NCD980602163_19990202_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_USEPA - Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Re Comments on Draft Interim Report - NEJAC Assessment Workgroup-OCR

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, 0.C. 20460
Charles Lee
United Church of Christ
Commission for Racial Justice
475 Riverside Drive, 16iti Floor
New York, NY 10015
FEB 2 1999
~FICEOF
ENFCRCEI.IENT AHO
COMPlw«:E ASSURANCE
RE: Comments on the "Draft Interim Report-NEJAC Assessment \Vorkgroup"'
Dear Charles:
I thought it would be best to set forth in writing my concerns regarding the icitial draft of
the interim report of the NEJAC Assessment Workgroup (attached). Although the first draft
whetted my appetite for receiving an objective assessment of the NEJAC, I have several concerns
that I attempted to share with the Assessment Workgroup on the January 28, 1999. conference call
but was unable to do so because the conversation digressed.
First, I finnly believe that it is essential that the interim report accomplish the goals that were
. contemplated when the Assessment Workgroup was fonned in the first place. In section 4.2
entitled, "Effectiveness of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee," of the minutes
of the February 23 and 25, 1998 meeting of the Executive Council in Arlington, Virginia, where it
was specifically state<l that:
As a result of their discussion, the members of the Executive Council
agreed to fonn a focus group that would evaluate the effectiveness of
NEJAC and to develop recommendations related to the various roles of the
NEJAC. The work group will examine the nature of the NE/AC. its
accomplishments, and its cunent responsibilities. (Source: "Executive
Council ofNEJAC, Summary of the Special Business Meeting, Arlington, •
V ~ February 23-24, 1998, page 13, 3"' paragraph, 5111 line)
The discussion that led t.o the Executive Council agreement to fonn the workgroup began
with a discourse regarding the six specific roles of the NEJAC. Exhibit 5 on page 12 of that same
document identifies those six roles as follows :
lnlemot Addrass (URL) • hrrp://www.,pa.gov
R..:ycl•dlRecyi:labl• • Pllnled WIit! V.g,tlablo 01 B~ Inks on Aocydt<I p~ (Minimum 2.5% F'otleoftlUIMI)
Charles I« Ecba1111 2 1999
The NEJAC will serve as:
1) a sounding board through which people can bring issues before the
agency
2) a [sic] advisory body that influences EPA policy
3} a forum for policy discussions that provides an interpretive framework
for federal statutes and language
4) a consciousness-raising organization for EPA
5) a catalyst within EPA and among agencies to identify environmental
justice issues
6) a supporter of particular action to remedy a particular problem
2 oCl
In light of the above since this was the :NEJAC self-described roles, I conclude that the
interim report should address the following questions:
a. Whether and to what extent the NEJAC has successfully accomplished
any and/or all of those roles?
b. If it bas not accomplished any and/or all of the roles, what mechanisms
can this Assessment Workgroup propose that will assist the NEJAC in
successfully accomplishing those roles in the future?
Therefore, in order for the interim repon to have any credibility, I would argue that the
Assessment Workgroup must address those questions directly. The Assessment W orkgroup should
review, for example, the myriad recommendations proposed by the NEJAC over the years to
demonstrate that, as a result, a particular policy or policies of the Agency were changed. The
Assessment Workgroup would be in a position, therefore, to conclude that the NEJAC has had a
direct impact on the way in which the Agency does business regarding the issue of environmental
justice. In sum, the changed policy or implementation of the policy must be directly attributable to
the recommendation of the NEJAC.
Secondly, I finnly believe that the interim report must not be viewed as. a ·"puff-piece" for
the NEJAC. It must be an objective analysis/assessment of the entity. There must be a "'cause and
effect" approach to the document Thus, if the NEJAC states that it has accomplished something,
it must be able to point to something specificaUy that would clearly indicate that but for the presence
of the NEJAC, and the advice/recommendations that were rendered, that success would not have
occurred. For example, if the NEJAC claims that it has 14influence(d) EPA policy," it must indicate
what that specific policy was in order to lay claim to the success.
Cb•dcs Itt Ecbn11q l 1299 3oC3
Thirdly, I finnly believe that the interim report must .!!Q.t be viewed as a diatribt against the
Agency. Such . an approach, in a vacuum, is unnecessary, unwarranted, and, most assuredly,
unproductive. Any constructive criticism that emanates from this interim report would be best
offered and received as such in the tbnn of cogent and succinct recommendations.
Fourthly, I finnly believe that the interim report must not be viewed as placing the NE1AC
in the role as an entity that provides "oversight" of the Agency. That is clearly and unmistakably
not the NEJAC's role. That role belongs exclusively to Congressional committees and not a
voluntary advisory council created by the Agency. By law and tradition, oversight is the e.-<clusive
province of Congress. Nowhere in the NEJ AC' s by laws or charter indicates or even suggests such
a role. Therefore, the interim report must be purged of any and all language that indicates or even_
suggests that the NEJ AC plays such a role because that is inaccurate. Again, the interim report must
be credible.
Finally, I firmly believe that the interim report must not be viewed as a retrospective
docwnent only. In other ,,.-ords, it must not only look at the past, it must provide a proscription for
. the future. In short, it must not only be a diagnosis of the accomplishments of the NEJAC thus far,
but it must also set forth a prognosis of the entity for the near future in that it must provide a
framework for planning and setting the agenda so that it could fulfill the roles that it set for itself
and the purpose of the entity as contemplated by the Agency.
These are just my preliminary thoughts. I look forward to discussing the interim report
further with you and the other members of the Assessment Workgroup in the future. Until then, I
remain,
Attachment
· , Director
vironmental Justice
cc: NEJAC Assessment Workgroup members (w attachment)
Steve Heiman. Assistant Administrator, OECA (with attachment)
Sylvia Lowrance, Principal Deputy Administrator, OECA (with attachment) .
Ann Goode, Director, Office of Civil Rights (with attachment)
Linda K. Smith, Associate Director, OEJ (w/o attachment)
Marva E. King, Senior Policy Analyst, OEJ (w/o attachmentj
DRAFT INTERIM REPORT
NEJAC ASSESSMENT WORKGROUP
Draft #1
· January 15, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The N.itional Environment:il Justkl! .-\d\'isory Council (NEJAC) was establish~J on Sl!ptemb~r
30, 1993 to provid\! independent ~ld\"kc: and counsd to Lhe Administr:nor of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agen..:y on matters rdatcd to c:nvironmencal justkc!. The NEJAC h~,s
sincl! evolved into a singularly tmique and useful public dialogue mech3nism for EP.-\. The task
of integrating environment:ujustkc: \\lthin all EPA activities is an on-going :ind e,·ol\·ing one.
1
Hence, the NEJAC must be attenth·e to its own strategic orientation and capable '-'f e,·ohing in
confom1ity ,,ith the progress m:ide by the Agency. The ide:i that the NEJAC should-and indeecl
must--continuously impro\"e is the dri\-ing motivation behind this assessment pro..:e$$. A
commitment to excellence, responsibility to the public trust and a desire to achkYe Slilutions that
make a difference in peoples' lh·es \\ill demand nothing less.
The timing of this assessmc:nt is panicularly apt. On February 11, l 998~ Administr.1tor Carol
Browner and Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen issued a memorandum calling for the!
reinvigoration of enviroM1~nro.l justice at EPA. It called for the establishment of an EPA
Environmental Justice Executive Steering Committee. Attempting to introduce an~· new
principle to an institution as large and varied as EPA is a fonnidable challenge. Toe EPA should
be commended, ?owever. for ha,~g _m_ade significant and sub~tantive commitrnem.s bt Yarious I
program and regional offices. Whik 1t 1s nor the purpose of this assessment to exhaust1,·ely
catalogue these efforts, it is important to point out that the public needs to be made more fully
aware of these developments.
Significant changes in EP A's organizational behavior have taken place, and NEJAC has played
an important role in effectuating such change. NEJAC has done an excellent job of bringing
together large nwnbers of EPA staff and community representatives for presentation of
commwlity concerns in their o,·vn words. The dialogue initiated and the education of EPA and I
other staff on environmental justice concerns was highly constructive. NEJAC and EPA have
traveled around the country, and hundreds of government decision-makers have gained first hand
knowledge of central community concerns. There is every reason to believe that EP . ..\ staff, with
constant leadership, support and O\·ersight of a strong Office of Environmental Justice, \\ill be I
increasingly responsive to specific citizen concerns.
NEJAC must refine its role in this process. Developing a focused policy agenda that has lasting[
impact on environmental policy and regulations--federal, state, local and tribal--must become the
primary strategic orientation ofN"EJAC in the forthcoming period. The perception that NEJAC
has not to date engaged the agency in highly substantive and impactful ways on broad policy
questions is patently false. This has .taken place in the subcommittees, albeit at varying level of
intensity. However, that perception exists that NEJAC avoids policy issues because: (1) The
often overwhelming clamor created by the tremendous volume of site-specific issues often
causes the casual observer to overlook such discussion. (2) NEJAC as a whole has not
consciously viewed itself as a policy forum in which it proactively stakes out pivotal policy
questions. To address this need, the NEJAC Assessment Workgroup is calling for greater
attenrion to developing NEJAC's strategic planning capacity and its ability to offer focused
strategic policy advice.
STRUCTURE OF INTERIM REPORT
This rc:port h; mc:ant to bl!gin providing a structure for our fin.ii product. Ho,v~,-~r. it is Yc:t')·
much a work in progress. Nor doc::-it hav~a,11 the inputs that we need. It is meant to gh·e us a f
sense of where ,ve are and what major areas are missing, to provide a framework to incorpor.lte
new inputs. and most importantly. to give us~ vehicle for implementing those things 31"0Wld
which there is w1i,·c:rsal and forceful :igrec:ment. In this way, we will not lose the: tremendously
positive :md focused momentum thlt we have built during the first three months of this
wotk12roup's efforts. I
Thus ~3.f. the rq,ort has reached a set of cogent and focused practicable recommc:nd:itions in tlJ
follo"ing four are:is:
♦ Stre11gt/1,m strategic policy p/a1111i11g capacity of NEJAC 011 all levels.
• E11ha11ce trai11i11g a11d orie11tatio11 of NEJAC members.
♦ Develop a systematic set ofve11uesfor addressi11g site specific iss11es.
• Stre11gt/11m tl,e presence a11d role of EPA RegioJJal Offices at NEJAC meetings.
Discussion in the following additional areas has indicated that there is broad consensus that these
are important. The workgroup has generated many good ideas. However, in the opinion of the
· Workgroup Chair~ these ideas have not yet coalesced into a set of strong and highly focused
recommendations.
• Strengtl,en mea11ingf ul invo/veme11t of all stake!,older groups, includiltg commu11ity,
business, tribal, state and local gover1Jment.
♦ Develop stronger ties and working relationships with state, local and tribal government
♦ Proacti.vely fashion a federal interagency approach toward resolving multi-faceted and
cross-cutting e11vironmental justice issues.
• A strong and effective Office of Environmental Justice is critical for NEJAC to be truly
effective.
The two following major areas have ·yet to be addressed and will be the primary focus of the J xt
three months. J
♦ Tools and Mechanisms for Integrating Environmental Justice.
♦ Subcommittees, Key Issues and Specific Agency Initiatives.
I
I
With respect to the last area, the NEJAC Assessment Workgroup believes that there is much [
worth to its making recommendations--where possible--regarding the substantiv~ agenda of
NEJAC during the next several years. This defines the next phase of the workgroup work I
process and the remainder of this report. We have met with some different individual program
offices. In addition, we have held discussions with each subcommittee chair. As was indicated
during our report to the NEJAC (December 7-10, 1998), we will seek to fully engage the NEJA.IC
protocol committee during the next phase.
I
2 I
I
WORKGROUI' MEMBERSHIP . • . . I
w~ ar~ p~1.nti!Ularlr pk:is~d w1th th~ stellm· ~ahber of the persons appomted by Sylvi:i Lowr.mcl!
and l·faywooJ Turr~nrine to serve on this committee. The workgroup has representation of
multiple stakeholder groups :is well as key levels within EPA. · In addition to their commitment
to envircuuuental justice. tl,e group members possess an extraordinary amount ofhistorkal
knowl~ge. Such~ group put us on a good footing to effectuate a central goal of the NEJAC
Assessment proce~, i.e., to create the interaction that will bring the NEJAC and EPA le:idcrship
to :i common W\dersunding of how to provide and receive strategic policy advice. \Vorkgroup
members include:
l. Ch!lrlts Ltt. Chilir NGO
Director of Environment:11 Justice. United Church of Christ Contmission for Racial Justice
Fom1cr Chilir. NEJAC Wasrc: and Facility Siting Subcommittee
2. Haywood Turrcntint NGO
Executive Director. L;iborers District Council Education and Training Trust Fund
Chair. National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
3. Rich:ird Moore Community
Coordinator. Southwest NeC\"'ork for Environmental and Economic Justice
Former Ch3ir, National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
4. Tom Goldtooth Community and Indigenous
Coordin:itor. Indigenous EnYironmental Network
Chair. NEJAC Indigenous Subcommittee
S. Sue Briggwn Industry
Director, Government Affairs, Waste Management, Inc.
6. Richard Lazarus Academia
Professor, George Washington University Law Center
7. Arthur Ray State/Local Government
Deputy Director, Maryland Department of the Environment
8. Peggy Saika Community
Executive Director, Asian Pacific Environmental Network ·
Former Chair, NEJAC Public Participation Subcommittee
9. Laura Yoshii EPA
Depury Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9
(Alternate: E. Manzanilla)
10. Jerry Clifford EPA
Deputy Regional Administrator; EPA Region 6
1 J. Robert Brenner EPA
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation
(Alternate: W. Wilson)
12. William Sanders EPA
Director, Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics
13. Kent Benjamin EPA
Environmental Justice Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Designated Federal Official, Wa.stc and Facility Siting Subcommittee
14. Karla Johnson EPA
Environmental Justice Coordinator, Region 5
15. Melva Hayden EPA
Environmental Justice Coordinator, Region 2
16. Clarice Gaylord EPA
Former Director, Office of Environmental Justice
3
COMI>LETED RECOMMEND A TIO NS
Strengthen str.itc:gic policy planning c:1pacity of NE,JAC on :ill levels. This is by far most
important overarching reconun~nd~tion of this r~port. For that reason. the rationale for this
recommi:nd~tion w:is presented in th~ Introduction of this report.
+ The NEJAC Assessment Workgroup, with its present composicion of both mc:mbers of the
public and EPA m:inager.; :ind implementers, should becomt :i standing Strategic Plan11ing
Workgroup of the NEJAC working in conjunction with its Protocol Conunitte-=.
Esublish :in inside/outside group (similar ro the Assessment Workgroup) to
identify and agree on general direction for policy issues that need to~
addressed by NEJAC. This group would be sort of a brain trust for ideas.
-Richard !rloore, Former NEJAC Cl,air -
• The agenda for each NEJAC meeting should develop around a major policy theme, e.g., public
health, a federal interagency environmental justice agenda, relationship benveen em,ironmental
protection and economic de\'elopment, etc. A set of questions associated ,,.ith the policy theme
should be dc?veloped for presenters and public commentors to address. To the degree possible,
~he appropriate EPA program office in conjunction with a rele\'ant subcomminee should de\'elop
a policy briefing paper in preparation for this meeting. The NEJAC meeting would then become
much more of a policy forum for the examination of pertinent and critical en\'ironmental
justice issues from the perspectives of all stakeholder groups.
♦ The NEJAC Protocol Committee should have periodic and regular opporrunities to meet in
person.
• The NEJAC Protocol Committee and each NEJAC subcommittee should, in conjunction ,,.ith
the sponsoring program office, establish several strategic goals to accomplish during the term of
its chairperson.
• The NEJAC Protocol Committee should review the agency's strateiic plan for opportunities to
incorporate and enhance Environmental Justice related issues. The Special Assistant to the
Administrator for Environmental Justice and the Director of the Office of Environmental Justice
(or other appropriate persons) should conduct an annual briefing to the NEJAC Protocol
Committee.
• EP A's Environmental Justice Executive Steering Committee should prioritize the top 3 or 4
overarching policy issues that need NEJAC's •input and advice. There should be an annual
dialogue between the NEJAC Protocol Committee and the EPA Environmental Justice Executive
Steering Committee.
4
EPA sl!nior m:im1gcrs 1wtd to be more pro-active and intt!rilcti\'e '"ith NEJAC :md
obtain the: Coundl's input on policy matters as they nrc dl!veloping guid:1nce for the
agency's planning committet!s. (Advice is usually sought very late in the phuming
process) There $hould ~ regular two-way communic:ition between NEJAC and EPA
senior managers on policy m .. mcrs. For instance, not only should EPA m:m:iga-s tl:ig
issues of conc~m to th~ :ig~ncy (e.g. lead poisoning) but NEJAC should al$O idc:ntilY
and will have future: policy implications (e.g. air emissions trading).
-Laura Yosl,ii, EPA Regio11 9-
♦ Each program office should proactively engage and solicit advice from the NEJAC on critical
areas in early stages of policy deYelopmc:nt. Opportunities for dialogue, much of which would
be informal, should b~ sought. Often these become the best venues for brainstorming 3Ild
creative thinking. Sp~cific actions m::iy include:
• Each program office should draw up a list of key regulations 31ld guid3Ilcc
under development 0\·er th~ next three to five years as a regular part of its scoping
and strategic planning process.
• Program offices should prioritize top I or 2 policy issues that need NEJ.-\COs
input/advice, particularly if the office is a sponsor of a ~1EJAC subcomminee.
• Each subcomminee should engage in a formal and facilitated strategic planning
exercise at least once e\·er:· two years.
We would also like to work to ensure that NEJAC members have the opportunity to
contribute at the early stages of policy development. One analogy is to ensure
consideration of enviromnental justice issues similar to the process we have
established for small businesses. EPA has incorporated small business issues into its
way of doing business --by creating an internal advocate (the small business
ombudsman) and by preparing analyses to detennine the potential impact on small
business before proceeding with major regulations. -Rob Brenner, OAR-
Enhance Training and Orientation of NEJAC Members. Paying attention to training and
orientation of NEJAC members is critical to accomplishing the first recommendation around
strategic policy advice. It must be recognized that most members of the public do not have
knowledge of the EPA policy development process. This is a leadership development issue.
• Establish as a basic goal for the NEJAC chair and subcommittee chairs the commitment to
providing strategic leadership on national policy matters. In selecting chairs for the NEJAC and
its subcommittees, attention should be given to ensuring that the individuals are committed to
such a goal, have demonstrated ability to accomplish such a goal, and have articulated a sense of
vision as to what those goals would be.
5
• Train mc:mbers of the Protocol Committee Lo dcvdop le:1dcrship skills in str.uegic pl.inning
and get lhtsc mc:mbc:rs invoh·~d in EPAOs planning procl!ss early. Chairs :ind DFOs should be
trainc:d in strntcgic planning and ~ncour:.1gcd to set achievable goals for thdr su~ommitt~
within a specific:d time: perk1d (t.g., two-years).
♦ Establish a system of c:h:tirs and ch:ur-designates so that there is n training and le:iming pc:riod
for new chairs. This helps ensur~ continuity of agendas and strategic goals. It also 3lle,i:it~
some burden on the chair to have to do everything. In addition. existing or prc.!,·ious NEJAC
subcommittee chairs should be: called upon to play a mentoring role for ntw chairs.
• The Oftice of Em·ironmental Justb: should sponsor an annual workshop for ne,v and existing
chairs to explain ho,v they have incorporated environmental justice issues into tl,eir work to date
and what arc: the priorities are for the upcoming year.
• To prepare the chairs in their duties, we suggest:
• EPA and NEJAC pro\idc? background information on NEJAC to chairs.
• Existing or pre\ious NEJ.-l..C subcommittee chairs play a mentoring rol¢ for new
chairs.
• Office of Environmental Justice and specific program offices me~t \\ith the new
chairs to explain how they have incorporated environmental justice issues into
their work to date and what their priorities are for the upcoming year.
• Without overwhelming }.;"EJAC members, program offices should pro,ide
regular briefings and present areas of importance prior to each Subcommittee
meeting to chairs, DFOs, EJ Coordinators and relevant OEJ staff.
• Program offices should provide status reports on previous actions taken that are
EJ related.
• In advance of Subcomminee meetings, chairs should regularly meet \\,ith
sponsoring office officials to talk about strategic program direction and EJ needs
so that the chairs, DFOs and ~ther EPA staff are familiar with program needs.
• Special training and mentors should assigned to new Council and subcomminee members,
particularly those from grassroots organizations,-because they sometimes feel ove~·hel.med and
unfamiliar with the F ACA process.
• A special video regarding the role and function of NEJAC and its accomplishments and
constraints should be made and used for community training. Such a video could be used for
NEJAC attendee½: orientation and also send to the environmental justice networks for \\ide
distribution.
♦ During NEJAC subcommittee meetings, EPA staff should sit at the table w~th the
subcommittee to engage in dialogue about EPA specific issues. The current practice of
excluding EPA staff from subcommittee discussions because they are considered part of the
audience should be changed.
6
Dcvclo1> :1 systcm:ttic set of venues for :.iddr~-ssing site sped fie issues. It is the consc:nsus of
the body th~,t th\! NEJAC is not the! t1\l)$t :ippropri:itc body to :iddrcss site-spccitk issues.
Although it h~1s bc:cn invaluabll! for NEJAC to serve as a "sounding bo3rd through which ~ople
can bring issues bdort! th~
Age1\cy." the NEJAC's prim:uy
mission is to offer tong tem1
strattgic policy :idvice. One
should not discow1t tl1e
tremendl.'>us educ:i.tional and
trru,sfonnatiorol v3lue for EPA
staff to ha,·e participated in past
meetings. With proper
orientation, the NEJAC
meetings can continue to
provide an enormous wealth of
site specific issues constituting
important educational moments.
For example. one senior agency
manager sits through every
public comment period and
:takes copious notes. She says
that it puts her "in direct touch
with what it's all about--the
problems people are grappling
with."
During its first phase of
NEJAC's development, when
the emphasis was necessarily
_Ric:h:1rd L:tznrui1: Th~re is an inhcr~nt tl!n$i",n that fac~s
the NEJAC. Whc:re NEJAC should be: offering brood
programmatic advice to change organization~ll beha,·ior
across programs, thc:rc: is a call to the: mc:m~l'$ _to address
the: concerns of a particular con11nw1ity on th~ir spedtk
issues. It is very difficult for NEJAC not to address these
sit~specific problems. and therefore the: c~ndcmcy. over
time. is that NEJAC spends less time on bro.1d policy
issues vs. those that are more site specific.
Peggy Saik:a: I agree ,..,;th the tension concept. but th3t
tension is a good thing. It is the primary re:J.Sl.'ln that the
NEJAC assessment workgroup is needed. The: kind of
substantive chanee that NEJAC should be makin2 is that --which will increase public participation. But models are
only good if you are able to create a. road map for are:,.s that
the agency \Vants input on or public panicip:ition in.
NEJAC cannot strategize effectively ,..,ithout agency
strategy input.
Tom Goldtooth: Dealing with site-specific issues is
important. But we need to process them on another le\'el.
For example, what are the policy issues behind them?
What trends are reflected or relevant to the site specific
testimony. We need to analyze the site specific issues that
are brought to NEJAC as a group.
one of overcoming barriers and creating sensitivity, NEJAC did an excellent job of bringing
together large numbers of EPA staff and community representatives for presentation of
community concerns in their ov.n words. Sometimes an environmental policy recommendation
resulted; many tlrnes not. But the dialogue initiated and the education of EPA and other staff on
environmental jUStice concerns was highly constructive.
The best way of dealing with the tensions created by site specific issues v. broad policy concerns
is to proactively set up venues to address these issues directly in a problem solving mode and
thus allow the NEJAC itself to remain focused on its primary mission. In the first instance, the
best venue for dealing with site specific issues is an infonnal one, usually one-on-one.
This could emerge as a clear role for regional environmental justice programs at NEJAC
meetings. More will be said about this in a latter section. The most appropriate venues for site
specific issues are in the regions and with specific program staff who are dealing directly. This
is a two way process: EPA staff must become more sensitized and aware of EJ issues, but
members of impacted communities must become more knowledgeable about how to best work
with EPA.
7
♦ In the! fir~t instanc~. the most ctl~ctive and prl!forrcd avenue for ~,ddr~ing a sit~sptdfic
issue is infonn~I and direct contact between imp,lclcd community and :ippropriate EPA $ta.ff.
• Specific times and pl:iccs should be Sl!t asid..: at c.1ch NEJAC mcetii,g for Rl!giNtal
Administrntor/Dc:puty Regional Administrntor. Regional EJ Coordinators. and Regional Tribal
Coordin:itors to mc:c:t \\ith local citizc!ns and communities.
• Host regiomtl onices should provid~ e:isily readable and .iccessible lisrs of key persons. oftices
and prO£r:llllS (see Baton Rouge example of Region VI)
♦ Each Rc!giona.1 Otlice should hold regular periodic meeting for environment:tljustke
commw1ities throughout the year.
♦ Dw-ing each public comment period. the host region should be given the opportunity to make a
progress report. \Vithout this to provide a context. public comments from communities lea,·e the
false impression that nothing or ,·ery linle is being done.
• Regional Coorclin:itors should be present during public comments so that the NEJAC ch:iir can
refer site specific issues to them clirectly to be addressed, if the community represenuti,·e so
desires.
♦ As a regular pan of the pre-meeting agenda a session for Regional Environrnent3l ]ll.)tice and
Tribal Coordinators to make progress reports to the NEJAC Protocol Committee should~
instituted. The session should be advertised to the public. This helps to define a clear r.:>le for EJ
coordinators to be proactive in the NEJAC meetings. (More in section on Region3l Offices)
♦ A special video should be made for communities confronting site-specific environmental
· justice problems. This ,ideo should show them ways to access EPA and the tools and
mechanisms they can use to get their problems addressed. Tb.is should be aired continuously
during NEJAC meetings as an information resource for groups attending NEJAC meetings. In
addition, such a video should be \>ridely distributed through EPA Regional Offices and the EJ
Networks.
Strengthen the presence and role of EPA Regional Offices at NEJAC Meetings. One area
that has never been fully clarified is the role of regional offices and their environmental justice
programs. The basic strucrure of the NEJAC was built around subcommittees spoasored by
various headquarters program offices. Thus there has been much confusion as to what role
regional offices play. In general, regional offices should be the key first contact and the focal
point where site specific issues are addressed. This principle had already been articulated in the
recommendation on site specific issues. It should also be recognized that the more successful
EPA is at working with impacted communities, the less pressure there will be for such
communities to bring their issues to the NEJAC. Hence the enhancing regional environmental
justice programs is always an important
question of concern.
Much to their credit, the host regional
offices during the last two NEJAC
meetings have taken it upon themselves to
use the NEJAC meeting to help promote
access to their staff, to use it as an
opportunity for staff education, and to set
up meetings with other regional
management. These practices should be
How to incorporate .regional offices' thinking
about environmental justice into policy guidance
development? I would argue for a two-v.-ay
process, Le., top-down mandate from
Washington combined with bottom-up
experience in the regions. We should create one
common policy template that establishes
baselines and has flexibility built in .
-Jerry Clifford, EPA Regionul VJ-
8
RECOMMENDATIONS REQUIRING MORE FOCUS
Strcngth,m mc21ningful in,·oh-cnumt or nil stukcholdcr groups, including community,
business, trib:ll, st-Jtc :ind local goYcrnmcnt.
♦ EPA should utilize! fonn~r NEJAC members from the businc!ss conunW1ity :1.nd state :md local
governm~ts to discuss their exp~riences on the Council and to solicit id~:is on how to mare
successfully recruit new NEJAC memb~rs from these categories.
♦ EPA should expand its em·ironmental justice outreach list ( e.g., include org:miZ3tio~ like the
ICMA, 81:icks-in-Go,·ernment. ECOS) to reach broader groups to stimufate interest and possible
ownership in environment:il justice issues.
♦ NEJAC's Protocol Committee could hold dialogue sessions with various busintSs
organizations and state and local officials to address environmental justice related issues.
♦ EPA should generate a ~'EJAC .Newsletter with special sections on general busintss~
environmental justice concerns and/or highlight a worthwhile environmental justice good
business practice.
· • NEJAC needs a better representation of Tribal Governments; the Indigenous Subcomnunee
should haYe closer ties ,,.ith the Tribal Operations Committee (TOC) and mor~ input \\ith the
American Indian En,ironmental Office (AIEO).
• NEJAC [CL!Jshould .strongly encourage state and local governments to recognize
environmental justice and to highlight state and local governments that have taken the e:\.1:ra step
toward ensuring fairness in local environmental processes.
Develop stronger ties and working relationships with state, local and tribal government.
• NEJAC Protocol Comminee should hold dialogue sessions with selected state and local
government officials.
• NEJAC should develop recommendations on how regional environmental justice programs
can actively involve state and local officials as partners in environmental justice activities and
site specific remedies.
♦ NEJAC should develop a set of recommendations on how state, local and tribal governments
can develop environmental justice programs, environmental justice advisory groups, and
environmental justice strategic plans. •
• Regions that are hosting NEJAC meetings should extend invitations to and strongly encourage
attendance by state, local, tribal agencies as well as elected officials at Council and
Subcommittee meetings.
10
\,1
• NEJAC should hold di:ih.,gul!s \\ith org~izations representing statc. local :ind trilxu
govcmmcnts (ECOS. NTEC. NALGEP) and solicit their vic:ws on how they c311 lxst p:irticipme
in NEJAC meetings.
• St3tes. local .ind tribru govenunents selected for the new OEJ State: Grants Pn.1gr:1m should be
encouraged to gh·e presentations on thdr programs to NEJAC.
Pronctivcly fashion :i fcdcr.il intcr:igcncy approach towards resoh:ing mulfi-factttd and
cross-cutting em•ironment:.l justice issues.
• EPA headquarters should de,·elop a systematic campaign to develop a cogent feder:il
interagency enviroMlent:i.1 justice str.itegy, with particular emphasis on the regionru lc!'\·el so that
there exists the imprimarur for regional offices to engage other federal agencies on the regional
and local levels and to pursue existing opportunities for coordination and cooperation.
• A particular NEJAC meeting should be structured around the federal interagency family.
Washington, DC should be seen as the venue for such a meeting so that we can m:i.ximize
participation from both top le\·el officials and relevant program staff. This could be coordinated
with a second lnteragency En"ironmental Justice Public Meeting (similar to the on~ in Atlanta,
Georgia). Such a meeting should be timed for the year 2000.
• NEJAC could in\'ite representatives of other federal to NEJAC meetings to solicit their \iews
on particular issues as they are raised or around the policy focus in question. Sp~cific agencies
have mandates that are central to a particular policy questions should be targeted. For example,
NIEHS, ATSDR, CDC: and other health agencies would be criti"cal for a meeting focused on
public health issues.
• NEJAC should enhance its working relationship with the White House Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), which plays a coordinating role for the various federal agencies.
• To enhance NEJA C's ability to work with other federal agencies and the federal interagency
working group, NEJAC should do the following:
• A core NEJAC team should go to certain agencies and give EJ presentations.
• NEJAC should request that the Interagency Working Group make presentations
on issues.
• NEJAC could encourage other federal agencies to fonn their own environmental
justice F ACA's.
• NEJAC could meet with EJ Coordinators from all the federal agencies.
• NEJAC representative(s) should be invited to make presentation to the EJ
lnteragency Working Group (IWG). '
• NEJAC should strongly encourage the formation of regional or local iWGs.
• NEJAC should recommend that the IWG consider dialoguing with a subgroup
of state and local officials on how they can interact on common local concerns.
11
NEXT PHASE
The two following major arc:is have yet to be addressed ~dwill be thcprllll:iry focus oftl1¢ u~xt
three months.
♦ Tools and Mecl1a11isnufor Integrati11g E11viromne11tal J11stice.
♦ Subcommittees, Kt.y Issues a,1d Specific Agt11cy l11itiatives.
With respect to the last area, the NEJAC Assessment Workgroup believes tlmt there is
much worth to its maldng recommendations-where possibl~regarding the subst:mtive
agenda ofNEJAC during the ne~"t ~veral years. This defines the next phase of the
workgroup work process and the remainder of this report. We have met with some
different individual program offices. In addition. we have held discussions ,~ith each
subcommittee chair. As was indicated during our report to the NEJAC (December 7-10,
1998), we will seek to fully engage the NEJAC protocol committee during the nc:--.1
phase.
i
12
TOTAL P.16