on environmental justice that
reflects recommendations made in the ELI and
NAPA reports, he said. Further, EPA will develop
1-21
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
CAA and CWA training modules targeted to federal
and state permit writers. The modules will train
those individuals in integrating considerations of
environmental justice into state and federal permits.
Mr. Hill then said that, after training has been
provided, the next step is implementation. EPA OEJ
would work with senior managers at EPA and EPA's
Environmental Justice Steering Committee to
implement environmental justice, as recommended
in the ELI and NAPA reports, into their daily work
under the authority provided by existing laws, he
said.
Mr. Hill stated that the last step is evaluation. The
EPA Inspector General will be asked to evaluate all
programs for success in integrating environmental
justice, as outlined in the NAPA and ELI reports, he
said.
Ms. Ann Goode then gave a presentation on NAPA's
research and evaluation of EPA's efforts to address
the widely recognized fact that some communities of
low-income people and people of color are exposed
to significantly greater environmental and public
health hazards that other communities. NAPA's
research and associated recommendations are
presented in the report "Environmental Justice in
EPA Permitting: Reducing Pollution in High-Risk
Communities is Integral to the Agency's Mission,"
she said.
Ms. Goode then explained that NAPA, an
independent nonprofit organization that was
chartered by Congress in 1967, is made up of some
500 fellows, including former members of Congress,
leaders of nonprofit organizations and local
government officials. Specifically, she said, NAPA
was asked to prepare a report that would help the
public better understand how considerations of
environmental justice can be incorporated into the
permitting process under RCRA, the CWA, and the
CAA.
Ms. Goode stated that, in the report, NAPA
recommended to EPA that changes be made in four
distinct areas related to environmental justice:
leadership, permitting procedures, setting of
priorities, and public participation.
In the area of EPA's leadership in integrating
environmental justice into permitting processes, Ms.
Goode stated that President Clinton's Executive
Order 12898 on environmental justice, as well as the
policy statement Administrator Christine Todd
Whitman issued to EPA assistant administrators on
August 9,2001 and statements made by former EPA
administrators, clearly articulated a commitment to
environmental justice. However, despite the
commitment of senior EPA leadership and, in many
cases, allocation of substantial resources to the
effort, Ms. Goode said, environmental justice has not
yet been integrated fully into the agency's core
mission or staff functions. There remains a
"disconnect" between policy pronouncements and
program realities, she added, although EPA has
significant statutory and regulatory authority, as well
as numerous opportunities to exercise discretion to
incorporate considerations of environmental justice
into its permitting processes, she added. Specific
expectations for outcomes have not accompanied
the commitments made, she continued, nor has EPA
adopted methods of measuring progress in achieving
outcomes or accountability to ensure that EPA
managers and staff work to implement policies
related to environmental justice.
Ms. Goode stated that NAPA's recommendations for
EPA leadership in the area of integrating
considerations of environmental justice into the
agency's permitting processes are:
Building on the EPA Administrator's recent
environmental justice memorandum, EPA's
assistant administrators for air, water, and waste
and EPA's regional administrators should
reinforce the importance of the policy on the
incorporation of considerations of environmental
justice, the role of that policy in the
accomplishment of EPA's core mission, and the
expectation that managers and staff will
implement consideration of environmental justice
in their projects and activities.
EPA should complete its draft national guidance
on environmental justice and develop practical
tools that permit writers can use to identify and
address issues of environmental justice related
to air, water, and waste permits.
EPA's offices of Air and Radiation, Water, and
Solid Waste and Emergency Response should
develop strategic plans that demonstrate how
environmental justice is to be integrated into the
substance and procedures of their permitting
programs. Further, they should explore carefully
ways in which they can use the authorities set
forth in the General Counsel's legal opinion
dated December 1, 2001 to incorporate
considerations of environmental justice into
permits for new and ongoing projects.
Each strategic plan for incorporating
environmental justice into a permitting program
1-22
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
should specify goals, measures of
performance, expected outcomes,
mechanisms for measuring accountability,
and time frames for meeting the goals set
forth in the plan.
EPA should establish an accountability process
that includes clear measures of performance for
evaluating the success of EPA managers and
staff in incorporating considerations of
environmental justice into air, water, and waste
permits.
EPA should identify disproportionately affected
and other adversely affected communities and
establish explicit goals for reducing the risks
posed to such communities. Further, EPA
should set clear expectations for producing
results that are linked directly to the agency's
mission and give staff an important measure of
performance that the staff can support whole-
heartedly. Such tasks also could provide
measures of EPA's progress in implementing
environmental justice and could be reinforced by
agency wide reporting thattracks such progress.
EPA should develop a communication
mechanism for agency wide sharing of
information about tools that are effective in
addressing environmental justice, including
descriptions of best practices and lessons that
all media programs, regional offices, and states
can learn. The mechanism should coordinate
EPA's activities in incorporating considerations
of environmental justice into permitting
processes, so that permit writers in all EPA's
media programs and EPA regional offices can
become more effective and efficient in
responding to concerns related to environmental
justice.
EPA should evaluate the effectiveness of its
national workshop on Fundamentals of
Environmental Justice to determine how well the
workshop meets its intended objectives,
including the effective implementation of
environmental justice in permitting.
EPA should develop a program for rewarding the
extra efforts of employees in addressing
environmental justice in permitting through
recognition under existing national awards
programs and through the development of
additional recognition programs.
Turning to a discussion of opportunities for
integrating considerations of environmental justice
into individual permitting programs, Ms. Goode
explained that a recent legal opinion issued by EPA's
Office of General Counsel (OGC) made it clear that
the CAA, the CWA, and RCRA provide permitting
staff ample authority to address the concerns of
high-risk communities when developing the terms
and conditions of individual permits. The EPA
Administrator reaffirmed that opinion in her August 9,
2001, memorandum to senior EPA officials, she said.
However, EPA managers have not made it routine
procedure to provide their permitting staff with
straightforward, practical tools and procedures for
incorporating community concerns into permits, nor
have they directed that staff to ensure that concerns
related to environmental justice are considered
systematically in the conduct of EPA's permitting
programs, continued Ms. Goode. Further, many
EPA permit writers have not been provided the
opportunity to learn how they can contribute to the
resolution of issues related to environmental justice
through an increased awareness of the community
that may be affected by a proposed permit. Such
awareness, said Ms. Goode, would include
consideration of the nature of the risks the
community faces; the concerns of the community
about the activity related to the proposed permit, the
capacity of the community to participate in the
permitting process, and the best methods of
communicating with the community.
Continuing, Ms. Goode pointed out that, because
EPA's legal authority to issue permits is based on
the provisions of RCRA, the CAA, and the CWA,
EPA's ability to address other common concerns
among high-risk communities, such as noise
pollution, traffic concerns, and odor, is limited. She
also explained that, in the area of permitting
programs, EPA's credibility in high-risk communities
depends upon its ability to visibly use opportunities
for enforcing permit conditions, including more
frequent inspections, local monitoring of
environmental conditions, and reductions in backlogs
of permit renewals for existing facilities.
Ms. Goode stated that NAPA's recommendations to
EPA in the area of integrating considerations of
environmental justice into individual permitting
programs are:
Senior program managers of EPA's air, water,
and waste programs should take prompt steps to
use their authorities, as outlined in the legal
opinion issued by OGC, to prepare guidance
documents for staff on how to fully incorporate
considerations of environmental justice into their
permitting programs. The managers should
develop these documents after consulting with
1-23
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
representatives of affected communities and
regulated entities. The programs also
should use legal mandates and
discretionary authorities to the fullest extent
possible to expand opportunities for public
participation in permitting programs;
increase monitoring and public reporting;
and impose in new, revised, and renewed
permits conditions designed to reduce the
burdens of pollution and public health
hazards on disproportionately affected
communities.
Intheshortterm, EPAshoulddeterminewhether
it can provide communities with earlier notice of
permit applications so that the public will have a
better opportunity to interact directly with EPA's
permit writers and the community's concerns
can be considered during the drafting and
negotiating stages of the permitting process.
Over the long term, EPA should revise its
permitting regulations to ensure that nearby
communities are notified of a permit application
as early as possible.
EPA should revise its public notification
practices to ensure that public notices are
provided in languages commonly spoken in the
affected communities and placed in libraries,
churches, community centers, and other
locations accessible to members of those
communities.
EPA managers should provide permit writers
with check lists or similar tools the permit writers
can use in identifying and considering concerns
related to environmental justice.
EPA budget and administrative staff should
recognize the additional time and effort that
permit writers must devote to developing permit
conditions that take into account issues of
environmental justice and to working more
closely with community groups. The agency's
workload models should be adjusted as
appropriate to indicate the average number of
permits to be handled by a permit writer in light
of such additional effort.
Continuing her overview of the NAPA evaluation, Ms.
Goode discussed NAPA's findings related to EPA's
use of permitting as a strategic element in pollution
prevention and risk reduction. She stated that EPA
had undertaken efforts to improve the science of
cumulative risk assessment so that more tools are
available to better assess disproportionate and
adverse effects on communities. However, while
waiting for advances in the science of cumulative risk
assessment, she explained, EPA and states
currently have several tools available to support
analysis of exposures of disproportionately affected
communities to actual or potential multiple pollutants.
She also said that EPA could perform more frequent
and comprehensive environmental monitoring in
communities to determine whether those
communities should be given priority attention.
Ms. Goode stated that NAPA's recommendations to
EPA in the area of the use of permitting as a
strategic element in pollution prevention and risk
reduction are:
EPA should consult with state and local health
and environmental officials to address concerns
related to environmental justice and identify
high-priority communities in which residents are
exposed to disproportionately high levels of
pollution.
EPA should evaluate tools that have been
developed by its regional and program offices,
such as the Office of Policy, the Office of Civil
Rights, and OEJ. EPA should identify among
those tools potential best practices the Agency
can recommend when it develops practical
guidance documents to assist permitting staff in
incorporating considerations of environmental
justice into EPA permits nationwide.
Referring to improvement by EPA in increasing
public participation in the permitting process, Ms.
Goode stated that the Agency had experimented
with various techniques for enhancing public
participation. The techniques, however, she noted,
have not yet been made standard operating
procedure for EPA's permitting processes in the air,
water, and waste programs. Ms. Goode then stated
that NAPA's recommendations to EPA in the area of
the use of permitting as a strategic element in
pollution prevention are:
EPA should expand its Technical Assistance
Grant (TAG) and Technical Outreach Services
forCommunities(TOSC) programs to offer more
timely and accessible technical assistance to
communities that need such support.
Using its discretionary authority, EPA should
adopt procedures for providing early notice to
communities once permit applications have been
completed. Such notices should provide the
name of an Agency community liaison and solicit
comments from the community before the
1-24
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Agency negotiates the terms and conditions
of a permit.
Concluding her remarks, Ms. Goode stated that OEJ
also had asked NAPA to next evaluate three state
permitting programs. She commented that, while
EPA itself performs relatively little permitting
compared with the states, EPA could serve as a
model for state permitting programs.
Mr. Hill added that the states selected for NAPA's
evaluation would fall into the following categories: (1)
a state that has passed or enacted environmental
justice legislation; (2) a state that has issued an
official statement that environmental justice is a
policy issue; and (3) a state that has established an
environmental justice commission or a body similar
to the NEJAC. He explained that the purpose of
evaluating states that fall into those categories is to
demonstrate how such states can serve as models
for their sister states.
Ms. Stahl expressed her belief that the next step
should be development of the guidelines and
standards to be applied through the appropriate
authorities. She explained that, until standards have
been developed, permitting and enforcement
programs would not have the tools necessary to
apply the principles.
Ms. Subra commented that, in the area of public
participation, it is not sufficient to give communities
Exhibit 1-3
RETIRING MEMBERS OF THE
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
Ms. Rose Augustine
Ms. Elaine Barron
Ms. Daisy Carter
Mr. Fernando Cuevas
Ms. Denise Feiber
Dr. Michel Gelobter
Mr. Dan Greenbaum
Ms. Rita Harris
Ms. A. Caroline Hotaling
Ms. Jennifer Hill-Kelley
Ms. Savi Home
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo
Mr. Philip Lewis
Mr. Neftali Garcia Martinez
Ms. Zulene Mayfield
Mr. David Moore
Mr Carlos Porras
Mr. Leonard Robinson
Mr. Alberto Saldamando
Mr. Mervyn Tano
Mr. Michael Taylor
Ms. Marianne Yamaguchi
Ms. Shephard presents Ms. Home with a certificate of
appreciation for her years of service on the NEJAC.
1-25
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
the opportunity to comment. She stressed that there
is a real need, particularly in environmental justice
communities, for capacity building and access to
technical assistance. Ms. Subra said that the
community must understand what the rules are,
where the application violates the rule, and how a
community can ensure that such information is
entered into the record. Ms. Goode responded that
the NAPA report includes explicit recommendations
about increasing support for technical assistance for
communities.
6.0 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
6.1 Acknowledgments
Mr. Lee announced that OEJ would recognize and
honor members of the NEJAC whose terms were to
expire on December 31, 2001. Exhibit 1-3 presents
the names of the retiring members of the NEJAC.
Mr. Lee also commended the efforts of the DFOs of
the various subcommittees and work groups of the
NEJAC: Ms. Wendy Graham, Ms. Shirley Pate, Mr.
Will Wilson, Ms. Alice Walker, Mr. Rey Rivera, Mr.
Brandon Carter, Ms. Brenda Washington, Ms. Aretha
Brockett, Ms. Teresita Rodriguez, and Mr. Daniel
Gogal. He also thanked the staff of EPA Region 10,
including Ms. Joyce Kelly, Mr. Michael Letourneau,
Dr. Gragg suggested that the membership of the
Puerto Rico Subcommittee of the NEJAC be
expanded to include representatives from the Virgin
Islands. Dr. Gragg pointed out that other
dependencies ofthe United States, particularly those
that are islands, are faced with issues of
environmental justice. Ms. Home commented that
she strongly agreed with Dr. Gragg's suggestion. Dr.
Ramirez-Toro suggested that the recommendation
be communicated to EPA Region 2 office and the
Caribbean Field Office, noting that those offices
provide financial support for the Puerto Rico
Subcommittee.
Ms. Shepard stated that she would like to compile a
year-end report on the accomplishments of the
NEJAC during 2001. She asked that the chair of
each subcommittees e-mail a list of that
subcommittee's accomplishments to herself and Ms.
Marva King, NEJAC Program Manager, EPA OEJ,
by January 15, 2002.
Ms. Victoria Plata, and Ms. Ony Okorna, for their
support in coordination of the planning of the
meeting ofthe NEJAC with community groups in the
region.
Continuing, Mr. Lee recognized the efforts of the
staff of OEJ, especially Mr. Hill, Director of OEJ; Ms.
Linda K. Smith, Associate Director for Resources
Management, EPA OEJ; Marva E. King, NEJAC
Program Manager; and Ms. Jaime Song, OEJ Intern,
and thanked them for their hard work.
Ms. Jaramillo personally thanked Mr. Lee for his
efforts, stating that the meetings of the NEJAC
"could not happen" without his guidance. She then
thanked Ms. Shepard for her hard work and for her
leadership during the meeting ofthe NEJAC.
6.2 New Business
This section summarizes items of new business
discussed during the closing remarks of the
members of the Executive Council of the NEJAC.
Ms. Shepard stated that the items should be noted in
the record and would be discussed by the members
ofthe Executive Council in the future.
1-26
Seattle, Washington, December 3 through 6, 2001
------- |