**[PCB Incineration in Port Arthur TX:]{.underline}**

**[First & Foremost, An Environmental Justice Issue]{.underline}**

Fair-minded environmental professionals throughout the U.S. acknowledge
the difficulty of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency charge to
safeguard national eco-systems and human health. Moreover, since 1994
the agency's charge has required a two dimensional approach: the
development of technological expertise in environmental measurement and
data analysis to refine the risk characterization process, and a
parallel application of the concept of Environmental Justice in
determining "how much justice" inheres in regulatory decisions made by
the Agency, and by extension, national-regional-and local economic
planning. The basic framework for Environmental Justice developed
independent of the EPA through the efforts of environmental / social
justice theorists such as Dr. Robert Bullard, the United Church of
Christ study, **"Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States"** (1987),
and proceedings of the **First National People of Color Environmental
Leadership Summit** (1991), et al. Environmental Justice was eventually
codified as a guiding principle in the operations of our national
government through President Clinton's Executive Order 12898.

[First, a definition of]{.underline} [terms: What is Environmental
Justice]{.underline}?

***"The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of* race, *color, national origin, or income with respect to
the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people,
including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a
disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences
resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the
execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and
policies."***

(**[www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice]{.underline}**)

[And what is the EPA / governmental mandate defined by Executive Order
12898 (1994]{.underline})

***To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and
consistent with the principles set forth In the report on the National
Performance Review, [each Federal]{.underline} [agency]{.underline}
[shall]{.underline} [make achieving Environmental Justice
part]{.underline}** **[of its mission by]{.underline} [identifying
and]{.underline} [addressing, as appropriate.
disproportionately]{.underline} [high and]{.underline} [adverse human
health or]{.underline} [environmental effects of]{.underline} [its
programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and
low-income populations in the United States and its territories and
possessions..]{.underline}.***

([**www.epa.gov/fedreg/eo/eo12898.htm**](http://www.epa.gov/fedreg/eo/eo12898.htm))
Section 1-1: Implementation

WE must also acknowledge EPA efforts to make Environmental Justice a
strong and meaningful element in crafting federal policy to assure
social justice as well as physical protection. EPA researchers have
created an array of analytic frameworks and computational tools
including:

• Environmental Justice Geographic Assessment Tool

• Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment (2003)

• Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors:
Environmental Justice & Cumulative Risks / Impacts (NEJAC 2004)

• And most recently, the EJ SEAT (Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool
2006)

Two of these EPA developed analytic frameworks may be used to accurately
capture the true extent of Environmental Justices issues in Port Arthur,
Texas:

**A*. Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors:
Environmental Justice & Cumulative Risks /Impacts ***discusses the
concepts of susceptibility, differential exposure, differential
preparedness, and differential ability to recover in explanation of the
ongoing and subtle damage of multiple stressors / cumulative risk
factors in communities. These ideas apply to the community of Port
Arthur TX as follows:

*1) **susceptibility**:* Fetuses, infants and children, citizens with
pre-existing health conditions, compromised immuno-systems or genetic
predispositions to disease, and the elderly fall into vulnerable
populations relative to health effects of environmental exposures. The
region known as the "Golden Triangle" (Port Arthur, Beaumont, Orange)
has been identified as a significant high incidence locus of respiratory
health and eye/ear/nose problems in comparison to reference populations
(Barker, Morris, Legator 2004). An earlier study showed a significant
regional increase in multiple myeloma, and increased relative risk for
respiratory problems (Petronella 1999). Community health surveys
conducted by citizens groups in West Port Arthur have indicated high
rates of various organ and hemopoietic cancers, asthma, chronic
respiratory distress (especially among children), and chronic skin
irritations. Based on the EPA cumulative risk framework, it would be
reasonable to assume that *vulnerable citizens* bear the brunt of
disease outcomes due to both chronic low level exposures and episodic
spikes.

*2) **differential exposure**:* observable health effects from toxic
exposures are closely related to magnitude, duration, frequency and
timing of exposures. Citizens of Port Arthur especially in West Side
neighborhoods have much higher than normal opportunities for exposures
to confirmed human toxins at higher magnitudes, longer durations, and
greater frequency than comparison populations. Timing relates closely to
developmental effects in children, and increased impacts on
immuno-compromised individuals and the elderly. It is difficult if not
impossible to avoid exposure opportunities in the community of Port
Arthur because of the size and spread of local petrochemical refining,
chemical storage and waste disposal facilities thus increasing general
risk, and significantly increasing risk for more susceptible community
members.

3\) ***differential preparedness* and 4) *differential ability*** to
recover are as closely related as cause and effect. Census data (2000)
indicate that median income level (\$32,000), age spread of population
(33% under 18 / 15% over 65) and 22% of families below the poverty line,
and unemployment rates verge on 1400 in sectors of the community. These
data correlate with negative (or adverse) differential preparedness and
ability to recover factors: [i.e. lack of access to good health care and
nutrition, lack of services, recreational facilities, green space,
housing issues, compromised health / immuno-system, lack of social
capital, et. al.]{.underline} Any combination of these factors will
directly impact a community's ability to withstand and recover from the
health and social impacts of adverse environmental exposures.

**B**. The ***[EJ SEAT]{.underline}*** assessment tool considers both
physical & social indicators of individual health on a quantitative
basis to assign an indexed "EJ area of concern" score to individual
Census tracts. EJ SEAT criteria include:

1\) [environmental factors]{.underline} (TRI data, National Air Toxics
Assessment Cancer Risk (NATA), Risk­Screening Environmental Indicators
(RSEI))

2\) [human health factors]{.underline} (ATSDR documented health effects
of toxins, epidemiological data on disease incidence, health disparities
within groups, special vulnerabilities, etc.)

3\) [compliance factors]{.underline} (previous history of permit
violations, accidents & accident management, culture of safety in
industry, density of point sources, types of point sources, etc.)

4\) [social demographic factors]{.underline} (SES, % population in
vulnerable categories, etc.)

Since this tool is still in its developmental stages - to the best of my
knowledge - we would request that EPA run the numbers and tell us where
Port Arthur Census tracts stand on the scale of Environmental Justice
concern, or not. One would suspect this analysis would find that west
side neighborhoods in Port Arthur, at least, would fall within the upper
10 -- 20% bracket, defined by EPA as an "actionable level."

The ***Social Ecological Model*** is a framework which may be used to
examine the holistic matrix of feedbacks and mutual cause-effect
relationships that connect social and physical elements within a given
environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). From a Social-Ecological standpoint,
the combination of many factors in Port Arthur demonstrate why adding
additional layers of risk - such as permitting PCB incineration in a
Port Arthur facility - would be detrimental to the community as a whole.

1\) Physical deterioration in Port Arthur, especially in west side
neighborhoods and the downtown, demonstrates how negative effects of
relatively high levels of - even permitted - industrial pollution can
drastically affect both the health and the social economy of a
community.

2\) The combination of adverse environmental exposures, special
vulnerabilities to disease within the community, and health disparities
(both within the community and in comparison to similar demographics in
Texas and U.S.) puts Port Arthur in a higher risk category that should
guide all regulatory policy decisions on siting and permitting.

3\) Adding additional stressors - even those considered mildly adverse
(and I'm not so sure that PCB incineration fits into that category) - to
a community already bearing a heavy pre-existing burden of cumulative
risk has serious, negative ripple effects on local efforts to address a
wide spectrum of community issues.

4\) An on-going succession of emissions events, flaring, explosions and
consequent fires in Port Arthur facilities, the permitting of a massive
expansion in refining capacities that may ultimately raise legal
emissions by 30%, and the decision by DoD to transport VX hydrolysate to
Veolia's Port Arthur facility for incineration all contribute to the
incremental erosion of this community's social capital. PCB incineration
will invariably add some momentum to this erosion and compound
pre-existing problems.

Finally, I would like to draw your attention to a revised Environmental
Justice framework recently offered by Dr. Robert Bullard ("The Quest for
Environmental Justice" 2006).

> **Aspects of Environmental Justice** (based **on Executive Order**
> 12898)

• All people have a right to be protected from environmental degradation

**• Prevention** is the preferred Environmental Justice strategy:
eliminate potential harm before it harms

• The Environmental Justice framework rests on the ***Precautionary
Principle*** (with emphasis on protection of the most vulnerable
segments of the population)

• Environmental Justice shifts the burden of proof to polluters, who
harm, discriminate, & do not give equal protection to racial / ethnic /
economic minorities (community members should not become "unwitting
subjects" of "natural" longitudinal studies on the health effects of
industrial processes by virtue of proximity to a shared fence line)

• Environmental Justice redresses disproportionate impacts by committing
resources to substantive action

[Based on Dr. Bullard's prescriptions it would appear preventive of
future harm to use a precautionary approach and ask (or require)
hazardous waste disposal contractors (like Veolia) to apply mobile,
on-site, detoxification and disposal processes to avoid]{.underline}:

a\) shipping prohibited toxic materials across our borders and into the
U.S., (something that would be an unfortunate precedent),

b\) putting Port Arthur citizens at-risk in the event of any unplanned /
un-permitted / or fugitive emissions stemming from the PCB disposal
operation: PCB exposure at even minute quantities may have far-reaching
health effects on those most vulnerable, and

c\) adding any more risk factors to the cumulative burden carried by the
Port Arthur community and thus further eroding social capital.

Thank you.

John Sullivan

> Co-Director: Public Forum & Toxics Assistance

Sealy Center for Environmental Health & Medicine / NIEHS Center

in Environmental Toxicology

University of Texas Medical Branch @ Galveston TX

> 409-747-1246 (w)