NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE
ADVISORY COUNCIL (NEJAC)
MEETING SUMMARY
VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
i
-------
CONTENTS
PREFACE iv
1.0 NEJAC Meeting 1
1.1 Introductions & Opening Remarks 1
1.2 Opening Remarks & National Program Announcement 1
1.2.1 Robin Collin, Senior Advisor to the Administrator for Environmental Justice, U.S.
EPA 1
1.2.2 Marianne Engelman-Lado, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator (Acting) for
EJECR, U.S. EPA 2
1.2.3 Matthew Tejada, Deputy Assistant Administrator for EJ, EJECR, U.S. EPA 2
1.2.4 Lilian Dorka, Deputy Assistant Administrator for External Civil Rights, EJECR,
U.S. EPA 2
1.3 NEJAC Members Introduction 4
1.4 PFAS Workgroup Recommendations 4
1.5 Air Quality & Community Monitoring (AQCM) Workgroup Recommendations 6
1.6 Public Comment Period 8
1.7 Business Meeting 23
1.7.1 New Charge: Water Infrastructure Workgroup Technical Assistance Charge 23
1.7.1.1 Chitra Kumar, Director of the Office of Policy, Partnerships, and Program
Development, OEJECR, U.S. EPA 23
1.7.1.2 Jonathan Nelson, Senior Advisor for Technical Assistance and Community
Outreach, Office of Water, U.S. EPA 23
1.7.2 EPA Updates - 2023 Priorities 24
1.7.3 NEJAC Workgroup Updates 26
1.7.3.1 Farmworker Protection & Pesticides Workgroup 26
ii
-------
1.7.3.2 NEPA Workgroup 26
1.7.3.3 NEJAC Finance and Investment (Justice40) Workgroup 26
1.7.4 Upcoming Events 27
1.8 Closing Remarks & Adjourn 27
Appendix 1. Agenda 28
Appendix 2. September 2022 NEJAC Public Meeting Attendee List 30
iii
-------
PREFACE
The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) is a federal advisory committee
that was established by charter on September 30, 1993, to provide independent advice,
consultation, and recommendations to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on matters related to environmental justice.
As a federal advisory committee, NEJAC is governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) enacted on October 6, 1972. FACA provisions include the following requirements:
• Members must be selected and appointed by EPA.
• Members must attend and participate fully in meetings.
• Meetings must be open to the public, except as specified by the EPA Administrator.
• All meetings must be announced in the Federal Register.
• Public participation must be allowed at all public meetings.
• The public must be provided access to materials distributed during the meeting.
• Meeting minutes must be kept and made available to the public.
• A designated federal official (DFO) must be present at all meetings.
• The advisory committee must provide independent judgment that is not influenced by
special interest groups.
EPA's Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) maintains summary reports of all NEJAC
meetings, which are available on the NEJAC website at
https.VAvww. epa.gov/environmentaljustice/national-environmental-justice-advisory- council-
meetings. All meeting materials are posted in the public docket for this meeting. The public
docket number for this meeting is EPA-HQ-OA-2022-0053. The public docket is accessible via
www.regulations.gov under its docket number, EPA-HQ-OA-2022-0053.
iv
-------
Committee Members in Attendance
• Sylvia Orduno, Co-Chair, Michigan Welfare Rights Organization
• Na'Taki Osborne Jelks, PhD, Co-Chair, West Atlanta Watershed Alliance/Proctor Creek
• Michael Tilchin, Vice-Chair, Jacobs Engineering
• April Karen Baptiste, PhD, Colgate University
• Jan Marie Fritz, PhD, C.C.S, University of Cincinnati
• Jill Lindsey Harrison, PhD, University of Colorado Boulder
• Benjamin J. Pauli, PhD, Kettering University
• Rev. Dr. Ambrose Carroll, Sr., Green The Church
• Leticia Colon de Mejias, Green ECO Warriors
• Cemelli De Aztlan, La Mujer Obrera
• Yvonka M. Hall, Northeast Ohio Black Health Coalition
• Richard Mabion, Building A Sustainable Earth Community
• Nina McCoy, Martin County Concerned Citizens
• Andy Kricun, Moonshot Missions
• Ayako Nagano, JD, Common Vision
• Jacqueline D. Shirley, MPH, Rural Community Assistance Corporation
• Loren Hopkins, PhD, City of Houston Health Department
• Millie Piazza, PhD, Washington State Department of Ecology
• Joy Britt, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
• Scott Clow, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
• John Doyle, Little Big Horn College
v
-------
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
Virtual Public Meeting
September 28, 2022
MEETING SUMMARY
The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) convened via Zoom meeting on
Wednesday, September 28, 2022. This summary covers NEJAC members' deliberations during
the meeting and the issues raised during the public comment period.
1.0 NEJAC Meeting
This section summarizes NEJAC members' deliberations during the one-day meeting, including
action items, requests, and recommendations.
1.1 Introductions & Opening Remarks
Paula Flores-Gregg, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), U.S. EPA welcomed attendees and
made announcements. She stated that everyone is in listen-and-view mode only, and public
commenters are invited to speak later that afternoon. She noted that Spanish translation and
closed captioning are available. She turned the meeting over to Sylvia Orduno, the NEJAC co-
chair, for opening remarks.
Sylvia Orduno introduced herself and hoped that today's meeting continues to meet the goals of
the Council.
Na'Taki Osborne Jelks, PhD introduced herself. She stated that she is more hopeful and
committed to the cause because of the establishment of the new national office at the EPA to
advance environmental justice and civil rights. She stated that she's excited about the new tools
and levers and opportunities to systemically address issues that have plagued underserved and
environmentally overburdened and communities of color.
Michael Tilchin introduced himself and stated that he is excited about the direction that EPA is
taking in this work.
1.2 Opening Remarks & National Program Announcement
Co-Chair Orduno introduced the speakers from EPA.
1.2.1 Robin Collin, Senior Advisor to the Administrator for Environmental Justice, U.S.
EPA
Robin Collin stated that she is excited about the work to be done. She is thankful that the
administration has budgeted money to the program. She thanked NEJAC for their foresight and
commitment in righting injustices. EPA is listening to and learning from the NEJAC.
1
-------
1.2.2 Marianne Engelman-Lado, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator (Acting) for
EJECR, U.S. EPA
Marianne Engelman-Lado stated that she is looking forward to working with the NEJAC. She
shared information about the new program and the leadership's focus.
Ms. Engelman-Lado explained that EPA is combining three existing offices into a single, new,
national program office: the Office of Environmental Justice, the Civil Rights Compliance
Office, and Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center (CPRC). The new office is called the
Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. A senate-confirmed assistant
administrator will lead this office. There is no one in that position as of yet, but the president
will nominate a candidate soon. The office will be similar in importance to the Office of Air, the
Office of Water, and other national programs.
Ms. Engelman-Lado explained the importance of this office. We need a high-level, coordinated
effort with consistent leadership on environmental justice and civil rights. It can no longer be in
the margins; it must be at the center to transform how EPA understands and implements its work
as Administrator Regan has said. The office will be focused on making sure that the whole
Agency reflects the focus on environmental justice and external civil rights.
1.2.3 Matthew Tejada, Deputy Assistant Administrator for EJ, EJECR, U.S. EPA
Matthew Tejada stated that he is also excited about the new office and its potential. This is a
historic milestone. To him, it means that the environmental public health regulatory endeavor of
the United States that is over 50 years old is recognizing that equity and justice issues are just as
centrally important as air pollution and contamination cleanup issues. He explained that
complying with civil rights and doing everything that is equitable and just is a fundamental
bedrock part of environmental public health protection. This is the time to set up the decades
ahead and to right the wrongs of the past.
1.2.4 Lilian Dorka, Deputy Assistant Administrator for External Civil Rights, EJECR, U.S.
EPA
Lilian Dorka stated that she is also excited about the new program. The purposeful
collaboration between the three offices will achieve more than three offices separately levering
intellectual and financial resources.
Co-Chair Orduno stated that the announcement of the new program and recognition of past EJ
leaders was quite moving since it was held in Warren County, NC, which is where the EJ
movement started. She looks forward to hearing more about the program. She opened the floor
for questions and/or comments.
Leticia Colon de Mejias agreed with the emotion of the announcement made in NC. She asked
how the work will being done by this new office interact with the NEJAC.
2
-------
Chitra Kumar, Director of the Office of Policy, Partnerships, and Program Development,
OEJECR, U.S. EPA, responded that her office and the Office of Water will be sending a new
charge to the Water Infrastructure Workgroup. They are both eager to get advice from NEJAC
now and in the future on other topics as well.
Dr. Tejada also responded that the NEJAC will still be advising the administrator, but a big
chunk of what EPA does is this new program. It will be just a new dimension as to how this all
works together moving forward.
Ms. Dorka added that she is looking forward to working with the different NEJAC workgroups.
Jacqueline Shirley asked what Dr. Tejada meant by "We have no more excuses." Does that
mean the EPA of yesterday or today? She also asked how the other offices feel about this new
office.
Dr. Tejada responded that he was referring to his office which was so small before. Now, the
office is heavily funded and is taken much more seriously. It could also apply to the EPA as a
whole as these are issues that need to be resolved Agency-wide. This money cannot be used to
perpetuate, replicate, or resuscitate racism.
Ms. Collin added that there is a strategic planning process in EPA that is very detailed and must
be followed by all regions and offices in EPA. Her job is to make sure everyone and every office
are accountable. She encourages NEJAC to inform her of communities that aren't getting the
help they need.
Co-Chair Orduno stated that the NEJAC needs to understand if there will be any difference in
the way NEJAC will be engaged with this new office. The Council knows they are confined to
certain spaces both within the public meetings and through the workgroups. She wants to make
sure that the public knows about this new office.
Ayako Nagano stated that it bothers her that the public makes complaints in the public
comments, and the NEJAC hasn't had appropriate accountability in follow-through. She asked,
will this new office and budget allow for that accountability?
Dr. Tejada responded that instead of one person working on EJ, now there will be between 10
and 12 people. There should be no reason that there aren't regional EJ councils and that they're
not meeting with communities and current and former NEJAC members in getting something
done.
Rev. Dr. Ambrose Carroll, Sr. stated that he's excited about this new movement and
accountability. The connection between EJ and civil rights is powerfully important. He asked if
the civil rights part will be litigation or more self-governing.
Ms. Dorka responded that in the past, the EPA hasn't held violators accountable enough. Title
VI is a game-changer in fighting racism. Now, the EPA has the authority to enforce civil rights
laws in the way they were meant to be enforced.
3
-------
Ms. Colon de Mejias asked if this new office opens the door to discussion on a clear, NEJAC-
guided planning process related to the known documented cumulative impacts of climate change
which stem from our dependence on fossil fuels.
Loren Hopkins, PhD, asked if this is an opportunity to expand programming, legislation change,
and EPA's reach in terms of repairing damages to EJ communities in the past.
Dr. Tejada responded that cumulative impacts may finally be addressed. It's not just about the
rules and regulations on the federal level or permits that states issue, but it also includes land use
planning and zoning at the local level.
Co-Chair Orduno thanked the leaders for their time and efforts.
1.3 NEJAC Members Introduction
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks invited the Council members to briefly introduce themselves and state
their affiliations. She asked the four new members to give a little bit of a longer introduction to
get to know them better.
Karen Martin, FACA Team Lead, Partner Collaboration Division, Office of Environmental
Justice and External Civil Rights, U.S. EPA, recognized the members who were leaving the
NEJAC. They are: Dr. Mildred McClain, Karen Sprayberry, Virginia King.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks acknowledged that members need to come and go during the meeting
but reminded them that quorum must be maintained at certain parts of the meeting.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks transitioned the meeting to Dr. Benjamin Pauli who will lead the
presentation and the discussion of the next agenda item.
1.4 PFAS Workgroup Recommendations
Benjamin Pauli, PhD, thanked the members of the workgroup. He gave the timeline of the work
done so far. He reviewed the PFAS strategic roadmap by the EPA Council on PFAS, which
prioritizes the three "Rs": Research, Restrict, and Remediate. The workgroup wants to add a
fourth category of Resource (channeling appropriate resources to affected communities) and a
fifth category of Respond (an emergency response plan to severely affected areas) to the list. The
workgroup will make recommendations based on those areas.
Dr. Pauli mentioned that the recommendations are draft recommendations, and some of the
initiatives aren't in their wheelhouse. The impending deadline for the updated roadmap created a
time crunch that limited their ability to dig as deep as they wanted. He added that the workgroup
experienced some challenges working with EPA staff and hoped lessons learned could improve
future workgroup experiences. Dr. Pauli explained the recommendations one by one. See the
PFAS Workgroup Recommendations document for the details.
Ms. Shirley shared that the EPA isn't the only agency that has a PFAS roadmap or a strategic
plan; DoD, FDA, USD A, Department of Homeland Security, HHS in collaboration with CDC,
4
-------
the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease, and the FAA also have one. She wondered if EPA
would consider opening up the budgeted $1 billion a year to local entities instead of going
through the states.
Co-Chair Orduno echoed Ms. Shirley's question. One concern and frustration from local
organizations is the lack of immediate response from the EPA and the PFAS council . For
example, getting potable drinking water to communities when there is a spill or contamination.
Jan Marie Fritz, PhD, suggested adding more information to literature going to communities,
i.e., explaining what PFAS stands for. She also suggested asking for a timeline for when the
workgroup would like the recommendations to be completed. Her last suggestion is to prioritize
the list.
Andy Kricun emphasized the recommendation regarding wastewater treatment plants, the
combined sewer system, and stormwater drainage because PFAS adheres to solids, and that
would catch a lot of contaminants.
Scott Clow suggested that the workgroup ask EPA to fund and implement testing of traditional
and subsistence foods and medicines for PFAS and assist tribes to identify contaminant pathways
and limit their exposure through those pathways. Dr. Pauli agreed that that suggestion needs to
be included.
Yvonka Hall, also wondered about the timeline. She wanted to ensure that there are more
minority contractors involved in getting contracts, local communities are actually involved in the
work, understand how governors are defining disadvantaged communities in their work and that
they match NEJAC's definition, and that the word "tribal" is just as important as disadvantaged
and not just in additional information. Dr. Pauli clarified that the draft the Council read has had
some edits already that include some of the suggestions mentioned.
Ms. Colon de Mejias suggested that there needs to be more of an action-based approach. In
order of priority, the roadmap needs to be reordered as the following: restrict, resource,
remediate, research, review, and renew. She explained her thinking. Ms. Shirley clarified that
EPA only has three Rs, and the workgroup wants to squeeze in the others. Dr. Pauli replied that
NEJAC is always trying to straddle the line between operating with the EPA framework and
introducing the Council's framework.
Ms. de Mejias reiterated that the lack of knowledge about PFAS is a problem across multiple
communities. Dr. Pauli emphasized that education is key.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks echoed several suggestions. She added "precautionary principle" to the
conversation about RESEARCH. As they think about prioritizing the roadmap, they need to take
preventive action even in the face of some uncertainty. The burden of proof needs to be moved
from the impacted people to those who are polluting. She also suggested that there should be a
wide range of alternatives to combat the harm that has already been done and there has to be an
increase in public participation in decision-making, rulemaking, and developing the actions that
are needed to respond to impacted communities. The research has been done; we need more
action to remedy the impacts.
5
-------
Dr. Hopkins added that remediation should occur at the detection limit, not the maximum level.
There should be a prioritization based on sensitive subpopulations. The application of the
standard risk assessment approach under EPA is meant for future protection, but if somebody's
already been impacted, then that deserves special caution.
Ms. Shirley added that she would like to see EPA reach out to other federal agencies and build a
strong collaborative effort to battle PFAS.
Richard Mabion admitted that he had never heard of PFAS before reading the document. He
suggested that there needs to be a dialogue and language that is understood by the people who
live in low-income communities. People are totally clueless about PFAS. Statistics, scientific
words, and graphs don't mean anything to the populations they need to reach. Dr. Pauli stated
that the technical documents the workgroup produce are meant for EPA, and they are public
documents, but he agreed that they also need to be written in a language that the average person
can read and understand. Maybe the Agency can help with that process.
Jill Lindsey Harrison, PhD, reiterated that action needs to be at the forefront of the roadmap
and that there is enough research done to move forward with the actions. She asked, even though
they're voting on the recommendations now, will the document still be open for suggestions from
public speakers and the discussions that will occur later in the day? Or do they need to hold off
voting until the end of the meeting? Co-Chair Orduno replied they can still vote now with the
understanding that there might be small revisions to the document from the proceedings of the
meeting. She added her appreciation to the other members of the work that was done by the
workgroup. She asked if those that are more learned about the science suggest continuing the
research with industry.
Mr. Kricun replied that there are three main categories of technical research: one, replacement
of objects containing PFAS; two, how to remediate where the contamination has occurred; and
three, how to treat it at wastewater treatment facilities.
Nina McCoy added incinerators and waste are the top areas to clean up first because they are
predominantly in disadvantaged areas.
Co-Chair Orduno asked if the Council felt comfortable with voting on the recommendations.
The quorum has been met if they want to go ahead and finish the vote. There was a consensus to
move forward, and there was no opposition. She turned the meeting over to Vice-Chair Tilchin
who will lead the presentation and discussion of the next agenda item.
1.5 Air Quality & Community Monitoring (AQCM) Workgroup Recommendations
Vice-Chair Tilchin thanked the members of the workgroup, especially the three non-NEJAC
members. He gave a background of the workgroup and the work done so far. He pointed out that
these recommendations were not prepared in response to a formal charge from EPA. He
explained the general principles and focus areas of the workgroup. He stated that the workgroup
worked in partnership with EPA OAR to develop eight questions that would be the basis for the
recommendations. He then explained the objectives of the letter of recommendations. They
6
-------
turned the eight questions into the recommendations to EPA. He pointed out that this could be a
transformative program, but there is also a risk if it is done wrong. If communities put forth great
effort and are ignored, that could make things even worse.
Vice-Chair Tilchin explained each of the eight questions and their supporting recommendations.
See the AQCM Workgroup Recommendations document for the details. He invited other
members to ask questions and/or make comments.
Dr. Hopkins added that sometimes permit limits are higher than what people think is acceptable,
and therefore the regulation is not enforceable. Those limits need to be reduced to an acceptable
level, so the regulations can be enforceable. Those permits are often written with limits as tons
per year, so communities may be exposed to smaller amounts but the cumulative effects over the
years add up. The permits should be reduced to smaller time increments instead. She also spoke
about proceeding with caution when connecting air pollution to local health data.
Mr. Kricun shared a story regarding Question 8 and the air-shed equivalent and creating a
justice ordinance. There was a community that was surrounded by many industries, and those
industries individually were just below the permitted limit for emission particulates. Collectively,
the community was exposed to 10 to 12 times what would be the acceptable level. There's
nothing enforceable because the individual industries were within their limit, so there was no
remedy. The justice ordinance could protect communities like that.
Mr. Kricun stated that Question 6 recommendations need to go a bit further and that certain
kinds of facilities ought to be considered. For example, it should be presumed that certain
facilities give off an odor or emission at all times, but it's not a problem unless someone
complains. Community monitors could help supplement that. The onus of proof should be on the
industries to monitor emissions, not the communities who have to complain to get action done
against it.
Ms. Nagano echoed shifting the onus of proof to the industry. She asked what discussion went
into these presumptive approaches, and if is there room to add that. Vice-Chair Tilchin clarified
that there is room to expand the recommendations for Question 6 to include those suggestions.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks emphasized that EPA has invested a lot into guidance, documents,
demonstrations, equipment, and best practices for citizen-science techniques for community
monitoring. Saying that, why isn't that data being used to inform decisions? She stated that that
thinking has to change. She agreed that the burden of proof should not rest on community
members; it should be shifted to the polluters. She acknowledged that will be a long and hard
fight, so it should be done together.
Millicent Piazza, PhD, emphasized the importance of community-driven science, data, and
monitoring, and how essential those are for the community to have ownership in the process.
Communities are constantly bumping up against bureaucratic arguments about the legal
defensibility of data that isn't overseen by the Agency even if the data are from an accredited lab.
There needs to be a way to shift data gathering from just a pilot to practice. Overcoming
bureaucratic hurdles needs to be addressed, and ask, is the risk an Agency risk or is it the actual
risk to the communities?
7
-------
Ms. Hall wanted to make sure that educating communities and training about the issues
concerning them is a recommendation. She also stated that EPA should be communicating with
the local air districts about air monitoring.
Dr. Pauli asked how the success story examples in Appendix 1 were identified and vetted. Vice-
Chair Tilchin replied that those stories came from EPA OAR. Dr. Harrison added maybe the
word "successful" can be changed because of the misrepresentation that that could entail. Ms.
Colon de Mejias agreed that using the word successful with solution to pollution could be
misleading because those people may still be dealing with the cumulative impacts. One solution
doesn't fix all problems.
Co-Chair Orduno asked if the workgroup got a chance to review the public comments from the
Environmental Justice Health Alliance made last fall. That group asked for some changes to the
risk management program. She asked how they can be incorporated into the recommendations.
She also asked if the workgroup got a chance to look at the proposed rule with changes to the
risk management plan the administrator signed last month. Vice-Chair Tilchin replied that they
did not go back and look at the public comments, and that was an oversight. He does recognize
their importance and will remember to include them.
Ms. Shirley clarified for the audience that the two workgroups that presented today are not
permanent. She explained that once the recommendations are finalized and sent to the
administrator, the lifecycle is over. However, she encouraged the public to get those comments
in before the workgroups are dissolved.
Co-Chair Orduno agreed and stated that they will dissolve soon, but if those issues resurface,
they can be reinstated in the future. The creation of new workgroups is, in part, driven by public
comments. DFO Flores-Gregg clarified that the public comments are used to assist the NEJAC
with their recommendations for the EPA.
Ms. Colon de Mejias emphasized that climate change is a huge part of air quality. It's hard for
the NEJAC to address that, but a global change must happen to help combat the effects.
Dr. Hopkins stated that her experience with EPA technical assistance with a contractor was
more of a presentation, not a roll-up-your-sleeves kind of assistance with applications or
questions. She also stated that the help shouldn't be just EPA with the local community, but it
should be a partnership with EPA, other federal agencies, state, and the local community.
Co-Chair Orduno asked if the Council felt comfortable with voting on the recommendations.
The quorum has been met if they want to go ahead and finish the vote. There was a consensus to
move forward, and there was no opposition. She announced that it was time for a break followed
by the public comment period.
1.6 Public Comment Period
On September 28, 2022, the NEJAC held a public comment period to allow members of the
public to discuss environmental justice concerns in their communities. A total of 11 individuals
8
-------
submitted verbal public comments to the NEJAC. An additional 11 individuals had signed up to
speak but were not in attendance. Each speaker was allotted three minutes.
Co-Chair Orduno welcomed everyone back from the break. She turned the meeting over to Co-
Chair Osborne Jelks.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks explained the procedures for the Public Comment Period.
1.6.1 Tanisha Raj - Catholic Charities (California)
Tanisha Raj: Good afternoon, everybody. I will submit a written comment as well because I
have to step away from my computer. I don't have my fact sheets. And I'm sorry; I didn't
introduce myself. My name is Tanisha Raj, and I'm the environmental justice program specialist
with Catholic Charities. So, I would like more information regarding PFAS in communities,
especially in California and the San Joaquin Valley because I plan to do my graduate research on
PFAS next semester. And one comment that I did want to provide, which I will provide written
comment on it with detailed facts and figures, is California's push for electric vehicles and also
carbon capture sequestration. We have a symposium tomorrow regarding that as well.
I urge and request EPA to look more into the environmental impacts of carbon capture
sequestration and the EV vehicles and their batteries and especially the availability of lithium
and the disposition of it. That's all I had to say.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks thanked Ms. Raj. She agreed that more community information needs
to be made available on PFAS. She thanked her for sharing the EV policies in California. She
invited other members to ask questions and/or make comments.
Mr. Clow thanked Ms. Raj. He stated that he is working with solar developers on a project that
is looking at an iron-based battery technology at this point instead of lithium-based. He stated
that he is aware of alternative battery technology that's in development and in use at this point,
and hopefully, it will steer technology away from lithium mining.
1.6.2 Dr. Diana Zuckerman - National Center for Health Research (Washington D.C.)
Dr. Diana Zuckerman: Thank you. I'm Dr. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center
for Health Research. We scrutinize the safety and effectiveness of medical and consumer
products, and we don't accept funding from companies that make those products. Our largest
program is focused on cancer prevention and treatment. And my expertise is based on post-
doctoral training in epidemiology and public health. My previous positions were at HHS, and I
was a faculty member and researcher at Harvard and Yale.
So, I just wanted to be here briefly to thank you for all the important work you've all been doing
and will be doing on this Advisory Council. As a public health person, I've always been
surprised at the lack of other public health advocates who are active on environmental issues and
environmental justice issues, and I want to offer to be helpful in any way that would be useful to
all of you. We all know that lives are at stake.
9
-------
I want to comment very briefly on the PFAS recommendations since that's an issue we've
worked on for years and let me add that we're very concerned about all endocrine-disrupting
chemicals, not just PFAS. Everything that I've heard about PFAS at this meeting this afternoon
was inspiring and very important. But I would just suggest that it's a huge task, and I encourage
you to start a little smaller and focus a little bit more to succeed in educating the public and
especially EJ communities. At the same time that you're educating, focus on some actions that
are doable and that will really inspire others to make a change. Thank you very much.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks thanked Dr. Zuckerman. Dr. Osborne Jelks thanked Dr. Zuckerman
for offering her expertise to this body and noted it for the Council. She invited other members to
ask questions and/or make comments.
Co-Chair Orduno thanked Dr. Zuckerman for the grounded set of recommendations. She asked
Dr. Zuckerman, especially from her experience, what is the most effective public education that
the Council and EPA can do for a matter like PFAS.
Dr. Zuckerman: Well, thank you for that question. I will start by saying that a lot of the work
that we've done in recent years has been in communities large and small across the country
pertaining to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and PFAS and lead in artificial turf and in
playground surfaces. Here, we're dealing with issues that you would think any parent or
grandparent would care very much about. You would think school systems would care very
much about. We have found it to be an extremely difficult issue because there is so much money
on the other side. And, obviously, that's true for all environmental issues and all environmental
justice issues; there's always a lot of money on the other side saying "This isn't unsafe. Where is
your evidence that this is unsafe? Where is your evidence that a single person has gotten cancer
as a result of this exposure," et cetera?
So, I guess all I'm saying is my experience, even when we were working on an issue that seemed
so logical and doable, has been so challenging and difficult. So that's why I was saying that I
think that combination of public education but also action — because one without the other, I
think — is not going to work. You can't do everything all at once, and I think my only suggestion
is to find something that you can do that will be engaging to people, make them care, and show
them that change can happen.
1.6.3 Linda Shosie - Environmental Justice Task Force Tucson (Tucson, Arizona)
Linda Shosie: Thank you. Linda Shosie. I live in Tucson, Arizona. I am the owner and the
founder of the Environmental Justice Task Force. For too long, majority, minority, EJ, and
BIPOC communities have been unequally protected from toxic chemicals and other
environmental hazards. What I really like about this new quality plan is that the affected
community members will be empowered by this study, and they will also be empowered to
make decisions. Also, they will be able to decide what actions can be taken. I really like that
about this proj ect.
I would like to comment on Question Number 1, "What are the keyways in which the public and
environmental justice communities would want to engage with air quality data from new
technologies that may be funded under the ARP and other types of fundings?" I strongly believe
10
-------
that this could be achieved by just getting the community involved and just letting them know
what's going on. Put a lot of advertisements out about it because I really believe that community
members are all affected. And I think this is a really good topic to start getting the community
involved.
Now, concerning PFAS, I agree there is a little bit of information on PFAS in the air. But,
assuming that we focus on PFAS and think of where they could be found in the air, I'm thinking
that the largest contributors would be incinerators that would be polluting or nearby landfills. As
we all know, incinerators pollute the air of all nearby and distant communities. Landfills all leak
and eventually make their way into the water. So, I'm just wondering if we would target these
areas where we could put these monitors around these areas. And perhaps, I'm wondering, if
these monitors will be able to even pick up any levels of PFAS. They are complicated to even
test and monitor in water.
Co-Chair Orduno thanked Ms. Shosie. She asked if she could explain what that would look
like in her community. For example, how to address PFAS and its whole problem or what the
public information needs to look like? Could she give a local example?
Ms. Shosie: Sure. Here in Tucson, we're the heart of the military Air Force bases. One of the
things that have been very, very difficult for community members to get a voice in addressing
PFAS is that there's a large divide between state legislators, state governments, and affected
community members. I don't think that our state governments are doing enough to engage with
the affected members of the community to give them any type of opportunity to participate in
the decision-making around PFAS.
So, as an environmental justice activist in my community, I have organized my community, and
I have just pushed and pushed my way in and put myself in their faces. We just rally. We send
them letters. We just don't stop knocking and being persistent. So, the local issues here, we're
lacking response because community members are not being involved in any of these decisions,
and they're making all the decisions on their own. So, we've got to find these strategies that can
work more towards bringing these people together and making better decisions together.
Ms. Colon de Mejia thanked her for bringing up the issues in her community to the Council.
She stated that that has been a common theme in every meeting, that the community feels
disconnected from the initial planning process or from the allocation of resources in relation to
helping their state, town, or municipality direct resources to the areas that they think they'd be
most useful in. She stated that it is the duty of environmental justice folks to ensure that the
communities are met where they're at and provided the resources they need, not the ones we
think they need. We won't know what those needs are unless we meet them where they're at and
ask them.
1.6.4 John Mueller - Private Citizen Activist (Guthrie, Oklahoma)
John Mueller: Well, good afternoon. I am John Muller in Guthrie, Oklahoma, formally of
Tulsa. I'm a retired public works licensed engineer having practiced in water and wastewater
treatment for public utilities over a period of about 25 years. First off, please know I share your
11
-------
tremendous excitement and optimism about the new OEJECR and all its new opportunities. But
I am also very thankful that NEJAC is still NEJAC.
I have participated in a number of earlier NEJAC and WHEJAC public meetings as a private
citizen activist seeking to end the practice of artificial water fluoridation of public water. One of
the main reasons for my advocacy is data showing that water fluoridation has not met the oral
health needs in disadvantaged communities as originally intended many decades ago. My
request today is not very different than in my request in previous public meetings.
My request today is for NEJAC and the OEJECR to recommend, in the strongest possible terms,
that Administrator Regan develop and implement a strategy jointly with the CDC, under the
purview of Dr. Walensky's recent reorganization of the CDC, for ending the CDC's Community
Water Fluoridation Program and for CDC's Division of Oral Health to transition into developing
local community-based programs with assistance from grant funding to improve oral health in
disadvantaged minority communities, which are disproportionately harmed by uncontrolled
exposure to harmful fluoride chemicals from drinking water and other sources. The benefits of
this transition will be in the form of targeted, localized programs providing education on dental
hygiene as a personal general health priority and providing individualized professional dental
care where needed most.
This is in stark contrast to the CDC's current program of mass medication without informed
consent by fluoridating public water indiscriminately for all segments of the population for
people of every color, whether needed or not, rich, or poor. The first, most expeditious, and cost-
free step in that transition can be found in the currently pending TSCA lawsuit. The first step in
the transition is for Administrator Regan and the EPA's defense counsel to concede to the
plaintiffs in the current, pending TSCA lawsuit, which is Food & Water Watch versus EPA,
filed in April 2017, in which plaintiffs are suing EPA "to compel the initiation of rulemaking to
prohibit the addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water supplies." That action will
change not only EPA's policy on fluoridation as a historic milestone but also change the
outcome. The outcome being real improvement in the oral health in disadvantaged communities,
which is so desperately needed. The additional materials I will be submitting will support a
plausible strategy for due consideration by the powers that be, including the new OEJECR and
the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, OCSPP. Thank you very much.
Dr. Pauli thank Mr. Mueller for his comments today and in the past. He assured Mr. Mueller
that his persistence has not gone unnoticed and that it is being treated with seriousness. His
workgroup has discussed if they can take up this issue. They will give information later in the
meeting about a charge from EPA, but he isn't sure whether that charge will include this issue.
Because Mr. Mueller has brought it up several times before, Dr. Pauli admitted that he's done a
little bit of looking into this issue personally. An acquaintance of his, Dr. Bruce Lowenstein
(phonetic), kindly passed along some articles on this subject that were found to be very useful in
understanding some of the issues raised. He mentioned that the Council hasn't quite figured out
how to tackle this issue yet, but it's not because they're not thinking about it. It's about
strategizing where it might fit into their plans. Co-Chair Osborne Jelks echoed Dr. Pauli's
comments.
12
-------
Co-Chair Orduno thanked Mr. Mueller for his comments. She wondered if this practice of
fluoridating the water is a perfunctory act by the utilities or is required by the federal or state
governments. It is known, for instance, that the CDC recommends this. There are some real
health concerns, maybe metrics as well, that are saying that this is not the best practice to
continue, even though it's become pretty standardized.
Mr. Mueller: Well, thank you for the question. Yeah, there are no federal regulations for
fluoridating the water. The only association that EPA has with fluoride in drinking water is the
maximum contaminant level goal and the maximum contaminant level. Those are both set at
four parts per million. It was in 2006 that the National Academies published their report on
fluoride in drinking water, and it was about a 550-page report, which the EPA requested that the
National Research Council conduct that study and report. Well, the upshot of that report was that
the current regulations for limiting fluoride to four parts per million are not protective of public
health and that they recommended that a lot more studies needed to be done. That's been 16
years ago.
EPA has not followed their recommendation. They've done nothing to change those regulatory
water quality limits. But a lot of studies have been done, and they are the emerging science. And
these are by very qualified, highly respected, world-class scientists, and researchers. One of
them, Dr. Bruce Lanphear, was involved in the studies that led to the legislation banning lead.
So, these more recent studies on fluoride that have been conducted are showing, unfortunately,
that the neurodevelopmental harm from fluoride exposure can affect children's IQ. It can
increase incidents of ADHD; autism; particularly in the womb, the unborn fetus when the brain
is developing at such a dramatic rate; and also, with infants that may be fed bottled water
reconstituted with fluoridated drinking water. Fluoride is not stopped by the placenta. It goes
through the mother. If the mother is drinking fluoridated water, that is transmitted to the new
fetus. So, I've digressed a little bit here, but I've got a soapbox that is acres wide on this topic.
There is considerable pushback. The proclamation that fluoride is safe and effective has been
roundly debunked even more so in the last ten years, five years maybe. But the TSCA lawsuit
was filed in April of 2017 after the initial petition was filed with EPA in November of 2016. The
petition was denied in February 2017. And, subsequently, the petitioners filed a lawsuit with the
northern district of California, and they filed that in April 2017. There was a bench trial — on
video, Zoom, that I attended — for seven days in June of 2020. Much of the evidence presented
was from newer studies that had been conducted since the original petition three years earlier.
So, the judge placed the lawsuit in abeyance to wait for an NTP report on fluoride in drinking
water, which is still yet to be finalized and published.
But their initial monograph stated that fluoride is presumed to be a developmental neurotoxin,
but the report is undergoing several peer reviews by the National Academies. And there may be
a final report issued early next year. However, recent motions were filed with the court to lift the
stay, lift the abeyance, go ahead, and make a determination, and make a ruling. So that could
happen as early as October 20th. The next hearing is scheduled for October 20th, so those
concerns will be heard by the judge at that time.
The concern and the strategy that I'm promoting is to have Administrator Regan and the EPA
concede to the plaintiffs and the court in the case, which would be certainly a historic milestone
13
-------
for the CDC and EPA to collaborate and figure out how to make the transition away from
fluoridation and to accommodate the needs in a more focused and targeted way.
Co-Chair Orduno thanked him for his response and noted that the Council will delve deeper
into this.
Dr. Pauli clarified the name he mentioned earlier; it was Bruce Lanphear that he was in touch
with.
Mr. Mueller: Oh, thank you for clarifying that. Yes, he's a remarkable person. Yeah. And he has
worked with others who are just as highly esteemed in the field of toxicology and
neurodevelopmental toxicology. Dr. Philippe Grandjean from Denmark was — and both of these
people have testified at the trial. EPA really needs to concede in this because the weight of
evidence is very much in favor of other plaintiffs on this.
1.6.5 Diane D'Arrigo - Nuclear Information and Resource Service (West Valley, New
York)
Diane D'Arrigo: I'm Diane D'Arrigo with Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and our
organization is part of the West Valley Action Network. The West Valley Nuclear site in
western New York is the only place in the country where commercial irradiated nuclear fuel was
reprocessed. They disassembled it, chopped it up, extracted uranium and plutonium, and left a
lot of liquid radioactive materials. Now, commercial waste, when it comes out of the core of a
reactor, is millions of times hotter than when it goes in. And commercial fuel, because it stays in
the core longer than weapons fuel, is actually much, much more radioactive than nuclear
weapons fuel.
So, what's happening at West Valley, about 30 miles south of Buffalo, is that the reprocessing
building which operated in the '60s and '70s is being demolished. Our organizations have been
asking that this be done with offsite, real-time, publicly reported monitoring and with an
enclosure over the entire building or the most radioactive rooms in the building as they're being
demolished. And both of these requests have been denied and ignored. And one of the
justifications for proceeding with demolishing the building without any public monitoring or
even public information about what's in the building — the latest inventory is an estimate from
April of 2021. The estimate is that there are over 18 trillion picocuries of plutonium and many
other radionuclides, some of which could be spread over western New York and around the
state. Radioactivity flies with the wind.
So, what I am concerned about is that the only justification for doing this is that, supposedly,
there was a prediction by the Department of Energy that they would be in compliance with the
NESHAPs, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and they've done
some computer modeling and use their estimates. But there's no real measurement, and I haven't
been able to get a clear answer from EPA about what specific analysis they have done. Yet, this
is being used as a justification for open-air demolition. That's my concern. I don't know if there's
anyone that could help with this within EPA.
14
-------
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks thanked Ms. D'Arrigo. She asked if Ms. D'Arrigo could talk more
about the open-air demolition and what's happening exactly in this context.
Ms. D'Arrigo: Yes. The building is huge, five stories above and some below ground. The walls
are five feet thick because the radioactivity was so intense in the building. Many of the rooms
were remote access only. To their credit, the contractors for the Department of Energy have gone
in over the past years and cleaned out as much as they could from these rooms, but the problem
is that this is the only commercial reprocessing that's of the hottest nuclear power fuel. So, there
is radioactivity still in this building, in fact, potentially quite a lot. They're not going to explode
or implode it. They're going to actually break it down with various tools and supposedly spray
water down so that dust would be washed down onto the ground and then collected before being
released into the waterways.
So, it's the demolition of this massive building. It's going to take 30 months. It actually started
last Thursday. We still, though, would like offsite monitoring, and we would like enclosure over
the hottest of the cells.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks asked Ms. D'Arrigo to provide any written materials as a part of the
written comments as well.
1.6.6 Joe James (phonetic) - Private citizen
Joe James: Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm a former 33-year economic development
professional. I've had the pleasure of being a department head in Prince George's County as well
as in the state of South Carolina. I'm here this afternoon to make the Committee ever more aware
of airborne pollution, two forms of it: one known somewhat and one that I think is unknown. PM
2.5,1 think you understand, is particulate matter that comes out of the tailpipes of cars and
trucks. But one you may not have heard much about is what I would call tire wear powder.
And for those communities that live downwind from major interstate highways with lots of
traffic — communities like Baltimore, where I currently have a project using my technology to
combat climate change and promote environmental justice; Prince George's County just east of
the beltway, where I served as economic development director for a number of years; and then
the state of South Carolina, where on the downwind side of Interstate 95 is a location, a
primarily black community, that's called Stroke Alley — the research that I've done recently
suggests that PM 2.5 can, in fact, cause stroke. And, I believe, in the information I shared with
staff, there may be a citation there. But I've also discovered that tire wear — if you know
anything about tires, they're made from actually poisonous material. The tires are 30 percent
carbon black powder.
Carbon black is made by purposefully under burning oil, so it has the arsenic, lead, and mercury
that are found in oil. And communities of color are downwind. These particulate matters, even
tire wear, create not only chunks of tire every time your tire turns but a fine powder as well.
When you breathe these powders in, they're so small, they go through the walls of your lungs,
into your bloodstream. So, my heart is aching for those mothers who are carrying children, and
those contaminants are being passed onto the children. Also, the organs of the infected person
are harmed as well.
15
-------
So, I have a couple of recommendations. One, I'd ask the commission to ask staff to do a
research analysis and bring back research on PM 2.5 and tire wear health impacts. There should
be some sort of comparative analysis for those communities that have high rates to see what the
health connection is.
And, from my own experience, EPA needs an environmental justice response mechanism. I have
shared my concerns, without naming the specific people, with senior staff of EPA. I've not had
any feedback at all. So, when we have people around the country that are suffering, we need to
have an environmental justice feedback mechanism so that people know that their concerns have
been heard. Thank you.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks thanked Mr. James and stated that she hadn't thought quite about the
wearing down of tires and the particulate matter that that produces. Mr. James asked to add two
more things to his comments.
Mr. James: Number one, tire wear, in some of the studies I've seen, is more prevalent than PM
2.5 in some of the same locations. Number two, because electric vehicles weigh more than
regular vehicles, the tire wear generated by EVs is going to be much higher than regular cars.
Thank you.
Ms. Colon de Mejias stated that sometimes that community perspective is literally the boots-on-
the-ground perspective. The idea that something weighs more than something else and it might
cause an impact that no one is thinking about, is such a highlight to bring forward as it relates to
when we create transitional plans at governmental levels. She agreed that they must ensure that
we consider those anecdotal sets of information or information collected from the communities
which we're meant to represent.
Dr. Piazza seconded Ms. Colon de Mejias' comments about the type of EJ analyses that are
done and that are forwarded through government decision-making. She stated that sometimes the
analyses are too narrow in proposals that increase traffic in communities. They need to include
more than just diesel impacts; things like tire wear or brake pad erosion also need to be included.
Mr. James: Thank you for that comment. I would hope that the staff research would also
include research from Europe, where there's quite a bit of study that's going on. And, in fact, as
you related to buses, they're actually trying to figure out how you put a mechanism on a bus to
capture the powder before it gets into the environment. The Chinese have done quite a bit of
study on PM 2.5 and its health impacts. And I hope that the three communities that I mentioned,
Baltimore, Prince George's County, and Stroke Alley in South Carolina, will get some attention
as well. My heart was broken to see that the USD A was asked to do a study on the cause of
Stroke Alley. I'll let you look it up. I don't want to make a racist comment, but it was sort of, let's
just do a slap-dash sort of thing so we don't have to respond further to that impacted community.
Very troubling.
Dr. Fritz emphasized that feedback and accountability are vitally important. The documents that
the Council develop not only should be either suggesting or asking for a timeline for doing
something but also mentioning, when people give comments, that they need to have a response.
16
-------
1.6.7 Dr. Donna Ott - (Pennsylvania)
Donna Ott: Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Dr. Donna Desanto (phonetic)
Ott, and I want to thank you for this excellent opportunity to learn and share something that I've
become aware of. It's a new pollutant that many people are not aware of, but the insurance
companies have designated it as an uninsurable pollutant, and this is radio frequency and
microwave radiation. We have a situation here in my home state of Pennsylvania and all across
the country; we have people who are becoming very ill and severely disabled. And the people
who are impacted the worst tend to be people in more disadvantaged communities. They're hit
very hard. It affects their housing to the point where they have no housing that they can afford
anywhere. It creates a tremendous health burden and a lack of access to medical care. This a
disability recognized by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
So, I would urge you to collect data on this variable as well. And, with all the data that you're
collecting, I would urge you to do as much of it as you can with the transmission via wires
because that will eliminate the need for radio frequency and microwave radiation to be added to
the environment. We need to work to decrease exposure. Some practical ways are with smart
meters. Those could be easily hardwired, preventing that form of pollution. And emissions from
cell towers and Wi-Fi routers and similar things can be lessened.
The FCC is working. There was a lawsuit last summer, and the matter was remanded back to the
FCC to work on the guidelines. So, we're awaiting that, but, in the meantime, I think it's really
important for you to be aware of this and work to reduce it wherever possible.
People who are the most vulnerable include children, people with chronic illnesses, and the
elderly. And the costs of living with this are very, very high. There are people who become more
affected and develop electromagnetic sensitivity, and it's very, very expensive to work on
remediation. It's really out of the hands of people who don't have a very high income. So, thank
you for allowing me to bring this up.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks thanked Dr. Ott for her comments. She asked Dr. Ott to speak briefly
about the greatest source of exposure in these communities.
Dr. Ott: Well, it comes from many, many places; cell phones are probably people's largest near-
field exposures. But, if one lives near a cell tower, then the exposures are going to be much
higher, especially the new small wireless facilities. Where my practice was in Philadelphia, I
would see these 10 to 12 feet from people's bedroom windows. Increasingly, they were
beginning to show up in more disadvantaged communities. To me, in my work at the Capitol
trying to advocate for people who are most affected, that was something that I would often bring
up, that this is just such an enormous burden in so many ways on people, especially if they're of
lesser means. I have three calls I have to get back to people today, and I don't know what I'm
going to tell them. We really need help from the federal government to be able to reduce these
exposures so that people can live safely in their own homes.
17
-------
Ms. Nagano thanked Dr. Ott for the comments. She asked Dr. Ott if they - radio frequencies;
microwave radiation; cell phones; or LT, 4G, and 5G towers — are all harmful or are some of
them are more harmful than others.
Dr. Ott: Well, I think, as you move into the more advanced phones, there are more antennas on
the phones and more radiation coming out of them. I just met with a person with a disability last
week, and their Wi-Fi router was emitting an extreme amount of radiation that I had never
measured before; it was 2.5 million microwatts per meter square, which is really unnecessary. It
was a small apartment. So, you can have exposure in so many forms, but definitely these newer,
more advanced phones, especially with the 5G antennas. Those are so close to homes.
And the closer you are to the source of the radiation, the more harmful it is. So, we have to really
focus our efforts kind of on everything, especially on this newer, high-intensity — to really use
safer technology instead and wires, to use wired broadband fiber or cable. It's faster. It's safer.
It's more secure. It really should be the obvious choice.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks stated that more education is still needed on this.
Kurd Ali, NEJAC AV support, stated that was the last hand raised.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks invited any other public commenters to speak.
1.6.8 Dr. Maya Nye - Coming Clean
Dr. Maya Nye: Thank you. My name is Maya Nye with Coming Clean. We're a network
working with over 150 organizations across the country working for environmental health and
justice. I've spoken to the NEJAC a couple of different times and just wanted to, first of all,
thank you for all of your work. I know that you all volunteer in this process, and you have so
much on your plates right now. And I just really appreciate you navigating everything that you're
navigating right now. So just wanted to put that out there.
I also wanted to follow up on my previous comments. I've made a couple of different comments
over the last year. (Audio skip) wonderful in submitting a letter to the EPA about some updates
that needed to be made to the Risk Management Program Rule, which is a rule that's intended to
prevent chemical disasters for facilities that are located disproportionately in black, Latino, and
low-income communities.
EPA has just proposed some changes to that rule, and we were really hoping that you would be
willing to update the letter that you sent previously to Administrator Regan to highlight some of
the very essential pieces that need to be included in that rule. And I'm sorry. It kind of caught me
off guard here. I've been listening and trying to hear when the public comment was, trying to
straddle a couple of meetings. So, excuse me, I just found my list. It's just really super essential
that we highlight to the EPA that voluntary measures don't work, that we really need to reduce
and eliminate hazards and require the implementation of inherently safer chemicals, processes,
and technologies. Even though I'm here on behalf of Coming Clean, I'm from a fenceline
community. I grew up a mile away from the Union Carbide facility which was the sister facility
to the one in Bhopal.
18
-------
So, I have experienced multiple chemical disasters in my life, as have the people in my
community. And this is an extremely, extremely important rule for environmental justice
communities, and we just would really like to have your additional support, the leverage of the
NEJAC, on Administrator Regan to make this the strongest rule possible, to highlight the
voluntary measures don't work, and that we need a reduction and an elimination of the hazards.
So that's my comment. Thank you very much.
Ms. Shirley thanked Ms. Nye for her comments. She asked anyone from the EPA if any kind of
nuclear waste, even the demolition of a building, is more on the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or DOE. She requested that EPA get back to that public commenter and point her
in the right direction of which agency might better be able to help with the nuclear waste. It
could be a security issue regarding how we monitor nuclear waste, activity, and radiation. It may
not be in EPA's purview.
Ms. Shirley stated that she recently read that EPA does not regulate non-iodizing waves from
cell phones. That might not even be in EPA's purview either. She recommended that NEJAC or
EPA contact the public commenter and guide them to the right agency when the comment is not
under their purview, so the commenter won't feel ignored.
Mr. Clow clarified Ms. D'Arrigo's comments that even though it's a Department of Energy
cleanup job, the actual air pollution aspect of it that she's concerned about would certainly fall
under the purview of the State of New York and EPA's obligations pertaining to that in that
region. So, there is an EPA nexus here, particularly with the NESHAPs and those radionuclides.
1.6.9 Stephanie Herron - Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy
Reform
Stephanie Herron: Thank you very much. I want to echo Dr. Nye's deep, deep, deep
appreciation for the NEJAC and all you do. I have also spoken to you many times in the past on
the same topic, and I really deeply appreciate you. My name's Stephanie Herron. I'm the national
organizer for the Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, or EJHA.
We're a national network of EJ organizations that are working to bring about a pollution-free
economy that leaves no community and no worker behind.
Monday, I joined Dr. Nye and a lot of other people at the EPA public hearing on the Risk
Management Plan Rule to tell the EPA again that, if they really, truly want to prioritize
environmental justice like they say they do, then they must prioritize protecting workers,
protecting fenceline communities, and all Americans by issuing a truly protective and
preventative chemical disaster prevention rule.
I'm here today, again, appreciating you all and your past letters, to ask for the NEJAC to join us
in that call by writing a letter to Administrator Regan and the EPA Office of Land and
Emergency Management, calling on them to issue a strong RMP rule. The proposed rule that
they have come out with, the draft rule, makes some important improvements, such as requiring
facilities to consider the impacts of climate change for the first time. This is critical as you know,
and I've shared with you all before because about one-third of RMP facilities are located in areas
19
-------
increasingly vulnerable to extreme weather. And we've seen double disasters after Hurricane
Harvey, Ida, and others, where we see explosions and big releases when the community's already
being hit by a storm or whatever the weather event is.
Then they're also contending with explosions and massive chemical releases at these facilities.
That's great, but, unfortunately, the draft rule stops short of actually requiring those facilities to
implement the safer options that they identify in their climate planning. Requiring facilities to
transition to safer chemicals and safer processes is the best way to protect communities and
protect workers from climate-fueled double disasters. Requiring safer alternatives is also the best
way or one of the best ways in this rule to address cumulative impacts, to address the fact that
these facilities disproportionately impact communities of color and low-income communities.
EPA's draft rule acknowledges a lot of our concerns and implies to me that they know that this is
the case, but they're only requiring safer technology alternatives assessments at about five
percent of RMP facilities. And, even at those five percent of facilities, those under 600 facilities
out of almost 12,000, they still aren't even requiring that those safer alternatives actually be
implemented.
All facilities should be required to assess for and implement safer alternatives. Some other things
that we've called for and that I've spoken with you all before about, which we think are critical to
include in a final rule, are requiring common-sense measures, like enough backup power to run
an entire facility or safely shut down the facility if there's a loss of power especially caused by a
storm or something. Involving workers and really protecting them when they speak out about
safety concerns for themselves, and their communities is critical. Establishing a clear and
enforceable timeline for adding chemicals. We've seen multiple explosions at facilities that aren't
covered by the RMP.
So, again, I deeply appreciate the work of the NEJAC and your past engagement on this RMP
rule. And we would ask that you join us in submitting a letter to EPA recommending some
strengthening improvements to this rule, and we'd love to work with you on that. The deadline is
October 31st, but obviously, the NEJAC can weigh in anytime. But we'd hope you'd weigh in as
soon as possible. Thank you.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks thanked Ms. Herron for her comments and for coming back again and
sharing the urgency of this issue. She stated that the NEJAC did note the request to consider
submitting a letter to the Administrator and OLEM, and it will be taken under advisement as a
part of the business.
Dr. Fritz requested that Ms. Herron submit her written comments, so they remember everything
she said.
1.6.10 Odette Wilkens - Wired Broadband. Inc. (New York, New York)
Odette Wilkens: Thank you very much. I'm Odette Wilkens, and I'm president and general
counsel of Wired Broadband. We're a nonprofit whose mission is to educate the public about the
hazards of electromagnetic radiation from cell towers, 4G, and 5G, which is basically an inferior
broadband service, and the need for fiber optics deployment for superior broadband.
20
-------
Now, I want to address one of the comments that were made. In fact, the EPA had recognized
RF radiation, radiofrequency radiation, as an environmental hazard back in the 1990s. And, as
soon as it did, the EPA was defunded in that area, and its jurisdiction of that area was taken
away. That was when the EPA found that there were hazardous biological effects of
electromagnetic radiation. I'm not sure why the EPA was defunded. I think that was the only
agency that was actually proclaiming that they were hazards and was trying to protect the public.
It is time that the EPA reclaims its jurisdiction over this area. It is high time. There is no one that
is protecting the health of the public. The Food and Drug Administration funded the National
Toxicology Program, which found, in 2018, cancer in rats based on electromagnetic radiation.
And this was, I believe, 2G and 3G. I don't even think 4G was even planned at the time when
they conducted the experiments. Not only that but the cancer research arm of the WHO had
determined back in 2011 that 2G and 3G was a to-be human carcinogen, was a possible human
carcinogen. And a number of people in the working group are now calling electromagnetic
radiation a definite human carcinogen. So, this is something that the EPA had jurisdiction over,
and it should have jurisdiction over it again. There is absolutely no good reason why the EPA
should not have jurisdiction over this.
And I would like to suggest that this group go back to the EPA and state that they really should
have jurisdiction over this area. And it was purely political or something that was, actually,
probably promulgated by the telecom industry in order to get the EPA not to indicate that
cellphones were dangerous, that the electromagnetic radiation from cellphones was dangerous.
And those are my comments.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks thanked Ms. Wilkens for her comments and the history lesson as well
in terms of EPA's past engagement and how that has changed.
1.6.11 Maria Payan - Socially Responsible Agriculture Project (Sussex County, Delaware)
Maria Payan: Thank you. First, I wanted to thank the NEJAC so much. We really appreciate
your work and the opportunity to comment. I wanted to bring to your attention — I am a senior
regional representative for the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project and am also involved
with coalition groups on the ground in Sussex County, Delaware. We have a regional biogas
facility. We have very strong industrial agriculture here. We have great problems with our
waterways. Delaware is number one in the state with about 97.5 percent of our rivers and
streams polluted and a hundred percent of our estuaries. We've always had a problem trying to
manage waste from the economics of this industry.
This new proposal wants to bring in, as I mentioned, from processing plants within the tristate
region into Sussex County, including DAF, the sludge, and a little bit of broiler litter. But it's
mostly, obviously, going to be the DAF and the sludge and oils, fats, and greases into our region,
into a residential area where the closest communities there are English as a second language.
One is a Latinx community. The other is a Haitian community. We have had just an incredibly
difficult time to even getting the state agency with the permits to — one community has not had
any public notice in Haitian Creole.
21
-------
But this is all very concerning to me as this is a regional-scale new process. And the emissions
from not only that process but also 20,000 tankard trucks per year bring in 250,000 tons of
waste. We have health disparities in this area, and, currently, there's a composting site on that
same footprint that will be part of this operation with a digestate afterward that will have to be
land applied. We're very concerned about the health disparities in the community.
And the air permits are being separated between the composting operation and the anaerobic
digester separately, which brings in the whole cumulative impacts of the area and even the same
footprint there on the site. So, we need public education. I think that really lifts up the
communities a lot of the exposure impacts there.
Ms. Nagano thanked Ms. Payan for her comments. She asked if the sources of the pollutants are
clear and for the name of the biogas facility.
Ms. Payan: So, the name of the applicant is Bioenergy Devco. They have a 20-year contract to
take all the waste from all the hatcheries and processing facilities which will only be a portion of
what's coming into the facility. The other percentages that will be coming in are not even listed
in the application. And this is to take dry poultry litter, a small percentage. I think that's like 12
percent. Most of it is going to be the dissolved air flotation, which is the waste from all the
processing plants in Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia, and bring it into an area that, by the way,
is zoned residential. So, basically, they're putting a mini refinery in a residential community that
is already overburdened with a lot of pollution there. So, it's very concerning to us, again, not
only with the emissions and the truck traffic and the safety of this being put into a residential
area but, as you're all aware, there's a risk of explosion.
So yeah. This is very concerning, the scale of it and where it's being located and the lack of
notice within the communities. As I mentioned, one is Latinx. One is Haitian Creole. To date,
zero public notices have been put out in Haitian Creole, and they have been asking the state
agency to please come to hold a meeting and educate them.
Ms. Nagano asked if the main request is for public education or if is there more like a permitting
issue.
Ms. Payan: Yes. So, there was a Supreme Court ruling on Title V back in 2015 that's going to
be coming into play, and that is the emissions, the 100,000 tons per year, would have to be with
another pollutant as well. And, as I mentioned, they're separating out on the site. It's actually
happening on the site. So, there's a large composting operation that takes in the waste now from
the industry. That is not being included in the permitting of the digesters, if that makes sense. So,
they're not getting the full scope of what's going on within the air permitting.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks stated that time has run over and asked if the final two commenters
can submit their written comments instead. She apologized for running over the scheduled time.
She thanked all the public commenters and stated that it was time for a break.
22
-------
1.7 Business Meeting
The NEJAC will use this time to discuss and deliberate action items and finalize the next steps.
Co-Chair Orduno welcomed everyone back from the break. She transitioned the meeting to the
next presenters who will explain the new charge to NEJAC.
1.7.1 New Charge: Water Infrastructure Workgroup Technical Assistance Charge
1.7.1.1 Chitra Kumar, Director of the Office of Policy, Partnerships, and Program
Development, OEJECR, U.S. EPA
Chitra Kuma explained that this charge is about technical assistance. She reviewed the
background behind the charge.
1.7.1.2 Jonathan Nelson, Senior Advisor for Technical Assistance and Community
Outreach, Office of Water, U.S. EPA
Jonathan Nelson explained the new charge. See the NEJAC Water Infrastructure Working
Group Technical Assistance Draft Charge document for details. He explained the next steps for
the charge. The EPA would like to receive recommendations from the Water Infrastructure
Workgroup by late winter/early spring 2023; to engage with key stakeholders, including tribal -
EPA partnership groups; and to provide support through this process.
Co-Chair Orduno thanked them for their presentations.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks stated that she is excited about finally getting the charge and working
toward meeting EJ goals regarding safe drinking water and water infrastructure. She invited
other members to ask questions and/or make comments.
Co-Chair Orduno asked for more members to join the workgroup since it is a massive task.
Jeremy Orr, JD, stated that this issue has finally hit a sense of urgency for so many
communities, and the enormous federal government investment will help with remedying that.
Ms. Nagano asked the presenters how the iterative process works with utilities and states and
how they see the Agency using these recommendations.
Mr. Nelson replied that the NEJAC has 100 percent support from the Office of Water and the
OEJ, and the process is moving fast because of the unprecedented and historic investment to fix
these issues. Technical assistance will help communities in that process. The EPA wants to meet
the NEJAC's vision and hopes. They need NEJAC's advice on what the top priorities are and
what programs work and don't work.
Ms. Shirley reminded everyone that the nexus of the charge came from the workgroup in
collaboration with EPA. So, this is not new to NEJAC. She encouraged more members to join
the different workgroups.
23
-------
Ms. Colon de Mejias is excited about the charge. She stated that codes on water infrastructure
change between municipalities and this will help bridge those gaps across the U.S. She also
encouraged more members to join the different workgroups. She stated that she agreed with a
statement made earlier that technical assistance needs to be more than just watching a video.
Ms. Hall echoed Ms. Colon de Mejias' concerns. She added that NEJAC needs to figure out a
way to get more communities involved in TA. Sometimes people assume that communities trust
their local agencies, and that's just not the case, so trust is an issue. She would like to see more
boots on the ground regarding TA.
Mr. Mabion asked the presenters what conversations they feel would be appropriate with
communities themselves to address the technicality of TA centers, such as the language and
understanding of the technology.
Mr. Nelson replied that the workgroup should address that in the recommendations. Right now,
TA means different things to different people and that needs to be defined. Mr. Mabion added
that he would like to see more job training and workforce development associated with this
money.
Co-Chair Orduno agreed and would like to see these communities economically empowered.
She accepted the charge on behalf of the Council. She reviewed the 13 members in that
workgroup and suggested they have subgroups to include more people to help with the
workload.
Ms. Kumar thanked Co-Chair Orduno for accepting the charge. She acknowledged the
importance of job creation in these communities.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks stated that she understands if members need to step down from the
workgroup, but that opens the door for someone else to join in their place. She encouraged the
members to forward names of others who might be knowledgeable about the subject to join as
well. The workgroup will start meeting as early as the following week to get started. The
workgroup as a whole will meet every two weeks, and the subgroups can meet on the off weeks.
The first set of recommendations is due by January 31st.
Co-Chair Ordun o turned the meeting over to Dr. Tejada for the next presentation.
1.7.2 EPA Updates - 2023 Priorities
Dr. Tejada presented the EJ/CR priorities for 2023. They include the EPA IRA (Inflation
Reduction Act) plans, particularly with respect to EJ and Climate Justice Block Grants; the
development of the Cumulative Impacts Framework, Civil Rights Compliance guidance, and
indicators of disparity elimination; and the organization of a youth climate justice effort.
Co-Chair Orduno asked about the creation of new workgroups. Dr. Tejada replied bringing
back the Finance and Investment Workgroup to work on a future charge to help with the IRA
planning. He suggested a workgroup to deal with cumulative impacts.
24
-------
Mr. Mabion emphasized that job training, workforce development, and employment
opportunities are a must, especially in the youth/young adult age group. Dr. Tejada agreed with
him on its importance.
Vice-Chair Tilchin stated that cumulative impacts were a major component in the AQCM
Workgroup recommendations. He welcomed any input about resources for that, especially the
airshed TMDL concept. Dr. Tejada stated that combatting cumulative impacts will last years.
Ms. Colon de Mejias emphasized that we need to stay away from doing things the same way as
in the past because "nothing changes if nothing changes." She stated that she is speaking for
everyone who doesn't get a chance to be heard. She emphasized that a lot of the knowledge
presented at these meetings never trickles down to the community members who need to hear it
the most. She suggested that groups who keep getting money but make no changes should not
get any more money and give it to groups that have never had a chance to get it before. She
reminded everyone that the information that does come from these meetings is sometimes so
complicated, so distorted, and so big that it's unreadable to the average person. Sometimes
billions of dollars are spent on studies and lengthy reports that no one will ever read. It's time to
do something different. Dr. Tejada replied that this money will help to do it differently. This is
a chance to show other agencies that the system can change equitably, and the mission gets
achieved better.
Ms. Hall echoed Ms. Colon de Mejias' comments. She noted that when big foundations and
universities are in charge of the money, none goes to the community. There needs to be more
"agitators" who will stir things up and make changes so the EJ communities will be heard. Dr.
Tejada agreed with her and stated that his office wants to be the agitator. He wants the language
to say that universities will not get any money unless they are in partnership with a community-
based organization, not just a letter of commitment, but a financial document showing where the
money goes within the partnership.
Ms. Nagano echoed the previous comments and added that a university must be in the
communities, not just have a place on campus. The lead needs to be a community member, not a
faculty member. Dr. Tejada agreed.
Mr. Clow suggested that there needs to be a person at the OEJECR who can share data with the
communities. Dr. Tejada stated that EPA is working on that. He said that in five years the
landscape of environmental public health protection will look fundamentally different because of
the data that's about to get supported by the EPA.
Ms. Shirley stated that she hopes that the changes come to fruition. The competitive grant
application system needs to have an even playing field, and EPA needs to truly listen to what EJ
communities are saying to make those changes. They need to use culturally appropriate methods
and training to truly listen. Dr. Tejada replied they are reworking the grant system to remove or
minimize barriers. He stated that the old public involvement policy was mothballed 15 to 20
years ago because they didn't have the staff to do it. Because of the recent influx of money, the
program is being revived and reworked to put it back into effect better. That program will not be
effective if changes do not happen. Ms. Shirley hoped his office has a lot of money for travel to
25
-------
go out into the communities. Dr. Tejada replied that he's fighting for it. He stated that he also
looks forward to meeting the new members in person.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks turned the meeting over to Mr. Tilchin for the next agenda item.
1.7.3 NEJAC Workgroup Updates
Vice-Chair Tilchin explained the procedures for the workgroup updates.
1.7.3.1 Farmworker Protection & Pesticides Workgroup
Co-Chair Orduno named the other NEJAC members in the group and stated that there are
seven external community members involved as well. The group has been working on paying
more attention to the Worker Protection Standards and enforcement and regulation regarding
farmworker work conditions and problems with the way pesticides are being used, i.e.,
monitoring and use training. The workgroup is learning about the effects of working conditions
on women and children. They want a charge to identify the problems; improve inspections and
compliance enforcement; encourage worker complaints and reporting; limit pesticide exposure,
especially to women and children; and uphold the civil rights of workers. The workgroup is
consulting with many agencies. Dr. Fritz added that she hopes the workgroup gets a timeslot
during the next meeting to discuss what they've learned and heard from the workers themselves.
1.7.3.2 NEPA Workgroup
Dr. Piazza shared that they have ten NEJAC members now, of which three are new NEJAC
members, and three external members, who are prior NEJAC members. She explained the key
motivations of the group. One is to play a critical role in identifying EJ concerns, and the other is
mitigating harmful impacts of proposed impacts on communities. They try to have more
substance, consistency, and accountability to the EJ considerations that are brought forward in
the NEPA process and the EJ analyses. This workgroup can provide recommendations and
collaborate with the new EJECR program. They are expecting a charge from the Office of
Federal Activity.
1.7.3.3 NEJAC Finance and Investment (Justice40) Workgroup
April Baptiste, PhD, named the other NEJAC members and Dr. Sacoby Wilson as an external,
but former NEJAC, member of the group. The group is working on two documents that attempt
to define, measure, and track all issues related to funding as it relates to environmental justice
projects. The first is a process document that raises questions related to funding, investments,
benefits, and co-benefits of the Justice40 money. The second document contains the
recommendations focused on defining words such as benefits, investments, and co-benefits;
assuring that the funds are going directly into the EJ communities and the community is the
center of the progress; and asking for clear metrics for accountability. They will have the two
documents ready for the next meeting. She also requested more members to join the workgroup.
Vice-Chair Tilchin turned the meeting over to DFO Flores-Gregg to announce upcoming
events.
26
-------
1.7.4 Upcoming Events
DFO Flores-Gregg announced the next public meeting, which will be in person, will be on
November 28 through December 2, 2022.
1.8 Closing Remarks & Adjourn
Co-Chair Orduno thanked everyone for their time and efforts. She highly encouraged the
members to attend the in-person meeting.
Co-Chair Osborne Jelks also thanked everyone and gave a brief rundown of what was
accomplished at the meeting.
Vice-Chair Tilchin stated that was exciting to meet just after the announcement of the new
OEJECR program. He thanked everyone for the enormous amount of work that went into the
meeting and the public commenters for their comments.
DFO Flores-Gregg adjourned the meeting.
I, Sylvia Orduno and I, Na'Taki Osborne Jelks, Co-Chairs of the National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council certify that this is the final meeting summary for the public meeting held on
September 28, 2022, and it accurately reflects the discussions and decisions of the meeting.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Sylvia Orduno
December 28, 2022
Na'Taki Osborne Jelks, PhD
December 28, 2022
27
-------
Appendix 1. Agenda
AGENDA
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL (NEJAC)
VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING
Wednesday, September 28, 2022 12:00 PM - 7:30 PM Eastern
12:00 PM-12:15 PM
Welcome & Introductions
• Paula Flores-Gregg, Designated Federal Officer - U.5. EPA
• Sylvia Ordufia, NEJAC Co-Chair - Michigan Welfare Rights Organization
• Dr. Na'Taki Osborne Jelks, INEJAC Co-Chair - West Atlanta Watershed
Alliance and Proctor Creek Stewardship Council
• Michael Tikhin, NEJAC Vice Chair-Jacobs Engineering
12:15 PM-12:45 PM
Opening Remarks & National Program Announcement
• Robin Collin, Senior Advisor to the Administrator for Environmental
Justice, U.S. EPA
• Marianne Engelman-Lado, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
{Acting} for EJECR, U.S. EPA
• Matthew Tejada, Deputy Assistant Administrator for EJ, EJECR, U.S.
EPA
• Lilian Dorka, Deputy Assistant Administrator for External Civil Rights,
EJECR, U.S. EPA
12:45 PM-1:15 PM
NEJAC Members Introduction
1:15 PM-2:30 PM
PFAS Workgroup Recommendations
• Dr. Sandra Whitehead, PFAS Workgroup Chair - George Washington
University
• Dr. Ben Pauli, PFAS Workgroup - Kettering University
2:30PM - 3:45 PM
Air Quality & Community Monitoring (AQCM) Workgroup Recommendations
• Michael Tilchin, NEJAC Vice Chair - AQCM Workgroup Chair - Jacobs
Engineering
3:45 PM -4:00 PM
BREAK
28
-------
4:00 PM-5:00 PM
Public Comment Period
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM
BREAK
5:15 PM-7:15PM
Business Meeting
• New Charge: Water Infrastructure Workgroup Technical Assistance
Charge
o Jonathan Nelson, Senior Advisor for Technical Assistance and
Community Outreach, Office of Water, U.S. EPA
o Chitra Kumar, Director of the Office of Policy, Partnerships, and
Program Development, OEJECR, U.S. EPA
• EPA Updates - 2023 Priorities
o Matthew Tejada, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Environmental Justice, OEJECR, U.S. EPA
• NEJAC Workgroup Updates
1. Farmworker Protection & Pesticides Workgroup
2. NEPAWorkgroup
3. NEJAC Finance and Investment [Justice 40) Workgroup
• Upcoming Events
7:15 PM-7:30 PM
Closing Remarks & Adjourn
• Dr. Na'Taki Osborne Jelks, NEJAC Co-Chair - West Atlanta Watershed
Alliance and Proctor Creek Stewardship Council
• Sylvia Orduno, NEJAC Co-Chair - Michigan Welfare Rights Organization
• Michael Tilchin, NEJAC Vice Chair-Jacobs Engineering
• Paula Flores-Gregg, Designated Federal Officer-U.S. EPA
NOTE: Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion for one topic is
completed, discussions for the next topic will begin. For further information, please contact the Designated
Federal Officer for this meeting, Paula Flores-Gregg, atflores.paula@epa.gov
29
-------
Appendix 2. September 2022 NE JAC Public Meeting Attendee List
First Name
Last Name
State/
Province
Organization
Michael
Stroud
VA
International Liquid Terminals
Association (ILTA)
Ligia
Duarte
DC
Household & Commercial Products
Association
Taylor
Vaughan
OH
Oak Ridge Associated Universities
Ted
Marks
NY
Private Citizen
John
Mueller
OK
Private Citizen
Nicholas
Plebani
DC
GGA
Matthew
Jokajtys
NJ
PSEG
Stacy
Allen
MO
Ameren
Kim
Scarborough
NJ
PSEG
Traylor
Champion
GA
Georgia-Pacific
1
k
FL
Florida Crystals
Jasmin
Contreras
MD
EPA
Trish
Koman
MI
EPA
Matthew
Pezzella
DC
ASTM International
Monica
Dick
IN
AES
Danielle
Mercurio
DC
VNF
Barry F.
Boyd
CA
Concerned Meadowview Neighborhood
Resident
Jennifer
Miller
KY
Kentucky Division for Air Quality
Ed
Monachino
NC
RTI International
Caitlin
Macomber
DC
WRI
Amelia
Cheek
IL
IERG
Eileen
Mayer
DC
EPA
Leanne
Nurse
VA
The Nature Conservancy
Katie
Lambeth
MI
EGLE
Tina
Davis
IL
EPA
Julian
Hong
VA
American Public Power Association
Winifred
Carson-Smith
DC
WY Carson Company
Susan
Kilmer
MI
EGLE Air Quality Division
David
Ailor
DC
American Coke and Coal Chemicals
Institute
Heather
Gawne
PA
Stella-Jones Corporation
Carol
Butero
CO
Kinder Morgan
Scott
Thorsgard
OR
Allweather Wood
Ryan
Pessah
WA
Western Wood Preservers Institute
Ryan
McManus
VA
APWA
Rebecca
Overmyer-
Velazquez
CA
Clean Air Coalition of North Whittier
Heights
Natalie
Tarini
Other
Wood Preservation Canada
30
-------
First Name
Last Name
State/
Province
Organization
Sandra
Morse
VA
Aegis Environmental
Stacey
Callaway
WA
Ecology
Olivia
Morgan
LA
Private Citizen
Carol
Trembly
WV
FirstEnergy
Tanisha
Raj
CA
Catholic charities
Dorothy
Nairne
LA
Delta Builds Enterprises
Liz
Hoerning
WI
EHS Support
Daniel
Nierenberg
NY
NYSDOT
Michael
Keehley
GA
Strategic H, E, & S Partner
Janet
Katz
WA
Washington state university college of
nursing
Diana
Zuckerman
DC
National Center for Health Research
Noble
Smith
MD
UMD SPH
Sydney
Menees
VA
The Boeing Company
Bud
McAllister
CT
Partners in Healthy Communities
Farrah
Court
TX
TCEQ
Daniel
Woodard
AL
Southern Company
Susan
Cathey
TX
Air Liquide
Wumi
Andrew
TX
TAMU-CC
Krista
Kyle
TX
TCEQ
Bobby
Janecka
TX
TCEQ
Alexandra
Olson
TX
EPA
Terry
Bowers (DoD)
VA
DOD
Joe
Weishaar
IL
Plote Construction Inc
Anne
Troutman
NY
Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC
None
Bigdeli
LA
UNO
Mike
Pitta
TX
Kinder Morgan
Cheryl
Watson
IL
Equitable Resilience & Sustainability
LLC
Stacey
Lobatos
DC
EPA
Kimi
Matsumoto
CO
EPA
Monica
Espinosa
KS
EPA
Judith
Kendall
DC
EPA
Scott
Wilson
Badenoch Jr
CA
Environmental Law Institute
Brian
Lynch
TX
Baker Botts
Rachel
Averitt
TX
Baker Botts
Khalila
Howze
NC
University of North Carolina at
Greensboro
Brendan
Mascarenhas
DC
ACC
Leslie
Reed
FL
Brightwater Strategies Group
tony
germinario
NJ
BASF Corp.
Rachel
Strow
DC
Rutgers University
31
-------
First Name
Last Name
State/
Province
Organization
Scott
Yager
DC
INGAA
Coral
Lozada
TX
HRI
Greg
DeAngelo
FL
Metro 4/SESARM
Morgan
Capilla
CA
EPA
Macara
Lousberg
DC
EPA
Erin
Partlan
DC
EPA
Jacquelyn
Omotalade
PA
EHP
Linda
Shosie
AZ
Environmental Justice Task Force Tucson
Ester
Ceja
ID
Idaho Transportation Department
Mark
Chambers
NY
EDGI
David
Magdangal
DC
EPA
Emma
Roy
DC
NCHR
Beth
Graves
DC
ECOS
Miranda
Chien-Hale
DC
The Environmental Council of the States
(ECOS)
Paulina
Lopez-Santos
DC
Environmental Council of the States
Mia
Lombardi
OH
Marathon Petroleum
Kim
Lambert
VA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Katy
Arnold
CA
Environmental Defense Fund
Linsey
Walsh
PA
EPA
Bridgid
Curry
DC
EPA
Julie
Van Alstine
DC
USDA
Beth
Dittman
NC
NC Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services
Charles
Lee
DC
EPA
Patricia A.
Spitzley
MI
RACER Trust
Claudia
Vaupel
WA
EPA
Brian
Holtzclaw
GA
EPA
Matthew
Brickey
NC
Forsyth County, NC Government
Katherine
Herrera
DC
American Gas Association
Anne
Thidemann
CT
USAO-CT
Alex
Guillen
VA
Politico
Nancy
Beck
DC
Hunton
Claire
Still
VA
AECOM
D
Wu
NY
NYS OAG - EPB
Mark
Huncik
PA
Highlands Civic Association
Adenike
Adeyeye
MD
Climate + Clean Energy Equity Fund
Dawn
Johnson
GA
DCJ Global Management Solutions, LLC
Dawn
Reeves
VA
Inside EPA
Nicolette
Fertakis
DC
EPA
Christopher
Smith
DC
Interstate Natural Gas Association of
America
32
-------
First Name
Last Name
State/
Province
Organization
Elizabeth
Small
NY
CDP
Ellen
Spears
GA
University of Alabama
Richard
Hamel
MA
ALL4, LLC
Barbara
Brown
NY
Eastern Queens Alliance, Inc.
Emma
Lipsky
DC
Justice & Sustainability Associates
Chris
White
IL
ASE Chicago
Lena
Epps-Price
NC
EPA
Emily
Collins
OH
City of Akron
Julia
Hathaway
DC
EPA
Brittany
Morris
VA
Private Citizen
Brian
Chalfant
PA
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
James
Tillman
LA
CGI
Juliet
Herndon
NJ
NJ TRANSIT
Sonya
Jampel
WA
EPA
Gretchen
Mallari
WA
Pierce County Planning & Public Works
Diane
D'Arrigo
MD
Nuclear Info and Resource Service
Jacky
Grimshaw
IL
CNT
Juliana
Ojeda
DC
Green 2.0
JL
Andrepont
OR
350.org
Kate
Gill
PA
GSA
Melissa
Ezzell-Maddy
CO
LMCo
Lin
Nelson
WA
Evergreen State College
Jenn
Clarke
VA
City of Richmond
Hilary
Jacobs
DC
Beveridge & Diamond
Kate
Hutchens
MI
Michigan Dept. of Environment, Great
Lakes, & Energy
Gina
Shirey
AK
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
Jeraldine
Herrera
ME
Power Engineers
Neelakshi
Hudda
MA
Tufts Univ
Leah
Wood
WA
Washington State Department of Health
Madeline
Semanisin
MO
Great Rivers Environmental Law Center
Kandyce
Perry
NJ
NJ Department of Environmental
Protection
Jesse
Fairweather
CO
CDPHE
Janice
Horn
TN
Tennessee Valley Authority
Alex
Porteous
DC
EPA
Jessica
Evans
DC
Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies (AMWA)
Rani
Kumar
CO
CDPHE
Mitchell
DePalma
AZ
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Jack
Hinshelwood
VA
VDH
33
-------
First Name
Last Name
State/
Province
Organization
Maryann
Carroll
DE
Croda, Inc.
Ariel
Neumann
DC
Verdant Law PLLC
Sarah
Phillips
CO
Waste Connections
Matthew
Silverman
NY
US Attorney's Office EDNY
Roberto
Ellis
FL
City of Ocala
Holly
Ravesloot
DC
HHS
Eletha
Roberts
OH
CESER
Kiera
Brown
CA
RCAC
Michael
Petroni
DC
EPA
Elyse
Salinas
DC
EPA
Julie
Jimenez
MD
Private Citizen
Ashley
Morales
VA
SERCAP
Shakenya
Jackson
FL
City of Apopka
Tania
Ellersick
DC
USDA
Telly
Lovelace
DC
ACC
Brad
Jarrett
AR
Communities Unlimited
Theda
Braddock
WA
Steilacoom Planning Commission
Rachel
Schneider
DC
CBP
LaTorria
Sims
GA
Adamantine Energy
Marley
Kimelman
DC
Babst Calland
Catie
Bartone
VT
Weston & Sampson
Meghan
Langley
MA
Private Citizen
Molly
McDaniel
FL
Pensacola and Perdido Bays Estuary
Program
Leah
Harnish
VA
American Waterways Operators
Jessica
Pulliam
HI
Private Citizen
Kaitlin
Harris
TX
RCAP
John
Byrd
VA
Miller/Wenhold Capitol Strategies
John G.
Andrade
MA
Old Bedford Village Development, Inc.
Xavier
Barraza
NM
EJ Leadership Team
Zoraida
Lopez-Diago
NY
Scenic Hudson
Andrew
Donnellycolt
CT
Connecticut Department of Public Health
Marie
Collins Wright
IL
Jeffrey Manor Community Revitalization
Council
Melanie
Medina-Metzger
VA
FEMA
Denise
Sarchiapone
MD
B&D Environmental Consulting
Stephanie
Hammonds
WV
WVDEP-DAQ
Kelsi
Grogan
MD
EPA
DARIA
GRAYER
DC
AAMC
John
Perkey
TX
Waste Connections
Lisa
Voss
AZ
Private Citizen
Bernice
Smith
DC
EPA
34
-------
First Name
Last Name
State/
Province
Organization
Brandon
Hunter
NC
Center for Rural Enterprise &
Environmental Justice
Cyndi
Comfort
WA
Washington State Department of Ecology
Marvin S.
Robinson II
KS
Quindaro Ruins/ Underground Railroad-
Exercise 2023
Caroline
Miles Ingram
MS
Communities Unlimited
Hal
Marchand
IL
Western Illinois University Health
Sciences
Stephanie
Coates
TX
EDF
Kevin
Hamilton
CA
Central California Asthma Collaborative
Julie
Childers
VA
Private Citizen
Doris
Johnson
CT
Energy & Environmental Protection
Janice
Brown
CO
Private Citizen
Steve
Moran
VA
BreezoMeter
Deldi
Reyes
CA
CA Air Resources Board
William
Nichols
DC
EPA
Samantha
Meneses
CA
Central California Asthma Collaborative
Gerardo
Acosta
TX
Office of Communities, Tribes, and
Environmental Assess
Donnella
Monk
NY
City of Syracuse
Gloria
Vaughn
TX
EPA
Jamie
Banks
MA
Quiet Communities Inc.
Agatha
Benjamin
TX
EPA
Debra
Tellez
NM
EPA
Ryan
Phillips
OR
Department of Environmental Quality
Rebecca
Truka
OR
Hexion Inc
Amanda
Giorgio
VA
SERCAP
Kibri
Everett
NC
RTI International
Ronald
Zorrilla
NY
Outdoor Promise
Maya
Breitburg-Smith
WA
RESOLVE
Maria
Payan
DE
SHEN
Isabel
Molina
NJ
NJLCV
Tara
Hocker
OK
Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
Natalie
Shepp
AZ
Pima County Department of
Environmental Quality
Holly
Spear
AR
Capitol Square
Dillon
Lucas
CO
DOJ
DJ
Portugal
AZ
Chispa AZ
Pamela
Winston
DC
HHS
Maya
Nye
WV
Coming Clean
Otis
Mathis
MI
AfricanTown-48217 (AT-4)
Cynthia
Peurifoy
GA
Private Citizen
Stephanie
Herron
PA
EJHA
35
-------
First Name
Last Name
State/
Province
Organization
Brayton
Willis
NC
NAACP
Shanika
Amarakoon
NH
ERG
Cheryl
Cail
SC
American Rivers
Ms
Shirley
GA
Agency for Humanity
Lianne
Audette
CT
10000 Hawks
Jolene
Keplin
ND
Health Education
Judith
Robinson
PA
Susquehanna Clean Up/Pick Up, Inc.
Jame
Schaefer
WI
Marquette University
Angella
Dunston
NC
NC League of Conservation Voters
Odette
Wilkens
NY
Wired Broadband, Inc.
Patrick
Ceres
FL
Lion Point Engineering
Teraine
Okpoko
NY
Teraine Okpoko P.C.
Andrew
Stoeckle
MA
ERG
Kristie
Ellickson
MN
Union of Concerned Scientists
Kris
Rusch
VA
EnDyna
Joanna
Standi
VA
USDA
Michelle
Madeley
DC
EPA
Chris
Whitehead
NJ
ESI
James
Kenney
NM
New Mexico Environment Department
Zanetta
Bennett
LA
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality
Kim
Tucker-Billingslea
MI
GM
Stephanie
Hirner
KS
Evergy, Inc.
Jenna
Dodson
WV
West Virginia Rivers Coalition
Sherrie
Thomas
DC
EPA
Mary Anne
McDonald
NC
Duke University
Kathleen
Bland
OH
Highlight Technologies
Carolyn
Huynh
WA
Integral
Nelson
Gonzalez-Sullow
GA
USDA
Jenny
Coughlin
IA
Alliant Energy
Sharon
Cooperstein
DC
EPA
Sarah
Davidson
DC
EPA
Cristina
Villa
DC
DOI
Matthew
Johns
CA
HHS
Deanee
Rios
NY
Atlantic Climate Justice Alliance
Pablo
Mendez Lazaro
PR
USDA
Gianna
St.Julien
LA
Tulane University Law School
Jackie
Busby
WA
Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department
Darius
Stanton
DC
American Cleaning Institute
Kimberly
McCoy
CA
Central California Asthma Collaborative
Wynnie-
Fred
Victor Hinds
NJ
Weequahic Park Association
36
-------
First Name
Last Name
State/
Province
Organization
Samantha
Estabrook
MT
Headwaters Economics
Laurel
Lynn Rowse
MS
MSDH
Vanessa
Gordon
MD
USDA
Adriana
Ross
CA
Central Valley Water Quality Control
Board
Fran
Aguirre
CO
Unite North Metro Denver
LINDA
Giles
DC
Transcription, Etc. LLC
Otoha
Tatami
IL
EPA
Rebecca
Harbage
MT
Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality
Richard
Juang
MA
Ceres
Mary
Green
WV
Private Citizen
Regan
Patterson
CA
UCLA
Patricia
Iscaro
VA
Politico Agency IQ
Sonia
Kikeri
PA
Emerald Cities Collaborative
Ora
Giles
NY
Transcription, Etc., LLC
Hope
Cupit
VA
SERCAP
Dave
White
TX
USACE
Kathleen
Dominique
Other
OECD
Don
Van Schaack
OH
DOD
Moto
Power
NM
Grants and More, inc.
Amanda
Aspatore
DC
NACWA
Michael
Hopperton
GA
BP
Randa
Boykin
NC
NCDEQ
Carlyn
Chappel
NY
EPA
Jerry
Ackerman
GA
EPA
Annisa
White
TX
Entergy
Donna
Turnipseed
WA
FPAC BC
Helen
Serassio
DC
EPA
Jake
Assael
DC
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Marjorie
Hall
GA
NEWFIELDS
Skye
Wheeler
DC
Human Rights Watch
Melvin
Keener
VA
CRWI
Neha
Sareen
NY
EPA
Larisa
Romanowski
NY
EPA
Daisha
Williams
NC
CleanAIRE NC
Crystal
Chavez
FL
Private Citizen
Natalie
Lepska
CA
OSRE
Olivia
Lopez
MD
Ocean Conservancy
Stella
Wang
NY
Integral Consulting Inc.
Nettie
McMiller
DC
EPA
Jimmy
Parrish
VA
Defense Supply Center Richmond
Grace
Elam
CA
EPA
37
-------
First Name
Last Name
State/
Province
Organization
Jessa
Chabeau
PA
Environmental Health Project
Caitlin
McHale
DC
National Mining Association
Taaka
Bailey
MS
MDEQ
Tammie
Tucker
NC
AECOM
Dee
Vanek
IL
Argonne National Laboratory
Ken
Miller
NM
City of Albuquerque Environmental
Health Department
Edlynzia
Barnes
IL
EPA
Marie
Gargas
DC
Plastics Industry Association (PLASTICS)
Isabella
Herrera
FL
American Meteorological Society
Aaron
Koka
TX
UMD - CEEJH
Tanya
Williams
WA
Safety PACE LLC
Arian
Mokhtari
MD
University of Maryland
Elizabeth
Meza
CA
University of Maryland
John
Kinsman
DC
Edison Electric Institute
Megan
Kuhl-Stennes
MN
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Dana
Williamson
GA
EPA
Karen
Beason
OH
88 CEG/CEIEC
Rick
McMonagle
OR
EPA
Lily
Rubino
NY
Cambridge University
Melissa
Collier
MS
CCAPHF
Martin
Lively
OK
LEAD Agency, Inc.
Leigh
Callahan
DC
EPA
Geoff
Hickman
PA
Upper Merion Township
Wendy
Hogg
GA
NewFields
Amy
Volckens
CO
RTI International
Kimberly
Crisafi
DC
EPA
Chad
Larsen
TX
EPA
Jorge
Acevedo
MI
MI EGLE
Pamela
Bingham
VA
University of Maryland/Bingham
Consulting Services
Heather
Croshaw
CO
Private Citizen
Sydney
Boogaard
AZ
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Lorraine
Anderson
TX
Shell
Jordan
Griffin
CA
Sacramento State
Bev
Vazquez
DC
EPA
Rachel
Patterson
NY
Evergreen Action
Mary
Strawderman
VA
vcu
Lisa
Frede
IL
CICI
Kim
Harris
IL
EPA
Jason
Torian
NC
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense
League
38
-------
First Name
Last Name
State/
Province
Organization
Danusha
Chandy
VA
EPA
Emma
Hale
DC
HHS
Keith
Guille
WY
Wyoming DEQ
Kimber
Wichmann
WY
DEQ
Komie
Jain
DC
Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries
Mary
Peveto
OR
Neighbors for Clean Air
Liz
Lamar
CA
Bees and Teas
Marilyn
Hemingway
SC
Gullah Geechee Chamber of Commerce
Oana
Djibom
MD
CEEJH
LaShauna
Austria
NC
Kindred Seedlings Farm
Anna
Truszczynski
GA
Georgia EPD
Donna
Ott
PA
Pennsylvanians for Safe Technology
Carla
Mays
CA
Smart Cohort
Devin
Murphy
CA
City of Pinole, Movement for Black Lives
Andrea
Hubbard
CA
Lideres campesinas y alianza nacional
Marlene
Rojas Lara
CA
Alianza Nacional de Campesinas
Laurie
Casey
IL
One Earth Collective
Ines
Azevedo
CA
Stanford University
Kate
Hoag
CA
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District
Melissa
Horton
DC
Southern Company
Chris
Moore
TN
Eastman
Dianne
Phillips
MA
Holland & Knight LLP
Matt
Holmes
CA
Little Manila Rising
Karen
Suarez
CA
Making Hope Happen Foundation - Uplift
San Bernardino
Alexandra
Archer
OR
Neighbors for Clean Air
Youmna
Ansari
MD
University of Maryland - CEEJH
Walker
Livingston
DC
AgencylQ
Ronni
Beccles
DC
EPA
Elvira
Carvajal
FL
Alianza Nacional de Campesinas
Rowan
Bost
DC
Steptoe
Hormis
Bedolla
NY
Alianza Nacional de Campesinas
Crystal
Warren
TN
TN Dept Environment and Conservation
Donald
Lang
CA
Private Citizen
Alan
Edwards
WY
WY Department of Environmental
Quality
Bennett
Thompson
DC
EPA
Jessica
Dalton
FL
DEP
Suzanne
Yohannan
VA
Inside EPA's Superfund Report
Deborah
Williams
IL
CWLP
Cynthia
Robertson
LA
Micah Six Eight Mission
39
-------
First Name
Last Name
State/
Province
Organization
Marie
Brown
SC
SC DHEC
Bonita
Johnson
GA
EPA
Jason
Heath
OH
ORSANCO
Audelia
Garcia
CA
Lideres Campesinas
Ramona
Sanders
LA
Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement
Joe
James
SC
Aghri-Tech Producers LLC
Rita
Harris
MS
Sierra Club
Kim
Jones
GA
EPA
Amanda
Hauff
DC
EPA
Robert
Fox
DC
EPA
Dean
Scott
DC
Bloomberg
Vivian
Do
CA
Columbia
Katy
Super
DC
EJHA
Monique
Hudson
GA
EPA
Dana
M
DC
GWU
Courtney
Cecale
WA
ECY
Abby
Klinkenberg
CA
Bureau of Reclamation
Christopher
White
IL
Reclaim Evanston
Alexander
Benjamin
IN
CBRC and ACJA
Elsie
Aquino-Gonzalez
PR
ACJA
Clark
Watson
OK
Webco Industry
Rusty
Hazelton
GA
EPA
Rebecca
Adler Miserendino
DC
Lewis-Burke Associates
Joshua
Nelson
MD
CEEJH
Danny
Gogal
DC
EPA
Vikram
Iyer
DC
Center for American Progress
Kathryn
McKenzie
NY
Private Citizen
C
Liv
DC
HHS
Sheryl
Good
GA
EPA
Daphne
Wilson
GA
EPA
Alessandro
Molina
CO
EPA
Piyachat
Terrell
DC
EPA
40
------- |