Environmental Justice Stakeholder Meeting - March 12, 1998

Meeting Summary

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW)
Washington, DC (with televideo connections to EPA Regions 1-9)

Morning Session

Welcome/Opening Remarks--Cynthia Dougherty, Director, OGWDW
(See Appendix B; Slides 1-3)

Ms. Dougherty began the meeting by welcoming all participants and thanking them in advance for their participation. She stressed OGWDW's commitment to involving all partners and affected parties in providing input to the regulatory decision-mak ing process and continued with a few remarks concerning the reasons for choosing the televideo format for the meeting. In order to ensure the involvement of low-income and minority communities in the stakeholder process OGWDW elected to reach a wider aud ience by utilizing video conferencing technology. Before closing, she highlighted the three general goals for the meeting: soliciting input on known issues concerning current regulatory efforts from environmental justice (EJ) representatives, identifying key issues of concern to EJ representatives, and receiving suggestions to increase representation of EJ communities in OGWDW regulatory development efforts.

OGWDW Role in Implementing Safe Drinking Water Act/Framework for Analysis and Action--
Ben Smith, Targeting and Analysis Branch, OGWDW
(See Appendix B, Slides 4-20)

Mr. Smith provided an overview of information and data used to develop standards at OGWDW. In doing so, he explained that the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is designed to protect public health. EPA, along with the States, is responsible for ensuring the safety of America's drinking water through identification of drinking water problems, establishment of priorities, utilization of strong science and accurate data, issuance of standards and guidance, and provision of training and technical assistance where necessary. The States are primarily responsible for implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of Federal standards.

Mr. Smith continued by explaining how the 1996 SDWA Amendments provided EPA with the opportunity to assess impacts on sensitive populations and greater flexibility in considering costs to small systems. The assessment of affordability is a significant component of this new flexibility. Pursuant to these new requirements, OGWDW wishes to identify and define effective forums for involvement of EJ representatives within the time and resource constraints faced by the Agency. Of specific interest to OGWDW, with respect to this matter, is establishing a balance between affordability and health protection and constructing a range of health considerations to include in its decision-making process. In addition, several rule-specific issues of potential concern to EJ communities and their representatives are being identified in the process of developing regulations for radon, arsenic, disinfectants and disinfection by-products, and microbes. These specific issues are scheduled to be addressed later in the meeting. The morning session was designed to focus on the following questions:

1. 1. Do drinking water standards present issues of concern to environmental justice (EJ) representatives?
2. 2. How can these additional areas of concern be addressed in setting drinking water standards?
3. 3. At what level does the cost of water preclude seeking additional health protection?
4. 4. Who are the key subgroups to consider in exploring the sensitive subpopulation issue?

First Break-Out Session--Group Reports

Region 1--Boston
The Region 1 group indicated that EPA must develop a program to provide citizens with assistance in understanding the complex scientific issues related to specific regulations in order for the public to effectively participate in the regulatory process. The group also suggested that EPA formulate a strategy for providing opportunities for community involvement in regulatory development and periodically evaluate its effectiveness in accomplishing this. The group cited the urban poor, minority children, and children with AIDS as key subgroups for EPA to consider as sensitive subpopulations. The Region 1 participants also suggested that EPA address both multiple and cumulative exposures to contaminants and seek to address the difference in Federal-Tribal and Federal-State relationships with respect to drinking water regulations.

Region 2--New York
This group stressed the need for EPA to educate the EJ community and the public at large about drinking water protection and the responsibilities of various organizations in safeguarding public water supplies. They also expressed the viewpoint that all s ensitive subpopulations must be protected by drinking water standards. The Region 2 (NY) group also asked EPA to provide the public with a better understanding of the significance of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and the differences in health protection they provide. Finally, the group recommended that EPA consider facilitating participation by the public in rate setting and other methods by which utilities pass increases in drinking water costs to consumers.

Region 2--New Jersey
The Region 2 (NJ) group urged EPA to focus on prevention of contamination, assignment of liability to polluters, and improvements in enforcement programs. This threefold approach could be employed to ensure source water is less expensive to treat for use as drinking water. Also, the group remarked that the long-term cost of illness is always greater than the cost of prevention. The group continued by suggesting EPA focus on farm workers, low-income communities, and Tribal communities as sensitive subgr oups.

Region 3--Philadelphia
The Region 3 group asked EPA to consider the effects of multiple exposures to contaminants. The group also suggested that EPA consider long-term costs associated with the health effects of drinking water contaminants in addition to short-term treatment c osts associated with contaminant removal. Specifically, the group recommended that EPA consider all social and health-care costs associated with not regulating a given drinking water contaminant. The group was particularly concerned that consideration of short-term costs might result in decisions to require a lower standard of protection for the service populations of small water systems. The group also cited the need for increased funding for small systems to install treatment technologies.

Region 4--Atlanta
The Region 4 group suggested that EPA identify sources of funding in order to ensure all communities are offered the same level of protection from drinking water contaminants. The group named the elderly, infants, pregnant women and HIV-positive individ uals as important sensitive subgroups for purposes of making regulatory decisions. The group continued by suggesting a ban on waivers of drinking water requirements in areas of the country where no sensitive subpopulations are present.

Region 5--Chicago
The Region 5 group characterized the increased involvement of EJ stakeholders in the regulatory process as vital to EPA's mission to safeguard drinking water. The group also recommended that EPA increase source water protection efforts in order to preven t the need for extensive treatment. Nursing mothers, public space (e.g., parks), the elderly, ill individuals, and individuals receiving cumulative exposures to drinking water contaminants were identified as areas or groups upon which EPA should focus ad ditional analysis in support of regulatory decision-making.

Region 6--Dallas
The Region 6 group stated that greater involvement of the "real" public is necessary to improve EPA's ability to effectively incorporate EJ concerns into its efforts to fulfill the mandates of the SDWA. In addition, the group called for better assessments of treatment costs to small communities and further research on the long-term cost of illness as compared to the current emphasis on short-term cost of treatment. The group also suggested EPA link specific contaminants to their sources and require parties responsible for the contamination to fund the cost of treatment. The group stressed the need for health assessments to consider and be protective of all individuals despite their differences. They identified immunocompromised individuals and pregnant mo thers as sensitive subgroups. In particular, the group asked EPA to perform further research on the long-term health effects of drinking water contaminants to pregnant mothers. This group also urged EPA to work toward making the technical issues involved in the development of drinking water regulations easier for residents of EJ communities to understand in order to help dispel the perception that the government is not willing to work with citizens at the local level.

Region 7--Kansas City
The Region 7 group felt that the lack of funding for monitoring in small satellite systems that purchase water from large systems was a problem. The group also asked EPA to consider cases where consolidation and regionalization are not viable strategies for small systems to pursue in meeting drinking water standards or lowering costs, particularly due to distance between systems. They identified multi-sensitivity groups as key subgroups for EPA to consider when developing regulations, for example, Nativ e Americans with diabetes.

Region 8--Denver
The Region 8 group requested that EPA develop drinking water standards which are equally protective of all communities. The group also suggested that cleanup levels at Superfund sites be reconciled with drinking water MCLs. With respect to standards, th e group asked EPA to attempt to avoid promulgating differential standards across communities and to fully disclose decisions to do so along with the reasoning behind them. In addition, the group recommended that EPA ensure low-income households are adequ ately represented in home monitoring programs.

Region 9--San Francisco
The Region 9 group asked EPA to focus efforts on ensuring that drinking water quality does not deteriorate near the end of distribution systems, negating the benefits of treatment. The group also suggested EPA develop tap monitoring programs and include bottled water provisions in the regulation of certain contaminants. The group also urged EPA to work toward establishing better funding mechanisms for small rural water systems. The group cited immunocompromised individuals, infants, and pregnant mothers as sensitive subgroups to consider in the regulatory process.

Headquarters--Washington, DC
The Headquarters break-out group expressed concern that EPA was not involving the appropriate individuals to effectively incorporate EJ communities in the regulatory process. The group suggested contacting organizations such as the National Council of La Raza. The group also urged OGWDW to consult EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and the National Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to take advantage of the existing infrastructure for obtaining input from some of the communities EPA is seeking to consult. The group also felt that providing training and technical assistance to EJ communities should be an important component of successful programs to involve such communities in regulatory decision-making. The group stated that it is important that EPA construct a communications infrastructure based on better ties to local governments and local EJ communities and their representatives. In particular, the group suggested EPA establish focus groups composed of EJ representatives to discuss the assessment of affordability. With respect to the question of what constitutes an adequate margin of safety, the group felt an adequate margin should be provided but indicated that the acceptable level is a local issue. The Headquarters group felt that analysis of sensitive subpopulations should include consideration of effects of regulations on the urban poor and "crossover groups," such as children with AIDS.

(See Appendix C; Slides 1-6)

Ms. Washington provided some basic information concerning OGWDW efforts to update the CCL. She expressed OGWDW's desire to involve the public in determining whether or not to add contaminants to the CCL. She also explained that OGWDW would appreciate comments from the EJ community concerning those contaminants already listed. She closed by posing the following question to the stakeholders for discussion during the afternoon break-out session:

What approaches would work best for facilitating further involvement on CCL issues?
Radon and Arsenic Regulations--Jim Taft, Chief, Targeting and Analysis Branch
(See Appendix D; Slides 1-25)

Mr. Taft provided background information and summarized the history of EPA efforts to regulate arsenic and radon, two naturally occurring contaminants found in water supplies as a result of the geology of their source aquifers. He provided an update to stakeholders concerning the present schedule for issuing final regulations for these contaminants. In addition, he highlighted some issues likely to be of concern to EJ stakeholders. In the case of radon, the Agency is considering the appropriate level for a radon MCL in drinking water as well as how to structure an alternative maximum contaminant level (AMCL). The AMCL approach, depending on how it is established, would allow States and/or water systems to adopt an AMCL for radon which would seek to reduce the risk associated with radon exposure by limiting air exposures. This approach poses an equity concern because it could result in differential benefits across a water system with respect to the risks posed by radon exposures. The structure of an AMCL-based regulation is open to discussion. He ended his presentation by posing the following questions to the stakeholders for discussion and comment:

1. How can questions posed during the morning break-out session be answered with respect to arsenic?
2. What are the equity concerns related to setting an AMCL for radon?
3. Are there additional sociological or ecological issues of concern with respect to regulating radon in drinking water?

M-DBP and GWDR--Ephraim King, Chief, Standards and Risk Reduction Branch, OGWDW
(See Appendix E; Slides 1-16)

Mr. King gave a presentation highlighting EPA's efforts to develop a regulation to control the risks associated with exposures to microbial pathogens and drinking water disinfectants and their by-products. In particular, he provided a brief explanation of the technical problem EPA faces in attempting to balance the risks resulting from exposures to the disinfectants (and their by-products) typically used to control microbial pathogens versus those risks resulting from exposures to the microbes themselves. EPA is charged with determining an appropriate balance between these two risks. Based on the results of a FACA process, EPA is attempti ng to address these risks through the promulgation of the microbial-disinfectant by-product (M-DBP) rule cluster, composed of the Disinfectants/Disinfectant By-Product Rule (D/DBPR) and the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR). These re gulations will improve upon safeguards provided by existing regulations.

A ground water regulation is also being developed in response to a Congressional mandate in the 1996 SDWA Amendments that requires EPA to examine ground water contamination. The goal of this regulation is to prevent waterborne microbial disease outbreaks and reduce endemic levels of illness in ground water systems. EPA is currently considering a multiple barrier approach to protect the integrity of water systems served by ground water sources from source to tap.

Mr. King posed the following questions for consideration by stakeholders:

1. What are key preventative measures local representatives believe would be helpful to minimize microbial contamination of drinking water?
2. What difficulties do communities experience in identifying the source of their drinking water and what contamination risks exist?

Second Break-Out Session
(See Questions listed above under CCL, radon/arsenic, and M-DBP/GWR Presentations)
Group Reports

Headquarters-Washington, DC
The Headquarters group criticized the technical complexity of the educational presentation on specific regulatory initiatives. However, the group felt efforts to educate EJ communities on the threats posed by specific drinking water contaminants was worthwhile to pursue. The group suggested that EPA representatives travel to EJ communities to deliver such educational messages in the type of forum the target audience (i.e., residents of EJ communities) are comfortable with. The group reasoned that such an approach, coupled with other outreach strategies, would serve as a more effective means of building trust in EPA's efforts to provide protection to EJ communities from the negative health effects associated with drinking water contamination. The group also suggested distributing multicultural educational materials with real-world examples in order to bridge language barriers and educate the public concerning complex technical issues inherent in EPA's mission to protect drinking water.

The group warned EPA that the AMCL approach to the regulation of radon must focus on ensuring an even distribution of benefits across society. In particular, the group recommended EPA include consideration of the redistribution of protection across income categories as part of analyses of costs and benefits for radon. In addition, the group remarked that renters are a concern with respect to the cost of air remediation. The group indicated that EPA should consider requiring utilities to bear some of the cost of such remediation. The group also stressed the need for the regulatory development process to include consideration of disproportionate vulnerability due to differential access to health care and other factors. Differential access to health care is especially important in the analysis of the occurrence of skin and colon cancers associated with exposure to arsenic. Among other factors was a suggestion that EPA reexamine the assumption that individuals consume only two liters of water per day. The group felt that certain subpo pulations or residents of certain parts of the country may consume a substantially higher amount of water per day, particularly day laborers and farm workers. Finally, the group stated that EPA must consider how protection from drinking water contaminant s will be afforded by small, disadvantaged communities.

Region 9--San Francisco
The Region 9 participants suggested EPA conduct local meetings to better inform and educate the EJ community concerning the technical issues surrounding drinking water regulations. Although regional televideo conferences are an excellent use of technology to reach EPA's target audience (i.e., EJ representatives), meeting with these individuals "on their turf" is important to building the type of partnership EPA needs to establish. The group encouraged EPA to continue to utilize electronic media to inform EJ communities. In particular, the group suggested television and radio commercials. The Internet was also suggested; however, the group acknowledged that not everyone has computer access. The group also suggested enacting stipulations requiring water systems to provide more informational material during the billing process, including water quality information and risks. The group also urged EPA to make use of the FACA process whenever applicable but acknowledged that it required alteration to allow for broader participation by the public.

With respect to radon and arsenic, the group asked EPA to offer solutions to the problem of high implementation costs due to the aging drinking water infrastructure observed in some EJ communities. With respect to microbial contamination, the group recommended EPA expand its source water protection outreach programs to educate EJ communities served by water systems with little or no protection from contaminated ground water. The group felt that frequent sanitary surveys serve as the best means of preventing microbial contamination and encouraged EPA to work with States to link such programs with sewer line rehabilitation efforts.

Region 8--Denver
This group felt that, in order to ensure participation by EJ communities and their representatives in the regulatory process, EPA should strive to clearly demonstrate to such groups that their comments are indeed welcome and will continue to be considered. Also, the group recommended the Agency provide information to the public concerning the potability of local drinking water and institute grant and assistance programs to finance improvements to infrastructure and construction of treatment facilities.

The group offered several recommendations concerning specific contaminants. In the case of radon, the group expressed concern that the AMCL approach would provide water systems and State governments a "loophole" through which they could escape the res ponsibility of providing appropriate protection from radon exposures. The group also suggested EPA address the inconsistencies between disinfection requirements for ground water and surface water by promulgating a ground water regulation. In addition, t he group urged EPA to evaluate organic phosphonates for potential addition to the CCL.

Region 7--Kansas City
As with other groups, the Region 7 participants stressed the importance of improving public education concerning drinking water contaminants and EPA's efforts to regulate them. The participants recommended establishing a community ambassador program. The group also recommended televising 30-second commercials to raise awareness of the variant risks posed by the AMCL approach to radon regulation and solicit public comment. With respect to the CCL, the group urged EPA to ensure the contaminant selection process involve modeling and sampling regimes that are representative of all communities. The group asked EPA to analyze affordability from the standpoint of capital investment cost as well as the cost of operations and maintenance. With respect to health criteria, the group recommended EPA consider exposures to multiple contaminants through a variety of routes.

Region 6--Dallas
Due to the fact that many EJ representatives are unable to travel great distances, the Region 6 group suggested EPA examine ways to expand the stakeholder format for discussion of EJ issues. The group continued by stating that arsenic was prevalent in se veral parts of the Region 6 states. Based on this fact, the group recommended EPA establish an outreach program to provide information to consumers on arsenic occurrence in drinking water. The group also suggested that EPA concentrate radon education an d funding in areas of the country with the highest levels of occurrence. The group cited the many granite-bearing aquifers in their region as examples of such areas. Finally, the group suggested EPA empower citizen groups to monitor prevention and treat ment at local facilities and work to develop more broad-based health models.

Region 5--Chicago
The Region 5 group suggested that EPA conduct more extensive health effects research, especially with respect to areas of the country where healthcare options are limited. The group also indicated that EPA should increase its use of community information and informal research methods as opposed to strict data analysis. The group continued by suggesting that separate extrapolations be performed for sensitive groups in developing national estimates. With respect to ground water contamination, the group recommended enhancing local protection programs to void or mitigate treatment costs.

Region 4--Atlanta
The Region 4 group recommended EPA establish a simpler, multilingual means of communicating with the public other than the Federal Register. According to the group, such a strategy should reach a wider audience, including the EJ community. The group also requested that EPA develop and employ methods of educating the public on the importance and purpose of the CCL. T he group continued by suggesting that EPA utilize an improved FACA process involving more local representatives to develop and expand the CCL.

With respect to radon, the group encouraged EPA to offer all communities equal protection from radon in drinking water and suggested the Agency require water systems to issue quarterly reports of water quality to consumers. To improve ground water protection, the group suggested increased promotion of wellhead protection programs and more extensive monitoring requirements including provisions for random sampling by citizens in order to more effectively oversee the operations of local water systems.

Region 3--Philadelphia
The Region 3 group expressed concern that the AMCL approach to regulating radon will deny benefits to some groups of citizens. Another potential problem identified by the group was the need to develop accurate methods for measuring benefits of reduced ex posure to the residents of multiple family dwellings. With respect to radon, the group recommended EPA establish funding mechanisms for home testing and remediation where necessary. For purposes of developing a ground water rule, the group advised EPA to consider the affordability of any BMPs EPA may require and expressed concern that fecal coliform contamination is uncontrollable in some communities. The group also urged the Agency to encourage the use of hypochlorite over chlorine in small communities.

Region 2--New Jersey
The Region 2 (NJ) group urged EPA to employ more aggressive outreach techniques such as phone calls to citizens of EJ communities and their representatives. This group supported the opinion of the Region 4 group with respect to the need for EPA to develop alternatives to the Federal Register. The group also asked EPA to continue to treat arsenic and radon as all other harmful contaminants despite the fact that they occur naturally as a result of aquifer lithology. With respect to the M-DBP rule cluster, the group suggested EPA base all final regulations on the risk posed to the most sensitive subpopulations. The group also suggested EPA encourage more research on alternatives to chlorination.

Region 2--New York
The Region 2 (NY) group suggested EPA tone down its use of scientific language and develop multilingual educational tools to inform the public of issues involving drinking water contaminants. The group also urged EPA to regulate radon and arsenic levels in private wells to protect certain sensitive subpopulations. The group asked EPA to ignore cost when developing drinking water standards and offer subsidies to water systems, if necessary, to achieve an adequate level of protection for all consumers.

Region 1--Boston
The Region 1 group expressed approval of the meeting and called it "a good start." This group encouraged EPA to develop outreach materials which target specific individuals or profiles of specific EJ communities. The group also suggested EPA improve the quality and quantity of existing outreach materials. Finally, the group asked the Agency to structure regulations for radon and arsenic such that they ensure adequate protection in areas where contamination is most severe.

Addressing Specific Issues--Phil Metzger, OGWDW

Mr. Metzger provided a brief summary of EPA efforts to define irrigation water for purposes of determining applicability of drinking water regulations.

Follow-Up to Previous Break-Out Sessions--Ben Smith, Targeting and Analysis Branch

Mr. Smith attempted to summarize some of the major issues identified by stakeholders during the meeting. They are listed below by general category:

Assessment of Costs, Benefits, and Affordability

• Continue to assess costs, benefits, and affordability as well as the social and health costs of not regulating a given contaminant.
• Identify origins of pollution of drinking water sources and recover the costs of treatment from the responsible parties.
• Establish focus groups to examine the affordability of drinking water regulations.
• Research the long-term cost of illnesses to compare to short-term treatment costs.
• Consider the effects on small communities that purchase water from large utilities.

Financial/Technical Assistance

• Continue to utilize and strengthen source water protection programs.
• Use formats and language that are easy for EJ representatives and residents of EJ communities to understand.
• Provide better education to EJ representatives and consumers on regulatory activities and contaminant risks.
• Develop and use already-established EJ communication networks.
• Increase funding for drinking water remediation to rural and needy populations with poor drinking water quality.

Level of Protection/Health Concerns

• Regulations should not be less stringent in the case of small water systems.
• Offer equal health protection to customers of small systems.
• Address negative health effects of communities not served by PWSs.
• Identify and consider various ways of protecting and communicating with users of non-public water supplies.

Setting Standards

• Address sensitive subgroups and multiple sensitivities by ensuring regulations are broadly based and sensitive to individual differences between communities.
• Address cumulative exposures and co-occurrence of drinking water contaminants.
• Involve the EJ community in discussions on standard-setting.
• Ensure that the need for differential standards across communities is communicated to the public.

Final Break-Out Session

During this portion of the meeting, the break-out groups were asked to name three key things EPA should do involve EJ communities in regulatory development process.

Group Reports

Region 5--Chicago

1. Develop partnership with local health care providers.
2. Attend local EJ meetings.
3. Organize outreach to families and children.

Region 4--Atlanta

1. Disseminate information quickly and continue video conferencing.
2. Develop a feedback system for small systems and their customers.
3. Focus on public education and understanding.

Region 3--Philadelphia

1. Work to improve EPA's image in EJ communities.
2. Address the problems faced by EJ communities.
3. Differentiate between purchasers of drinking water and consumers of drinking water.

Region 2--New York

1. Improve education in a variety of languages.
2. Establish equity with respect to existing and future standards.
3. Require States to address EJ as an issue.

Region 2--New Jersey

1. Improve communication with customers of all water systems.
2. Address the application of sludge on agricultural lands.
3. Address accessibility to healthcare.
4. Base standards on health effects on the most sensitive subpopulations
5. Provide education at the community level.

Region 1--Boston

1. Provide clear communication of issues to the correct people.
2. Utilize the small system technology approach as opposed to the AMCL approach for radon.
3. Examine the correlation between late-onset diabetes and microbial contamination of drinking water.

Headquarters--Washington, DC

1. Engage local elected officials.
2. Hold annual EJ meetings.
3. Educate communities via newspaper advertisements.
4. Hold local meetings with EJ community representatives.

Region 9--San Francisco

1. Improve education.
2. Inform health care providers of risks associated with drinking water contamination.
3. Improve outreach in bilingual formats.
4. Research the effects of multiple exposures and cumulative health effects associated with drinking water contamination.

Region 8--Denver

1. Ensure standards provide equal protection to all communities.
2. Improve quality and quantity of educational materials.
3. Improve outreach programs.

Region 7--Kansas City

1. Ensure that small systems meet current standards as well as future requirements.
2. Consult other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to utilize established communication networks.
3. Facilitate relations between large and small communities to improve assistance on the part of the large ones.
4. Address the inadequacies of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF).

Region 6--Dallas

1. Consider sensitive subgroups and multiple exposures and sensitivities.
2. Require equal protection to small communities.
3. Run commercials and public service announcements.
4. Increase customer access to quarterly reports.
5. Provide financial assistance to small systems.

Closing Remarks--Jim Taft, Chief, Targeting and Analysis Branch

Mr. Taft thanked participants for their involvement in the meeting and reiterated EPA's commitment toward improving the means of communication with EJ communities and their involvement in the regulatory mission of the Agency based on their comments.

Safewater Home | About Our Office | Publications | Links | Office of Water | En Español | Questions and Answers

EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us