Technologies for Environmental 

Justice Communities and Other 

Vulnerable Populations

National Advisory Council on 

Environmental Policy and 

Technology

March 26, 2012
EPA’s Charge To NACEPT

 Provide “advice ... on the identification and 

use of existing, or needed, technologies ... 

to better protect vulnerable populations”

 . . . including “game-changing 

technologies” that have “potential to 

deliver relevant, actionable information” to 

all parties
Case Study Communities

 Hartford, CT: trash-to-energy incinerator

 Rubbertown, KY (Louisville): “chemical corridor”

 Toledo, OH Dorr-Smead Brownfields: contaminated 

soils, off-gassing in basements 

 Graniteville, SC: train wreck 

 Salish Kootenai College (MT):

mold in school buildings and housing 

 Lower Passaic River (NJ): contaminated sediments
Needed Technologies

The advisory committee identified 3 

categories of needed technologies

• Detection, monitoring, and 

assessment technologies

• Communication technologies

• Solution technologies—technological 

solutions to correct environmental 

problems
Needed Technologies (cont’d)

Detection, Monitoring, and 

Assessment Technologies

• Range of Instruments Needed:

 portable sensors for community 

members 

 more complex monitoring systems 

operated by specially trained people
Needed Technologies (cont’d)

Communication Technologies

• needed to assure that residents, local 

agencies, and industry are fully informed about 

risks to the community, including: 

 real-time information about ambient 

pollution, including real-time information 

needed by first responders and local 

hospitals;

 information that residents can use to protect 

themselves from localized environmental 

exposures
Needed Technologies (cont’d)

Solution Technologies

•Technological solutions to 

correct environmental 

problems are also important

Can be costly and difficult to 

identify and deploy at a 

particular site
Recommendations

1. ORD should enter into partnerships 

with EJ/VP communities to develop 

and deploy these new technologies

• Need for “game-changing” technologies

• Identify one or two “pilot communities” in 

each region to be test beds for effective 

detection, monitoring, and assessment 

technologies
Recommendations (cont’d)

2. ORD should establish a public-private task 

force to provide strategic advice and 

supplement EPA’s technical expertise

• Technology companies, regulated companies, research 

institutes, academia, regulators

• NGOs with experience in monitoring and communication 

technologies + community leaders

• Perhaps organized through NEJAC

- The task force would help ORD

- Inventory cutting-edge, available technologies for EJ/VP 

communities

- Identify technologies ready to enter the market and 

legal, financial barriers

- Advise about incentives
Recommendations (cont’d)

3. EPA should reach out to other 

federal agencies

 Model: EPA-DOT-HUD partnership on 

healthy communities 

 Help develop solution technologies 
Recommendations (cont’d)

4. Provide biennial update to EJ/VP 

communities

 Update Communities

 Reassess 

• Needs

• Pros and cons of new technologies
Recommendations (cont’d)

5. Strengthen EPA capabilities to 

support monitoring, reporting, and 

mitigation activities in EJ/VP 

communities

 For example, address:

• IT interoperability standards

• Barriers to data acquisition

• Needs for specialized tools 

• Mashups
Questions???