Recommendations Regarding

EPA Activities to

Promote Environmental Justice in the

Permit Application Process

May2013

A Report of Recommendations of the

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

  

                                                             

                                                      

                                      

                                       

                                                       

                                                                                                  

                                          

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) acknowledges the efforts of the NEJAC Permitting Work Group (Work Group) in preparing the initial draft of this report. The NEJAC also acknowledges the stakeholders and community members who participated in the Council’s deliberation by providing public comments. In addition, the Work Group’s efforts were supported by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff.

DISCLAIMER

This report of recommendations has been written as part of the activities of the NEJAC, a federal advisory committee providing independent advice and recommendations on the issue of environmental justice to the Administrator and other officials of the EPA. In addition, the materials, opinions, findings, recommendations, and conclusions expressed herein, and in any study or other source referenced herein, should not be construed as adopted or endorsed by any organization with which any Work Group member is affiliated.

This report has not been reviewed for approval by EPA, and hence, its contents and recommendations do not necessarily represent the views and the policies of the Agency, nor of other agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal government.

 

 

                   

                                                                                         

               

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL (NEJAC)

Recommendations Regarding EPA Activities to Promote Environmental Justice in

the Permit Application Process

INTRODUCTION

Whenit comesto environmentalpermitting,thereis a fundamentalconnectionbetweenthreeprimaryinterests:1)thepermitapplicantorpermittedfacility;2) the hostcommunity; and 3)the regulatory entity responsible forthepermit’sissuance andcompliance.It’slikeathreelegged stool;allthreelegshavetobe equally sized andstrong forthe stooltoworkasintended.The legscanlook different,be made ofdifferentmaterials,but they have towork asa unitorthestoolwon’tstand,oratleastnotforlong.Thisthree‐wayrelationshipliesattheheartof thisreport’sconsiderations. Regardlessofmunicipal,business,or regulatorylead(whether federal,tribes,states,orothers),these three elementsare closelytiedtothesubjectof thisreportand thedraftplanregardingEPAActivitiestoPromoteEnvironmentalJusticeinthePermitApplicationProcess (Plan).1

Thisreport focuseson the regulatory entity‐‐ inthiscase,the U.S.Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).Although thereare multiplereferencestohostcommunities and thepermitapplicantsandpermittedfacilities,thetargetaudience forthisreport’srecommendationsistheEPAanditsregionaloffices.

EPA’s Plan hasthree primary sections:I‐GeneralInformation; II ‐Actions EPACan Take; andIII ‐Draft BestPractices forPermit Applicants. Whilethe entirePlan’s contentis the basisforthisreport,actionsEPA cantake(sectionII)isthe focus.Itisalsoimportanttorecognizethatsubjects canquicklybecomeentangledandcomplicatedwhenadvisingEPAabouthow,inturn, itshouldadvisebothapermitapplicantanda hostcommunity aboutEPA’spermittingprocesses.That dynamic isalsoacomplicatedandkeyconsiderationinthis report.

BACKGROUND

NEJACinitiallyaddressedhowtoincorporateenvironmentaljusticeintopermittingin1996,whentheNEJAC EnforcementSubcommittee forwardedtotheCouncilthe Draft Memorandum on Incorporating Environmental Justice into EPA Permitting Authority (July 18,1996) 2.The memorandum, preparedby RichardJ.Lazarus,GeorgetownUniversityLaw Centeranda memberofthe subcommittee,summarizedenvironmentaljustice legalauthoritiesunderthe Clean AirAct,CleanWaterAct,ResourceConservationandRecovery Act,Toxic Substances ControlAct,SafeDrinkingWaterAct and Federal Insecticide,Fungicide andRodenticideAct.In that memorandum,LazarusarguedthatEPA hadextensive authorityto incorporateenvironmentaljusticeinto itspermittingprograms bymodifying ordenyingpermitsor registrations inresponsetoevaluationofmattersofenvironmentaljusticeconcerns.Thememorandumnotedthattheproposalscontainedwithinwerean“openingsalvo”forEPA toengagewithNEJAC about howthismightbeexplored.

By2000,NEJACforwarded tothe EPAAdministratorrecommendationsthatgrew out ofextensive discussionsamongthe NEJAC, membersofthe NEJACPermittingRecommendationsWorkGroup,and awiderange ofstakeholdersexploring howenvironmentaljustice couldbeincorporatedintothe permitting process.ThatNEJACreport, Environmental Justice in the Permitting Process: A Report from the Public Meeting on Environmental Permitting Convened by the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council,

1 (Activities to Promote Environmental Justice in the Permit Application Process, Docket ID No. EPA‐HQ‐OAR‐2012‐0452; Federal Register Listing‐9680‐6, June 26, 2012) 2 http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/publications/nejac/integrating‐ej‐into‐permitting.pdf.

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

                                                                

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 2

Arlington, Virginia (August3,2000),3 featured 80policyproposals offeredbyrepresentativesofstakeholdergroups,whichwereorganizedintofiveconsensusrecommendations:

1. TheOffice ofGeneral Counselshouldclarifylegalauthorityon addressingenvironmental justiceinpermitting;

2. TheAdministratorshould assertleadershipinfurtherunderstandingcumulativeimpacts,degree of risk,communitydemographics,and disproportionalityofrisk,andhow thesecan be integratedinto thepermitreview process;

3. Publicparticipationrequirementsshouldensurethatpermitwritersconsultwithaffectedcommunities priortopermitconsiderationorissuance;

4. Federalenvironmentallawsmust befairlyandequitablyenforcedamongallcommunities;and

5. EPAshouldprovideguidancefor state,regional,localandtribalgovernmenton theenvironmentaljusticeimplicationsof permitting andsitingdecisionsandonthe impactoflocalzoningordinances.

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS

The Essential Problem: EPAhasmissedopportunitiestoconsidercommunities’ environmental needs initsdevelopmentof a rangeofenvironmentalpolicy decisions,includingpermitting.lEPAhasan obligationtocarryoutregulatorypolicydevelopmentprocessesthatareinclusiveofallstakeholderviews,includingtheconcerns ofsome geographicallyanddemographicallydefined communities,particularlyminorityandlow‐incomecommunities.“Overburdened”isthetermusedthroughoutPlanEJ2014togenerallydescribethecommunitiesofparticularconcerninthis regard.Moreover,althoughEPAhas workedinthe last few yearsto developeffective outreach to includethesecommunities,itsefforts haveyieldeduneven results acrossitsregions.

Recommendation 1: EPA needs to systematically ensure that communities’ concerns are appropriately considered during its permitting process. Toaddressthisprocessdeficiency describedabove,EPAmust: Identifypotentialcommunityconcerns relatedtoapermit application; Ensureconveningof representativeandproductivestakeholder discussionstoaddressandresolvecommunityconcernsrelatedtopermit applications;

Designproceduresthatoptimize community engagement in the permitprocess; Ensurethat community membershavetheresourcesnecessarytobeinformedparticipants; Appropriatelymanagestakeholder expectations aboutEPA’sauthoritytoactrelatedtothepermit andotherancillarycommunity concerns;

DevelopcommunityengagementBestPracticesfor EPAwhich areeasilyimplementedandreplicablethroughoutEPA andits regionaloffices.

Assessing Success. Whatdoessuccesslooklike?How willitbe measured?Whenconsideringwhatsuccesslookslikeforthis EPAPlan,theCounciloffersanumber of findings that,collectively,are intended toprovideapositivevisionand a pragmatic list of measuresforassessingsuccess.That visionsetsthetoneforthisreportandtheCouncil’sadvice.Eachgeneralissueaddresseskeycomponentsandrecommendationstoensurethatintendedoutcomesareplanned,observed,andmeasuredwhenappropriate. These findingsare aboutplanningaheadaswellasforafter‐the‐factassessment‐‐this iswhythereport startswiththem. These pointsshouldbe considered early in apermittingprocesstohelpensure they arerealized.The following providesclearexamplesofgoalsandsuccessestheCouncilsupports.Itis

3 http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/publications/nejac/permit‐recom‐report‐0700.pdf

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 3

notprioritizedandit isnotintendedto beall‐inclusive;otherwaysto achieve successmaybe possible. Forexample, attheoutsetof an EPApermittingprocess,thesefindingsshouldbe carefullyreviewed andenhanced as needed bystakeholderstoensure mutuallyunderstoodnecessarycomponentsareincludedfromthebeginning.AsenvisionedbythisCouncil,whenthepermittingprocessiscompleted,successwillbeevident whenEPAand/oritsrespectiveEPARegionalstaff have:

Advisedtheimpactedcommunity’s keyleadersandorganizations about the pending permit application;

Developedabackupplantoidentifyandconsiderpotentialcommunityimpactsrelated tothe permitin theeventthecommunitycannot orwillnotengagethepermitprocess;

Engagedlocallanduse plannersandeconomicdevelopmentofficials asstakeholders; Identifiedthe impactedcommunity’slikelyconcerns,andengagedthepermitapplicanttoconsidertheseconcernsearlyinitsdesignandbudget process;

Facilitatedcapacitybuildingof community membersto enable theirinformedand effective engagement inthe permit process;

Managedcommunityexpectationsrelatedtothepermitprocessby clearlycommunicatingtocommunity membersthe limits and dutiesofthe Agency’spermittingauthority;

Offeredadvicetothepermitapplicantaboutways toavoid,mitigate, orremediate adverseimpactsoftheproposedfacility’soperationson thehostcommunity;

Helpedthecommunity andpermit applicantagree abouttechnical modificationstofacility design,oroperationprotocols,and/orprocessesinresponsetocommunity concernsabout adverseimpacts;

Affirmedthattheprocesswas acceptableto both thepermit applicantandcommunitymembers; Affirmedthattheprocessresultedin apermitthat protectedcommunitymembers’health andenvironment;

Managedapermittingprocessthat resultedina costeffective outcomeforthepermitapplicant; Realizedacollaborative,collegialprocess; Producedan outcome acceptable to stakeholders; Become bettereducatedinEJ enhancedpermittingprocesses,thusmakingbetterpermittingdecisionsasa resultof quality community engagement;

Been ableto showthat communitiesdobelieve they have asay intheirenvironment’shealth; Demonstratedthrough capacitybuildingandeffectiveengagement thatcommunities arebetter informedaboutthe roles and expectationsoftheEPAregarding bothpermitissuance and permitcompliance.

Demonstratesthatall communitiesreceived timely,direct,and accurateinformationfromtheEPAandtheapplicant, about the permit’sprocessandprogress,instead ofhearingindirectly.

Recommendation 2: EPA should prepare an implementation strategy ‐which includes, at a minimum, these findings, in relation to specific permitting plans. Thestrategyshouldopenlyandcomprehensivelyconsiderthesefindingsonanon‐goingbasis.EPAis furtheradvisedto actontheresultsfromsuchassessments of these goals.Whilemany ofthesepointsarenoteasyto measure,the Council believesthe goalsaresufficientlycompellingtopursue. TheCouncil recognizesthat although the goalsand objectives shouldbestandardizedandreplicableacrossEPAanditsregions,themethodsby whichtoachievethemwillvary by permit type,location,and many otherfactors.

These points shouldbe consideredandaddressedbyEPA’s nationalsenior management.This includesnotonlyAssistantAdministratorsandotherEPA Headquartersstaffinchargeofprogramswithpermittingresponsibility, butalsoeveryEPARegionalAdministrator,andtheregionalmanagement teams.Regional aswell asHeadquartersstaffinvolvedwithpermittingshouldbe

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

                                                                       

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 4

made responsiblefor implementingthesepoints. Asmuch aspossible,resultsshouldbe openlypostedanddiscussed,includingpublically.It should be aniterativeprocess.

Ofequalimportance,these pointsshouldbe assessedby the respectivecommunities,permitapplicants,andotherentitiesinvolved withEPA’spermittingprocesses.Therewillbeagreaterchanceforsuccessifotherstakeholdersareassessingas well. If EPAopenly asksquestions of all stakeholders tohelpassessthesepoints,thecollectiveresponseandappropriatefollow‐up shouldenhance EPA’ssuccess.EPAshouldstriveforcontinuousprogressforeachcommunity’searly engagement andforeachapplicant’s earlyunderstandingofthe community’seconomic andenvironmentalfactorsthatareaffected(orperceived tobe affected)by the permittingprocess.

EPA’s Activities: Nice to do, Required, Site dependent, or What? EPA’s PlantalksaboutwhatEPA candotofosterenvironmentaljusticeinthepermitapplicationprocess.Ithasidentified“…actionsthatEPAregionaloffices can take whenissuingEPApermitstopromote greaterparticipation inthepermitting processbycommunities...”(emphasis added)4.Thisisa goodstart,butitleavesunansweredalot ofquestions aboutcommitments, details,andexpectations.

The Plan isan EPA tool in development.Side‐steppingthe Plan’scontent fora moment,thePlanis EPA’sinternalguidancefocusingonitsownregionaloffices.Itis not a rule,nora directivefromthe Administrator.Itis a well‐intentionedplanthatsetsapositive tone, but itis nota guarantee. Rather, itprovokesquestionsabout where, when,andhowthePlanistobe carried out.Itraises questions about possibleextraobligations upon permitapplicantsandhostcommunities,regardlessofresources.And itdoesn’tsettlequestionsaboutwhich communitiesarethe focus ofthisPlan.

Having notedsuchquestions,this reportacknowledgesthatfor now,EPAisproposinginternalguidelinesonly.Rule changes are notaddressed inthe Plan, whether applicabletoEPAitself, orotherauthorizedenvironmentalpermittingentities suchasStatesorTribes,or permitapplicants. Thisreportalsoacknowledgesthat withoutrules,this Planislimited.Thus,expectations ofsuccessarelimited.

Success is envisioned asnotedabove. Butthe commitment and detailsare pending. EPA isadvisedtoactively engage ontherelatedissues notedbelow. Some issues should be addressed collectivelyinanopen conversationwithcommunitiesandapplicants.But atthis point, allof thesetopicsaredependent upon thediscretionandself‐imposedcommitmentofEPA’sleadership,bothnationallyandregionally.Thefollowingpoints,questionsandrecommendationsare offered tohelp EPA strengthenthisPlanforsuccess, recognizingthePlanisstilldraftandof limitedstature.

A. HowwillEPAensure thePlanwillbecarriedoutconsistentlyacrossallEPAregions andwithinallEPApermittingprograms?Referenced regionalimplementation plans arecriticaltothisPlan,butthey’re notyetdone. Thisisa majormissingelement to thePlan at thetimeofthisassessment.EPA’sregions willbedoing the bulk oftheimplementation ofthis plan.Consistencyandaccountabilityacrossall10EPAregionsandtheentirelandscape ofthenation’strusts,states,territories,villages,islands,anddistrictswill becriticalto thePlan’ssuccess.

Recommendation 3: EPA implementation plans must be consistent across all 10 regions.Assuringsuchconsistencynationallywillrequireasubstantial commitmentbyEPA leadershipto implementconsistently acrossallregions.

B. Every EPAregion needs tobe a leader inthiseffort.

4 Ibid, , Summary, page 1

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 5

Recommendation 4: EPA regional leadership needs to fully embrace and empower this approach. EPAmustholdsubordinatesaccountabletocarryitoutasaserviceto both theapplicant andtheinvolvedcommunity.The effortneedsto besustainedandafundamentalpartof helpingtoissueand enforcepermits.Atime‐limited‘campaign’willnot be goodenough.EPA,includingthe regions,needstomake an on‐going andgrowingcommitment tothisapproach.More on the matter ofregionalimplementationplansisaddressedwithinthe State and Tribal Roles Related to EPA Permitting sectionofthisreport.

C. Some applicantswilllikelyignorethe bestpractices forpermitapplicants.Howwillthatsituationbe acknowledgedand addressedby the EPAregions?

D. ThePlan’sdirectiveanditsimplementation needtobestronger.Some statesrequire thatan environmentalpermitapplicationfirstbereviewedforcompletenessby the state permitting agency. Theapplicationmustincludespecificoutreachplanstothehostcommunity. Theserules ensurecommunities are providedwhatthey needtoknow early enoughto beable to engagewiththeprocess effectively before the facility’s key design and/oroperationdecisionsarelockeddown.Forexample, inConnecticut,thisreview process takes upto60daysbeforeany actioncan be taken on thepermit.It helpsensure thecommunityhas time to learn,ask questions, andhelpmitigatepermitrelatedplansfor mutuallybetterplans andactions to be formalizedwithinthe permit.A flowchart forCT’spermitting processensuringearlycommunity notificationandengagementis inAppendixA.

Recommendation 5: EPA needs to establish very clear procedures and commitments to be sure the Plan delivers as intended. EPAisadvisedtoseriouslyreviewexistingpermittingrules atthe state level on how they ensureearlycommunityengagement inthe process,andconsiderdeveloping a similar federalrulewithin a yearof the Plan’simplementationattheregionallevelor reasonablysoonthereafter.

E. Whatis EPA’splanto betteralign existingpermit‐relatedrules withthisplan?Withoutrelativelyconsistentandclearrulestosupportthisplan,atleasteventuallyafterithasbeen testedandrefined, consistentimplementationisnot likely.Thisis a concernto all threekey players:the host communities,thepermit applicants,andthe authorized/delegated state and tribal regulatory agencies thatwillinevitablybeheld to asimilar standardastheoneEPAappliestoitself. Thisshouldbe ofconcernto EPAleadershipaswell.Permitapplicantsdeserve toknow thattheircompetitorsarebeing heldtothesame standards(and relatedexpenses, processes,obligations,plans,etc)as they are. Withoutsuch assurances,oddsforsuccessarecompromised.

Recommendation 7: EPA should take steps to align existing permit‐related rules with the plan.

F. Whereisthereassuranceforlong‐termimplementation/commitment?Permittedactivitiesandthepollutionthat comes with them may outlastthe EPA leadership thatgrantedthem.Businessesand communities needthepredictabilityoffairandstablepermittingrulesthat allowtruly sustainable coexistence.

Recommendation 8: EPA needs to develop clear steps to ensure this plan is integrated into the Agency’s programs ‐‐itneedsto be“institutionalized”tosucceed.

G. Isthe Plan to be carriedouteverywhereorselectivelyapplied? .The Plansays overburdenedcommunities are the focus ofthePlan. Itdefinessuchcommunitiesasthose“…that potentially

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

                                                                       

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 6

experiencedisproportionateenvironmentalharms andrisksasa resultofcumulativeimpactsor greatervulnerability to environmental hazards.”It goeson to say,“EPA believesit isespecially importanttomake special efforts to provideenhancedparticipationopportunitiesto overburdenedcommunities,particularlyminority,low‐income,andindigenous communities”(Emphasisadded).5Unfortunately,thedetermination isnotansweredbyonemeasure oronecombination of measures and there are manyotherNEJACandEPAreportsandeffortsonthis topic,such asreferencestoEPA’sEJSeatandtheEJScreeningtools,amongothers

Recommendation 9: EPA needs to clarify how it will identify “overburdened” communities where “special efforts” are needed. Theclarificationneedstoalignwith theCivilRightsAct, Executive Order12898 on EnvironmentalJustice, andrespecting othermorestringentstate/tribal constraints.

H. Whenaddressingthose‘specialefforts’thatEPA can do,questionsquickly ariseasto whethersuch specialeffortsarespecificto EPAonlyorapplicable tothepermitapplicant as well.This shouldbe clarifiedwithappropriateguidance.

Recommendation 10: EPA should provide guidance to permit applicants as to what the applicant should do to support full community engagement in review procedures

I. Whodefines whatisbest? Whilethere are many “bestpractices” tolistandlearn from,‘best’is a subjectivenotion.Itisdependent,inpart,onwho pays,who’saccountable,andtheprimarybenefactorofthe bestpractice.

Recommendation 11. EPA should exercise sensitivity when labeling a practice with the distinction of a “best practice.” A bestpractice may not beconsideredthe ‘best’by all parties involvedwithapermit’sapplication.

J. Isthe Plan applicableto allpermits? Isitscalable?PerEPA’sPlan,‘overburdened’communities areprimetargetsforthePlan.However, even in overburdenedcommunities,regardlessofdesignation process,relatively minor permits may not be inneedofsuchspecialefforts.Examplescouldinclude permitsthatare:

insignificantrenewals–nothing new proposedand nolocal concernsraised; new,but withlowornoadverse environmental healthimpactsfrom releases; modificationsthatwillreduce emissionsand/ordischarges; enhancingcommunitysafety; expansionsthatwillnotincreasepollutionorothercommunity stressors; temporaryand/orshortinduration; formallyrecognizedemergencies and relatedpublichealthprotections.

Recommendation 12: EPA should test and implement the Plan based on the type and level of the permit. Ingeneral,ifspecialefforts can’t be carriedout forallpermits,duetolimitedresourcesorotherconstraints, EPA shouldfocusonmajorpermitactionsandpermitswheresignificant adverseeffectsarepossible.Thiswouldberelevant tolargervolumesofpollution,relativelyhighertoxicreleases,orrelatively high riskstothecommunity(takinginto accountthecommunity’soverallenvironmentalburdens).Inthesecases,specialeffortsshouldbebasedon,atleast:

5 Ibid, Section 1, page 5.

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 7

Permittedactivitiesthatwillclearlyimpactthe air,water,and orland; Publicallyreviewablemethodsforassessingcumulativeand disproportionateimpactsfromallpollutionsourcesinthe host community;

Publicallyreviewablemethodsforassessing‘overburdenedcommunities’; Wheneverthereis areasonablebeliefby the host community that an adverseimpactwillresultfromthepermit’sissuance,whetherornot theimpactis considered‘disproportionate.’

K. HowdoesEPA’sPlanaccommodatedeficienciesin communityengagement? Boththe NEJACandEPA have put forth strategies forengagingaffectedcommunities in decisionsthatimpacttheirenvironmentandhealth. Forexample, NEJAC recommendations forenhancedcommunity engagement include the2013ModelGuidelinesforPublic Participation:AnUpdatetothe1996 NEJAC Model Plan forPublic Participation,aswellas the1996EnvironmentalJustice,Urban Revitalization,andBrownfields:the Search forAuthenticHope,among otherreports. The EPA OSWER Community Engagement Initiative (CEI)isdesignedto enhanceOSWER andregional offices’ engagement withlocalcommunitiesand stakeholders tohelpthemmeaningfullyparticipateingovernment decisionsonlandcleanup,emergencypreparedness andresponse,andthe managementof hazardous substancesandwaste.

EPA’S PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON PERMITTING: The Proof is in the Process. EPA’seffortsindevelopingguidance forconsideringenvironmentaljusticecommunitiesinthepermittingprocessunderscoresthechallengesEPAfacesineffectively engaging communities ofconcern.EPA’seffortsareinresponsetocommunitymembers’andorganizations’commentsoffrustration. History hasshown inmany cases thatthesesame partiesdo not learn about EPApermitting activities until it is too late forthe host community to haveinfluenceonshapingthe permitprocessandoutcomes.

RegardingthisPlan,nationwide,only 27comments werereceived.Mostcomments camefromthebusinesssector.Thisisaconcern totheCouncil. Thisimplies thatstakeholdersfromlocalcommunitieswerenot meaningfully engagedin the publicprocessthatwasavailableforcommentfor thisEPAPlan.

Thismay be alsoindicativeof a larger problemthat EPA faces withregardto meaningfullyengaging the publicinfederalpolicymaking. Communities aremoreinclined tofocusonsite‐specificissues.Itisunknownwhyabroadrangeofstakeholdersfromcommunitiesdid notengageduringthepublicprocesstoreviewthisPlan.Withthepremisethattherewas a lack ofawarenessabout thepubliccomment availability,recommendationsfor solicitingfeedback fromarange ofstakeholdersincommunities followsothe EPA canhave awidercross‐sectionoffeedbackfromthe public. The lack ofmeaningfulengagement ofcommunitiesinthisprocessmay alsobe indicativeof alack ofcapacity toengageissuesthatare not immediateandlocal.

Recommendation 13: EPA needs to educate community members and organization leaders on the effect of EPA policy on local decisions, and help community members develop the capacity to engage the federal environmental policy effort. Thisiscriticalif EPAwantsto engagelocally focused community members on overarchingenvironmentalpolicydevelopment.

Engaged Participants Lead to Embraced Outcomes. The benefits of early andsustainedpublicparticipationforallstakeholdersaresignificant.Earlypublicinvolvementwillassist boththeapplicantand permitting staffin drafting a betterpermit.Earlypublicengagement willbetteridentifyothermattersof importance tothe communitythat may or maynot berelatedto thepermit.

Recommendation 14: EPA should focus guidance recommendations about how to collaborate with communities on ways to avoid, mitigate, or remediate potential adverse impacts on the

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 8

community from applicant operations,forthoseconcernswithintheapplicant’scontrolandEPA’sauthority to regulate.Outreach tocommunitiesearlyintheapplicationprocesstoidentifyandaddresspermitapplicantimpacts couldhelp avoidunfeasibleprojectcosts,unsustainableoperationalcosts,lost investment costs,oralongand costlyformaladjudicatoryprocessbecausequestionsand concernscanbeconsideredbeforeprojectbudget anddesigndecidedandconstructionschedulesarefinal.

Pastpermitting experienceshows that if meaningful communityengagement doesnot happen,the chances forpermitissuancecomplicationsandsurprises,includingopposition,delays, andaddedcoststothe applicant,are almostcertainto increase.The Councilbelieves thatifEPAignoresthese permit‐relatedactions,permitapplicantsandtheirhostcommunitieswillbeunder‐servedatthe very least,if notsuffer greaterconsequences.

Recommendation 15: EPA should encourage the public to provide formal comments on a permit proposal. Thisshouldbetriggered whenever EPApublishes permit‐related noticesin the FederalRegisterwhichpertain to issuesthat may be ofvalueorinteresttocommunities.Uponreceiptof apermit application,EPA regionsshouldusethe contactstheyhave developed through theirregional implementationplans to advisecommunity membersof the permit‐relatedactivities.ThisshouldincludetheprocessthatEPAwillsupporttoensurethepublic canhavemeaningfulengagement Inaddition,EPA shouldcontinueto advanceelectronic‐basedcommunication.Thisincludessocialmedia,web‐basedresourcesandexpanded distributionlists.However, thisshouldnotbe attheexpense ofmoretraditionalmethodsofnoticetothepublic.Whetherruralorurban, mostcommunitieshavepublicplaces where noticesare posted.Aslow‐techasit may be,EPAregionalofficesneedtoposteasy‐to‐understandnoticesatlocalparks,communitycenters,seniorcenters,libraries,townhalls,orotherpublicplaceswithbulletinboardsorsimilartypesofpostingplaces.Localandregionalpublicserviceradio announcementsshouldbeincluded.

Project Timing / Progression – when is the good time to get the initial word to the community? Forpermitactivitiesthatmayhave asignificantimpactoncommunities.EPA’sregional officeshavestaff thatare engaged withEPA grantees.Currentexamples ofthese grant programsincludethe Community Action for aRenewedEnvironment(CARE)program andtheEnvironmental JusticeSmallGrants(EJSG)program. These employeesworkcloselywith the regulatory offices within theirregionsandcan have accessto thoseincrementalnetworksofgranteeswithincommunities,academia, ortribes.Thosein‐houserelationshipsbetweenEPAregional programsand EPA granteesare ever‐present resourcesthat need tobe cultivatedandharvested.That networkofcommunityinformationrepresentsanotherEPA opportunityto reach outregardingpubliccommentperiods.Thisneedsto becomepart of the EPAworkforce cultureandjob‐performanceexpectation.Morerecommendations onthesubjectof publicoutreach and engagement areaddressedwithinthisreport’s“State andTribalRolesRelated toEPAPermitting”section.

RECOMMENDATION 16: EPA regions should take the initiative to schedule public meetings with the community to enhance their knowledge of the proposed activity. Suchmeetings shouldoccuronorshortly aftertheformalapplicationhasbeenreceivedbyEPA,nolater.Upon receiptof a permit application,the respective EPA region should automaticallyuseits extended contactliststoadvisecommunity membersof the application. ThisshouldincludetheprocessthatEPAwillsupportto ensurethe public can have meaningful engagement.

Inaddition,EPAregional offices should ensureongoingcontact withanyexistingnetworksorcoalitionsofenvironmentaljusticecommunitygroups.Individualcommunitygroupsmayhaveoriginallyformedforsite‐specificreasons,butmayhavejoined withothers aspart ofalocal,state,orregional coalitionornetwork.Suchcoalitions may bemore likelytocommenton larger,nationalpolicyissuesthan individualor moreisolatedcommunitygroups,andcan alsoget the wordoutor

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 9

giveencouragement totheirmemberorganizations.(TheNorthCarolina EnvironmentalJusticeNetworkisanexample).EPA’sregionalofficeshave staffwho areengaged withEPA grantees.Currentexamplesofthesegrantprograms includetheCommunity ActionforaRenewedEnvironment(CARE)program andthe EnvironmentalJustice Small Grants(EJSG)program.Theseemployeesworkclosely withtheregulatoryofficeswithintheir regionsand canhaveaccesstothoseincrementalnetworksofgranteeswithincommunities,academia,ortribes.Those in‐houserelationshipsbetweenEPAregionalprogramsandEPAgranteesareever‐presentresourcesthatneedtobe cultivated andharvested.Thatnetworkofcommunity informationrepresents another EPAopportunityto reach outregardingpubliccommentperiods. Thisneedstobecome partofthe EPAworkforcecultureandjob‐performanceexpectation.

Cumulative Impacts–how isthat to be assessed? Thisisa key question, but notthesubjectofthisreport. There arenumerous effortswithinEPAand elsewhereto address thisimportantchallenge. TheNEJAChasalsoaddressedthissubjectinotherreports,inparticularits 2004 Ensuring RiskReductionin Communities withMultipleStressors:Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risks/Impacts.

Roles for Academic Institutions

There areseveralwaysinwhich EPARegions can involveuniversities,colleges,communitycolleges and technicalschoolsinassistingwith potentiallycontroversialor complexpermitdecisions,usuallyata relativelylowcost,orevenfor freethroughinternshipsforcredit,researchprojectsandshortterm consultations:

1. Process.Manyuniversitieshavesignificant expertiseinpublicengagement, consensussolutionstocomplexproblemsanddisputeresolution.Forexample,theUniversityNetworkfor Collaborative Governanceincludesabout30universitycentersandprograms thatprovidecollaborativegovernance teaching,serviceandresearch.Some ofthese are associatedwith lawschools,butmanyarein different partsoftheuniversity.Servicesrangefrompublic deliberation tocommunityproblemsolvingto multi‐partyconflict resolution.College presidentsorrespectedfacultymemberscan be very useful as convenersofprocesses. http://www.policyconsensus.org/uncg/index.html

2. Scientificandtechnicaladvice. Academicinstitutionshavevaryingdegrees ofcapacity toprovide neutralfactsandanalysisthat canhelpbusinesses andcommunitiesfindcommon groundonwhichto basespecific actionsthat may avoidor resolvepotentialorexistingissues. Theremaybe ongoingresearchprojectsthatcouldinform thepermitprocess.Most universitiesandmanyotherinstitutionshaveamissionof engagement and servicetotheregionsinwhichthey are located

Recommendation 17: EPA should incorporate as a “best practices” consultation with academic institutions in the area affected by a potential permit action to identify whether they can be of assistance in the process or technical areas. Manyacademicinstitutions maintainstrongcommitmentstocommunityserviceincluding standinginstitutionalarrangements forcommunityoutreachonissuesofconcern.Insome cases,thesearrangementsinvolvewell‐developedrelationswithcommunity organizations andleaders. Whilethe engagement of aneutral facilitator is often useful, as recommendedinthe Plan’s draft bestpractices,itisadvisablethata preliminary assessment ofthe need forandtheissuesto be addressedbytheprofessionalfacilitator shouldbedonebythefacilitatoror bysomeoneelseprecedingthe engagement ofthefacilitator.Insomecases,universitycentersmaybeableto undertakethatpreliminaryassessmentatrelatively lowcost.Also,thepreliminaryassessmentmaybe allthat isneededtorevealthe solutionsneededtoallowthepermitprocesstomoveforward.

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

                                                             

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 10

Where a more formal processisdeterminedto be necessary, but afullscaledisputeresolutionisnotindicatedoraffordable,auniversitypresidentorrespectedprofessoror staffmayserveasa neutralconvenertobringallthe partiestothe table to seek solutionsto oneormoreissues. Electedofficialsand active or retiredbusiness,academic,governmentornon‐profitleadersmayalsosuccessfullyconvenethese processes.Asanotherresource,manylawschoolshavedisputeresolution/mediationprograms,includingclinicalprogramswheretheyprovidedisputeresolutionservicestothepublic;mostorallarefree.

Recommendation 18: EPA regions should identify potential points of contact in academic institutions and should encourage permit applicants to include those contacts in their early outreach efforts. The netshouldbe castbroadly becausedifferentpointsofcontactsmightservebestin differentinstitutions,forexample.,auniversitycommunityoutreachoffice,anyofanumberofacademicdepartments (environmentalorother science,social science,government,history),astudentvolunteerservice organization,oralawschoolclinic. Universitypublichealthdepartments alsomay be goodresourcesforscientificandtechnicaladvice

HOW ARE “OVERBURDENED” COMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED AND BY WHOM?

Inresponseto thisquestion,there are toolsthatexistwithin EPA toidentifyenvironmentaljusticeand/or “overburdened”communities,whichtypicallyare ofhighestconcerndue to thecumulativeimpactsto theenvironment resultingin potentialnegativehumanhealthimpacts.Forexample,EnvironmentalJusticeStrategicEnforcementTool(EJSEAT),National EnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)Assist,Community‐FocusedExposureandRiskScreeningTool(CFERST),and environmental justicelegaltoolsare allavailable tothe EPA.

Toillustrate,NEJAC’sreporton Nationally Consistent Environmental Justice Screening Approaches providedadvicepertainingtothe toolsEPA mustprovideto identifyEJ communities.Adifferent Councilworkgroup wasasked to recommendhowEPA could improvemethodsforidentifyingcommunitieswithEJconcerns.Asaresultofthatwork,theNEJACaddressedtheimportantroledemographicsplay inidentifyingthehighestprioritycommunities:

“Within EJSEAT, percent minority is one of six indicators in the Social Demographic category that comprises one‐fourth of the overall EJSEAT scores. The NEJAC has frequently observed over the years that the legacy of racial and ethnic discrimination has real impacts in terms of communities’ health and welfare, as well as their vulnerability to environmental stressors.”6

“Thus, percent minority is a reliable indicator whose weight should not be diluted by including less important or indeed in some cases erroneous, variables within the overall EJSEAT score.” 7

Asan exampleofstatutoryprovisions andguidanceon how EJ communities havebeensuccessfully identifiedduringpublicprocess, below isan examination ofNEPAasisconsistentwithProfessorLazarus’ recommendationsregarding“NEPA’s strictproceduralrequirements…very muchproductsofsuch innovativeandexpansiveinterpretationsofexistingstatutory language.”8

6 NEJAC(National Environmental JusticeAdvisory Council),2010, Nationally Consistent Environmental Justice Screening Approaches, May.Availableat http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/publications/nejac/ej‐screening‐approaches‐rpt‐2010.pdf.,page 137 Ibid8 Ibid,page12.

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

                                                            

       

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 11

“Each federal agency should analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic, and social effects of Federal actions, including effects on minority populations, low‐income populations, and Indian tribes.”9

“Despite the EJ goal to not hold to strict quantitative analysis, Agencies should recognize that the question of whether the agency action raises environmental justice issues is highly sensitive to the history or circumstances of a particular community or population, the particular type of environmental or human health impact, and the nature of the proposed action itself. There is not a standard formula for how environmental justice issues should be identified or addressed.”10

“Low‐income populations in an affected area should be identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of Census’ Current Population Reports, Series P‐60 in Income and Poverty. In identifying low‐income populations, agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common conditions or environmental exposure or effect.”11

“Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority populations of the affected area exceeds 50 percent; or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater that the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.”12

“Agencies should consider relevant public health data and industry data concerning the potential for multiple or cumulative exposure to human health or environmental hazards in the affected population and historical patterns of exposure to environmental hazards, to the extent such information is reasonably available. Agencies should consider these multiple, or cumulative effects, even if certain effects are not within the control or subject to the discretion of the agency proposing the action.”13

“When the agency has identified a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on low‐income populations, minority populations, or Indian tribes from either the proposed action or alternatives, the distribution as well as the magnitude of the disproportionate impacts in these communities should factor in determining the environmentally preferable alternative. In weighing this factor, the agency should consider the views it has received from the affected communities, and the magnitude of environmental impacts associated with alternatives that have a less disproportionate and adverse effect on low‐income populations, minority populations, or Indian tribes.”14

Recommendation 19: EPA should utilize tools such as EJSEAT, NEPA Assist, CFERST, and EJ Legal Tools should be utilized by EPA to help identify environmental justice communities.TheCouncilhasprovided priorrecommendationsabout how toidentifynationallyconsistentenvironmentaljusticescreening approachesshouldbeincorporatedinto therecommendationstotheEPAforhelpidentifyingEJ communities.Demographicdata suchasCensusdataandAmericanCommunity Survey data alsocan beusedtohelpidentify overburdenedcommunities. Thiscomes withthecaveatsthat:

9 CEQ(CouncilonEnvironmentalQuality),1997, Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act,ExecutiveOfficeofthePresident,Dec.Availableat http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf.,page210 Ibid.,page811 Ibid,page2512 Ibid,page2613 Ibid,page914 Ibid, page 15

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 12

The most localizeddata availableisutilized.Censusblockgroupsarebetter thanCensustracts, for example;

The analysis isnot a strictquantitativeanalysis,but rather astartingpointto beground‐truthed andverified againstother relateddata;

Keep in mind that beginningwiththe 2010Census,itsdatadoes not considersome ethnic minorities as race,such as Hispanics.

STATE AND TRIBAL ROLES RELATED TO EPA PERMITTING

The Plan lacksclarityand distinctionsregarding rolesbetween EPA nationalleadership,EPAregional offices,andhoststatesand tribes.Asstatedattheoutset, thisreportfocusesonEPA’s permits.However,theCouncilmustacknowledgethe anticipationthatthisPlantriggers forthetribesand states.Tribaland statepartnershipsarecritical on thismatter.

Itisexpected thatstates willneedto followthisEPA lead forthemajorityofenvironmentalpermits issued inthe U.S.Thesooner EPAestablishestheguidance,tools,and executive‐levelsupport andexpectationthatthiswillhappen,the soonerstateswillbeabletoobserve,learn,support,coordinate,follow,and enhancethisapproach. ThePlansets a paththatstates andtribesare likely goingto beexpectedto follow.

Recommendation 20: EPA should clarify specific roles for states and tribes relative to EPA’s permitting procedures Plan,asarecognizedfirststepto expansion.Anothersuggestion isthattheregionalimplementationplans shouldreflect coordination andinput fromtherespectivestates andtribes in theregion. Some states have chosen,others are onlyableto,investminor resourcesinenvironmentaljustice,bothin general andinrespecttoissues affectingpermitissuance.By reaching out toallstates andtribesin thedevelopmentofthe regionalimplementation plans,EPA’sregions can engagethosewhichhavegiven,orcan onlygivelowerprioritytoenvironmentaljustice concerns.EPAcan encouragethem to usesomeof the bestpracticeswhereverpossible.

Further,statesandtribes withmorerobustprogramscan assist EPA regions inshowing whathasworkedandwhathasnot worked. Thiswillassurethatcommunities,whichoftendon’t distinguishbetweenfederal,stateandlocal authorityandprograms,willnot beconfrontedwithinconsistent, conflictingor unworkableapproachestocommunityengagement.

State andlocalgovernmentsappreciatethe fundamentalreasons for EPA to supportandenhanceenvironmentaljusticethroughpermitting.Inthebroadcontext,EPAneedsto embrace andcarryout anon‐goingcommitment tosupportenvironmentaljustice considerationsinrelationtoitspermitting duties.There willalways be a needfor EPAtoprovidethisservice.Applicantswillalso need guidancerelativetoenvironmentaljusticeandlocalcumulativeimpactawareness.

If EPA trulywants to seeenvironmentaljusticeincorporatedintoitspermittingprocess,EPA hastobe seen asa guide and efficient facilitatorwhen andwhere neededtobusinessesandprivatesector leadersinunderstandingandproperlyacquiring permitsinanenvironmentaljustice‐sustainablemanner.

Recommendation 21: EPA should conduct public meetings in most, if not all, permitting proceedings affecting EJ communities.EPA shoulddoas muchasreasonablypossible to encourage permit applicantsto plan forandcarry outinformal communityoutreachmeetingstoexplaintheirpermit‐relatedintensions.Itisequally important forthe applicantto provide transparency duringthe permitting process.Thereisno better way to encouragesuch applicant outreach otherthan anincentive program. The StatesofConnecticut,Pennsylvania,Illinoisand NewYorkhaveearlypublicparticipationpoliciesandpractices relatedto permitting. The EPA,

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 13

learningfromthesemodels,shouldcreateasimple processthat facilitates communicationbetween permit applicantsandlocalstakeholders.The EPA mayconsider extendingthisearlypublicparticipationtoallcommunities andtribalnations acrossthe country.

Ideally,the meetingsshouldbe co‐sponsoredbytheapplicant andlocalcommunity,withsupportbythe EPAregion. This providesan opportunity fortheapplicantandthecommunitytoselectaconvenient timeandlocationof meetingandtodiscussanticipatedconcerns/questionswiththe project.In many cases,concernscan be addressedandrespondedtoat thecommunityinformationalmeeting.Theapplicant shouldhave anideaof whatthecommunityconcernsarebeforetheinformationalpublic meetingbycontactinglocalcommunityleadersinadvance.Ifco‐sponsorshipforsuchameetingis notanoption,itshouldbean EPA meetingoronesponsoredby oneoftheotherstakeholders;

The meetings should be informal, informative,and allowforquestionsanddiscussion.Anopenhouse‐like meetingisrecommended. Atthe meeting,process and regulatoryexpectationsshould be made clear,preferably bythe EPA. If appropriate,use a third partyin aneutralpositiontofacilitatethemeetings,especiallyifthereis a historyoftension between members ofthe communityandtheapplicant.

Although cleaningup priorpollutionis nottypicallythe subject ofthe permit application meeting,it still maybehighlyrelevantto the affected community.

Recommendation 22: EPA, in collaboration with the permit applicant, should actively listen to and learn from the community about past pollution, rather than avoid the subject by insisting past pollution is out of the new permit’s scope. EPA can thenbetterhelpdelineatewhatthe permit is addressingandwhatitwillnot. Further, EPA isadvised toanticipate past/existingpollution locallyandbepreparedtobringin relatedexperts (includingstafffrom EPA regionalprograms not directlyinvolvedinthepermitapplication)to addresspriorpollutionand/orclean‐upactivities inthearea. Ifthepermit related facility has hadapoorcompliance history,itisimportant and necessary forthecommunitytohear whatchangeswillbe takingplace toensurecompliance withthe new permitunder consideration. Thisis very importantif thefacilityisplanningon expandingorchangingoperations.Both before and after the public meeting, EPAshouldhelptheapplicantunderstandexistingenvironmental conditions andwork withtheapplicantto ensurethat thepermitted activitywillnotexacerbatelocalpublic andenvironmentalhealthrisks.

Depending on the extent andnatureoftheexistingpollution,EPA(aswellas the applicant)may provideabetter(andmoreresponsive)publicservicebyconductingseparatemeetingswiththecommunitytoaddressthoseissuesdistinctly apartfromthe permitapplication.Preferably,costsfortheinformal meetings(not‐required bylaw) shouldpaidbytheapplicant. Theapplicantistriggeringthepotentialchange andlikelyhasthe mostto gain bythe effort.EPA,the applicant,andthecommunityshouldworktogetherto keepthese meetingcostsreasonableandclear.EPA can helpdefray costs,e.g.,use ofinformationnetworks,publicmeetingrooms,use ofestablishedlocalnetworks,publications,providing theapplicantclearexamplesofsimilar efforts,logistics,lessons‐learnedandsuccesseselsewhere. Inaddition,manycommunitiesfavor havingthe meetingsin their localpublicplacessuchasschools,townhalls,andchurchesorotherreligious institutions,whichmay havelittleor nocosts foruse.Theapplicant may host meetings atthe facility also offeringa tourof the operationsifappropriate.

Recommendation 23: In preparation for these meetings, EPA’s regional environmental justice and data/mapping staff should provide relevant existing information on all local area

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 14

and communities, including known environmental justice communities and/or tribal nations that may be impacted by the permitted activities.EPAregionsshouldassembleand shareinformation aboutcompliance relatedto existinglocally‐relatedenvironmentalpermitsand activities.Thisshouldinclude related localdataon environmentalmonitoring.Inasimilarmanner, theapplicantshouldpreparetheirmaterials and havedisplays andapresentationoutliningthe projectandprojectedphases.

Decisionson meetinglocations,timing,andnotificationprocessshouldbemutuallyplannedand carriedoutinan agreed‐toandwell‐publicizedtimeline. The goal istoreachallpotentially impactedparties/stakeholdersin a reasonable advancedtime frametoallowforquality engagement by all.The “bestpractice”isamutuallysupportive cooperation between the applicantandtheregional officeonthiselementof the permit’sdevelopment.

Astandard guidancedocumentthatis simpleto implementwillhelptheapplicantandtheEPA’senvironmentaljusticestaff,communicationstaff,andpermittingstaffbetterrespond to thecommunity’sexisting pollution‐relatedfacts,impressions,misunderstandings,visions,concerns,resources,etc.Asanexample,the statesofIllinoisandConnecticuthavespecificdedicatedstaffthatperformoutreachand reviewpublicparticipationplansdraftedbythepermitapplicanttoensure thatmeaningfuldialogueoccurs andthepublicunderstandstheproposedproject.

Recommendation 24: EPA should provide examples of outreach tools to applicants in a guidance document.EPA alsoshould ensurethat guidancecanaccommodatevariationsinlocal communitycapacity,priorities, andissueintensity. Toolssuccessfullyusedinsomestatesinclude posting ofsignsin high foottraffic areas,the production and distributionoffactsheetsregarding proposedactivity,and pressreleases, etc.Itis importantthattheinformationbe providedearlyin theapplicationprocessbeforethe finaldesign andconstructionphaseiscompleted. Forexample,sucha guidancedocumentforapplicantscouldincludeachecklistofinformationthat may be important to thecommunity,suchas anypotential existing environmentalconditions,listof permits,and remediation that may occuraspartof thepermit application.Likewise,totheextent known,EPAregions shouldhelpapplicantsunderstandthemakeup of acommunity’senvironmentalchallenges,residents,organizations,businessleaders,andlocalenvironmentalregulatoryentities.

Recommendation 25: EPA should conduct on‐going outreach to industry and associations.EPAnationally,andin the regions,needstocommit toon‐going outreach toindustryassociations,councils,sectors,etc.ontheimportanceofunderstandingEJinrelationtopermittingandenvironmentaljustice. Thisisinrecognitionthat EPA’sregions cannot educatethebusinesssector onthesepermittingissuesalone; alongwithstates, businesshave arole heretoo.

Recommendation 26: EPA should ensure all stakeholders are well informed as early as possible in the permitting process. Detailedinformationregardingthefollowingshouldbe provided:

Explaintheprojectinalinguisticallyappropriatemanner.If needed,host multiple meetingsto allowmoregroupstolearn about the permitand relateddetails;

Permitapplicationprocess,includingoutreach procedures/tools; Natureandscope ofthepermit; Ifaddressinganexistingpermittedfacility,provideinformationonitscompliancehistoryrelativetoitspastpermit(s). Includeinformationonmeasurestakentomitigate past bad practicesthrough thecurrentorpastpermits;

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 15

Timing oftheprocess,includingrequirements andexpectations. Names andcontactinformation as towhowithin EPA’sregion is responsiblefor thepermitting process.

Includenamesandtitles ofwho isdoingwhatinan officialcapacityrelated tothe permit andhowto contactthemformoreinformation.Thiscouldincludestate,tribal and/orlocalentitiescounterparts toEPAthathavealinkedrole.

Publicopportunitiestoengagethroughinformalpublicmeetings.Thisneedstooccurearlybeforetechnicalreview iscompletedbyEPApermittingstaffso thatenvironmentalconcerns, (i.e.,pollutionreductions)maybeincorporatedin thepermit.

Where andhowtolearn more abouttechnical‐relatedinformation about the industry. There may be a rolehere forlocalorstatecolleges and/or universitiestoassistinthiseffort.

Recommendation 27: EPA should actively communicate with all potentially impacted parties throughout the process. Earlyengagement alone is notenough.Throughoutthe permitting process,EPAregionsneed toworkwith the broader communities aroundthepermittedactivities.Withina reasonable proximity,thosecommunitiesinclude:states,tribesand regionalandlocalgovernments(including publichealth,zoning/communityplanningofficials,andlocalelectedofficials);localbusiness;communityorganizations;localschoolofficials,andserviceorganizations.State, local,tribal–environmentaljusticecounterpartsshouldbebrought intothe planning effortassoonaspossible–evenbeforepublication ofthelegal notice. This is to helpensurealloftheappropriateparties(ascollectivelyidentified) arenotified early and at thesametime. Thisprocessmayrequire the Agency toconductmoreoutreachto localmedia,including radioand localnewspapers.

Recommendation 28: EPA should be prepared to do what’s appropriate beyond what the law requires. There are nonewrequirements proposed.Thus,ifthe applicantchoosestodoonlythe minimumforrequiredpermit notifications,theEPAregion shouldhaveestablishedclearand detailedinternalEPApolicyon what EPA’sregions willdotosupportenvironmentaljusticeintheir permitting work.

Have thispolicycarriedoutconsistentlyin allregions.Hold seniormanagement accountable: withinthe RegionalAdministrator’sOffice;withintheregional EPA programissuingthepermit; andwithin EPA’sHQOfficeofEnvironmentalJustice,whowould oversee the development,resultsandrefinementsofthispolicy.

Enticeprocessingspeed. Advise thatoptionaladditionalparticipationbytheapplicantwillhelptheeffort.At the onset, advise thatiftheapplicantisn’twillingtohelpoutand domore thanthe minimum,EPAwillhave tobalancelimitedpermitprocessingresources.Likely,a region’s processingspeedfora unilateraloutreacheffortwillbeslowediftheapplicantisn’twillingorabletohelp.Thisshould notbe atthe expense ofpublicengagementopportunities.

Translatewhere needed. Ensurethat communicationandoutreach effortsprovide for the translationofcrucialpublicdocumentsintothe appropriate language(s)fortheaffected community; andmake available languagetranslationservicesat publicmeetingsandhearings.Theinformationshouldbemadeavailabletomulticulturalandtribaland/orIndianCountrymedia news.

Overtlyand clearlyadvertisepermit hearingsand relatedpublicmeetings.Contactallpotentialinterestedstakeholdersandnotrelyon the legalnotification process. Relatedcostsshouldbe paidbytheapplicantfor public outreach,includingtranslation, solicitationandresponseto communityquestionsand input.Liketheprivatesector,EPA hastomakechoicesof whereto spendlimitedresources.EPAshoulduseitsextensivenetworkingresourcestoall‐the‐more

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

                   

NEJAC EJ in Permitting Recommendations May 2013 Page 16

ensurethatallpotentiallyimpacted stakeholders have the most advancednotificationofthehearingspossible.

EnsureathoroughNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA) review toconsiderandassessrelatedimpacts,includingpossible exacerbationof cumulative impactsandviablealternatives.

Thoroughlyreviewthecompliance historyoftheapplicant’sotherenvironmental‐related permittedoperations,nationwide, if any.Federal workersafetyandhealth (OSHA)and/or relatedstateequivalent compliancehistory,maybeappropriate toreview aswell.

Looking ahead,realizing itistheStatesandthe Tribeswho willbeimplementingpermittingactionsisnot theprimesubjectof this Planor thisreport,EPAisadvisedtoaddressthefactthatstates andtribeswillbetheprimarypermitters.

Recommendation 29: EPA should provide inducements and/or incentives to states to adopt any program which enhances the ability of communities to be involved with permit actions in their communities. As such,EPAshouldbe proactive to ensurethatStatesand Tribes with delegatedauthoritiesareissued adequateandtimelyguidancetomanagethe permitting program andconsiderationofenvironmentaljustice.The multiagency/tribalrelationships,rolesand complexities willbechallenging andtimeconsuming.Inessence,howwill expectations bemanagedfor state‐issued permits? Onesuggestionisthat EPA needstoacknowledgethis effortwithStates viatherespectiveEPA/StateEnvironmentalPerformancePartnershipsAgreements.

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

 

                   

APPENDIX A

Prior NEJAC Reports Focused on Incorporating Environmental Justice into Permitting

NEJACinitiallyaddressedhowtoincorporateenvironmentaljusticeintopermittingin 1996. Thatwas whenthe Chairofthe NEJACEnforcement subcommittee forwarded tothe Councila draft memorandumpreparedby subcommittee member ProfessorRichardLazarus,GeorgetownUniversityLawSchool.Thememorandumsummarizedenvironmentaljusticelegalauthoritiesunderthe Clean AirAct,CleanWater Act,ResourceConservationandRecoveryAct,ToxicSubstancesControlAct, SafeDrinkingWaterActand Federal Insecticide,FungicideandRodenticideAct.Inthe NEJAC Draft Memorandum on Incorporating Environmental Justice into EPA Permitting Authority (July 18,1994) Lazarus arguedthat EPAhadextensiveauthoritytoincorporateenvironmentaljusticeintoitspermittingprograms by modifyingordenyingpermitsorregistrationsinresponseto evaluationofmattersofenvironmentaljusticeconcern. The reportwasdescribedasan“openingsalvo” forEPA to engagewith NEJACabout how this might be explored.

By2000,NEJACforwarded tothe EPAAdministratoranextensive reportondiscussionsamongNEJACWorkGroupmembersabouthow environmentaljusticecouldbe incorporatedintothepermitting process. ThisNEJACreport, Environmental Justice in the Permitting Process: A Report from the Public Meeting on Environmental Permitting Convened by the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, Arlington, Virginia (August3, 2000), included 80 policy proposals offered by representativesofstakeholdergroups, whichwereorganizedintofive consensusrecommendations:

1. TheOffice ofGeneral Counselshouldclarifylegalauthorityon addressingenvironmental justiceinpermitting;

2. TheAdministratorshould assertleadershipinfurtherunderstandingcumulativeimpacts,degree of risk,communitydemographics,and disproportionalityofrisk,andhow thesecan be integratedinto the permitreviewprocess;

3. Publicparticipationrequirementsshouldensurethatpermitwritersconsultwithaffected communities priortopermitconsiderationorissuance;

4. Federalenvironmentallawsmust befairlyandequitablyenforcedamongallcommunities;and

5. EPAshouldprovideguidancefor state,regional,localandtribalgovernmenton theenvironmentaljusticeimplicationsof permitting andsitingdecisionsandontheimpactof localzoningordinances.

Thedraft permittingreportwas discussedatapublicmeeting, whererepresentativesfromthe privatesectormadeseveralrecommendations abouthow incorporateenvironmentaljusticeintothepermitting process:

UsetheNEJACguidelines onpublicparticipationasatoolto shapeengagement practices

Commit tolisten,recordandrespond toquestionsaskedofthe permitapplicantat publicmeetings;and

Corporations shouldevaluate theirinternalpoliciesonfacilitysitingandacquisition with a goal that awareness of environmentalissues andcommunityperspectives become part ofthe decision‐making framework.

In 2004,NEJACproduced areportaddressinghow toevaluatecumulativerisksinthe context ofenvironmentalprograms(respondingtorecommendation2above), Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risks/Impacts (December 2004),Thisreport wasnotableinitsexplorationof information availabletocharacterizethevulnerabilityofa community andthe opportunitiesin EPAprograms toidentify and providesolutionsforthecommunities withthe highestpotentialfor environmentaljusticeconcern. Thisseminal reportwasafoundationof

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

 

                   

EPA’s Communities for a Renewed Environment(CARE)program, as wellastheinspirationforfurtherworkby the agencytodevelopdata basesandtoolstoobjectivelydocumentcumulative riskandimpact.

In 2006,NEJACissueda letterreport on Future Mechanisms to Enhance Stakeholder Involvement whichaddressedwaysinwhichthebusinesscommunitycouldbeengaged tohelpreducedisproportionate cumulative impacts.NEJACrecommendedthat EPA educate businessandindustryonthewaystheycan“gobeyondcomplianceandbetter meet the needsof the communitiesin whichthey operate.” The Council notedthat“responsiblebusinessandindustryrespondtoandareeducated by forms of recognitionthatare nearlycost‐freeforEPA”–citingPerformanceTrackandEnergy Star. EPA wasurgedto findwaysto encouragebusinessto“exercisegoodcitizenshipandleadership bygoingbeyondcomplianceto hear, understandandrespond toconcernsraisedbycommunitieswithactions thataddressthoseconcernsandimprovequalityoflife.”This includedspecificallyrequestingthat EPAissue“goodpractice”guidancetobusinessoncollaborationwithcommunities. See pp.9‐10. TheCouncilalso advised EPA to useits regulatorydiscretioninthepermittingcontext:

“[T]o facilitateimplementation ofsolutionsreachedthroughcollaborativecommunityandbusinesseffortsthatgobeyondcompliance.Forexample,in somesituationsfacility‐widepermitsmayprovideflexibility that makesit easierfor business to implement the specifictechnologies andmethodsthatcommunitiesrequesttoreducerisk.Likewise,promptgovernment actionto issueor modifypermitsasrequiredtoachievecollaborativegoalswouldassistbothcommunitiesandbusiness.” See p.11.

ThefirsttermofthecurrentNEJACWorkGrouponEJinPermittingcitedthison‐goingthemeof cumulative risk‐‐andthe2000 NEJAC reportspecifically‐‐in itsrecommendationsonhowEPAshouldapproach environmentaljusticein permitting. The NEJAC reminded EPAthat the cumulativerisk approaches theCouncilhasrecommendedoverthe years feature fouressential elements:

1. Thorough characterizationofrisksand vulnerabilities, 2. Settingpriorities,3. Maintaining abiasforactionto alleviatecumulative impactsincommunities withthehighest

potentialfor environmentaljusticeconcern,and 4. Reflecting asenseofproportionalitywhenseekingsolutionsin the context ofpermitting. See

NEJAC,EnhancingEnvironmentalJusticeinEPAPermittingPrograms (April2011),pp. 6‐10,

Ofparticular note,theWorkGroup echoedthe earlyNEJAC focus on:

Emphasizingpermitsand opportunitiesfor environmentalimprovement incommunities withthehighestpotentialenvironmentaljusticeconcerns,ratherthan a particularkindofpermit;

Encouragingunderstandingofcumulativerisksandstressorsfor thecommunitywithin thepermit process,butalsorecognizingthat in a community withmultiple sourcesofenvironmentalconcern andvulnerability,thepermitapplicantisresponsibleonlyfor itsproportionalshareofthetotal impact;and

Theregulatoryagency’scritical rolein fostering a holisticresponseto improvingenvironmentalconditionsincommunitieswithhighestcumulativerisks.EPAwillnotbeeffectiveiftheapplicantfor aparticularpermit is viewed asthe “tippingpoint”whose permitisheldhostage to a broadly‐sharedenvironmental condition. Thepermitapplicantcanbeexpectedtocontributeitsfairsharetowardenvironmental improvement inhigh‐prioritycommunitieswith environmental justiceconcerns,butallsourcesofconcernmustcontributetosolutions.EPA’s mosteffectiveroleisto fosterarea‐widesolutions.

TheNEJAC reportonNationallyConsistentEnvironmentalJustice Screening Approaches (May 2010), providedfurtheradvice. ThisreportaddressedthetoolsEPAmustprovideto identifythecommunitiesof

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

 

                   

highestconcern.Thesetools(including,but notlimitedto “EJSEAT”) are importantresourcesandtherebybecomethefocusofcumulativeriskreductionand collaborative effortstoimprovequalityoflife.This WorkGroupwasasked torecommendhowEPAcouldimproveitsmethodologiesforidentifying communities withthehighestpotentialfor environmentaljusticeconcern.Withinthat report,NEJAC addressedthecritical roledemographicsplayinidentifyingthehighestprioritycommunities:

“WithinEJSEAT,percentminority isoneofsixindicatorsinthe SocialDemographiccategorythatcomprisesone‐fourthof theoverallEJSEATscores. TheNEJAChasfrequentlyobservedovertheyearsthat thelegacyofracialandethnicdiscriminationhas realimpacts in terms ofcommunities’healthandwelfare, aswellas theirvulnerabilitytoenvironmentalstressors... .Thus,[percent minority] isareliableindicatorwhoseweight shouldnot bedilutedbyincludinglessimportant orindeedinsomecaseserroneous,variableswithintheoverall EJSEATscore.”(p.13).

Insummary, previousNEJACrecommendationspertinentto EPA’scurrent guidancedocumentcounsel that:

Early andon‐goingoutreachandresponsivenessto thecommunity inthepermittingcontext isnecessary;

Screeningtoolsmake it possibletoidentifythecommunitieswiththe highestpotentialfor environmentaljusticeconcerns, andraceisacriticalfactor inprioritizingcommunitiesforattention andenvironmentalimprovement;

NEJAChassupportedexpandedpublicoutreachandpermittingpracticesthatfocusonfindingandimprovingenvironmentalconditionsincommunitieswiththe highest environmentaljustice concerns;and

Thepermitapplicant’sresponsein communitieswiththe highest potentialforenvironmental justiceconcernmustbeto gobeyondcomplianceto assureenvironmentalprotectionandtobeheldtofair‐shareaccountabilityforenvironmentalprogress.

Seeninthiscontext,itisnotable that EPA’scurrent guidance:

Stronglyencouragesearlyandon‐goingoutreachinthepermittingcontext; Providesgoodpracticaladviceonhowtoaccomplishthis;and Willneedto becoupledwithother tools‐‐includingEPA’senforcementauthority,itsaccessto relevantgrantandotherresource programs toaddresscommunitieswith environmentalchallenges,anditsabilitytoworkwith localandstategovernmenttoincentivizecommunity‐specifichealthand environmentalimprovements.

Applicability:InNEJAC’s previous guidancespecific tothechargeregardinghowenvironmentaljustice shouldbe incorporatedintoEPA’spermitting programs,the Councilhas beenveryclear:

“Environmentaljusticeconcernsarisein a geographicarea,not justwithin theboundsof a particularpermit,and EPAshouldfocuson locatingandimprovingplaces withhigh cumulativerisksandimpacts ratherthanrelyonapermit‐by‐permitapproach. There are toolsavailabletoscreen for locations ofhighenvironmentaljusticeconcern.”NEJAC, Enhancing Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting Programs (April2011),pp.8‐9.

In makingthisrecommendation,NEJAC citedpreviouswork of the Council(includingextensive reference toreports alsocitedinthisWorkGroupupdate), aswellas therealconcernthat ifEPA wereto proceedon apermit‐categoryby permit‐category approach,it might develop differentstandardsunderdifferent programs,thuscreatingdiscrepanciesinwhat“passes”theenvironmentaljusticetestforonepermitversusanotherinthesamelocation.

A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency