nEWS GOVERNMENT Federal environmental justice plans go to Clinton On April 11 President Clinton will receive final "environmental justice strategies" written by EPA and a dozen other federal agencies and departments. The strategies spell out how the agencies and departments intend to ensure that the environment- and health-related programs they administer do not discriminate against low-income and minority populations. Already concerns are being voiced that the plans are too watered down to protect poor, minority communities. Drafts of the strategies, released over the past few months, are quite general. Details will be added over the next 10 months during the implementation phase, according to an EPA staff member who calls the strategies more "consciousness raising" than prescriptive. In EPA's draft, for instance, most sections provide "options," not detailed plans for actions. The most concrete portion is an explanation of 11 EPA environmental justice pilot projects that vary from brownfield (abandoned urban site) redevelopment to targeted enforcement programs.
The lack of specifics and the fear that provisions in the strategy sought by local groups have been "gutted out" of the drafts have heightened concerns of community groups, says Richard Moore, head of the EPA National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), an advisory committee representing environmental groups, state and local governments, industries, community groups, and academia. Elaborating, Deeohn Ferris, a NEJAC member, says EPA's draft has limited the scope of federal actions Clinton called for in his environmental justice executive order. She says several specific areas fall short: a lack of emphasis on workforce diversity, too little attention paid to Native American programs, a lack of a detailed scheme to ensure that communities can communicate easily with EPA, and a failure to strongly address environmental justice issues in state- and contractor-run EPA programs. Ferris acknowledges that development of an environmental justice strategy might be overshadowed by pressure to limit or
roll back regulations that is building in the new Congress. "The consequences of the [Republican] Contract with America are very serious for us, but I don't distinguish elements of the Contract from issues we have been struggling with for years," she says. "The difference is the new momentum. We will continue to put our emphasis on local grassroots issues and see how all this shakes down." Under the executive order, final drafts were to be completed by February 1995, but the schedule was extended because of community groups' complaints that they did not have time to comment, says Moore. Only one public meeting was held by the federal interagency working group, whose members are developing the strategies. That meeting, at Clark University in Atlanta, drew more than 400 people and was described by a Department of Defense official as "a very difficult day" for working group members, who faced hundreds of angry environmental justice advocates in an outpouring of criticism. —JEFF JOHNSON
Governors push for Clean Air Act relief It's not officially an insurrection, but states are becoming more forceful in dealing with the federal government on environmental issues. At its meeting this January in Washington, DC, the National Governors' Association's (NGA) Natural Resources Committee (NRC) aired its criticisms of environmental regulations to EPA Administrator Carol Browner and other federal officials. NGA wants more flexibility in dealing with Clean Air Act requirements and more freedom in controlling solid waste flow. For the most part, EPA has acquiesced. The Clean Air Act was the biggest issue. The states recommended 65 changes, including accounting for low-level ozone on a trend basis rather than on a
worst day basis, removing arbitrarily set lower credits for emission reduction plans, and making the employee commuting program optional to employers. In what may be a sign of the times, EPA has agreed to almost all of NGA's recommendations. At a recent hearing before the House Committee on Commerce, Browner spoke about EPA's work with the NGA. "I believe we can address most of the issues raised by states administratively, and that we can find the appropriate balance between accountability and flexibility within the existing law," she said. According to Page Boinest, an NGA spokesperson, there are four issues EPA claims it cannot change: the requirement that employers
1 7 2 A • VOL. 29, NO. 4, 1995/ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
reduce employee commuting, inspection and maintenance credits, sanctions, and deadlines. These are contained in the law and can be changed only by Congress, said an EPA spokesperson. EPA is trying to be flexible, said the EPA spokesperson, but the Agency often faces lawsuits by interested parties over lenient interpretations. In the case of employee commuting, considering the difficulty in enforcement, the Agency essentially will look the other way, Boinest said. As to sanctions, Browner told the committee, "They will be seldom used; however, I believe that the existence of sanctions is an important element in the overall effort to achieve clean air." —DANI SHANNON
