Onyemaechi Nweke, DrPH Devon Payne-Sturges, DrPH

Office of Environmental Justice Office of Research and 

US EPA Development/National Center 

for Environmental Research

US EPA

Informational Briefing to the National Advisory Council for 

Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)

May 25 2010

1
 Provide background on aspects of the scientific 

approach to integrate EJ considerations into EPA 

decisions.

 Provide brief overview of recently concluded 

science Symposium

 Summarize recommendations from EPA Symposium 

and next steps

2
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

“To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 

law....each federal agency shall make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 

addressing as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low 

income populations.....”

3
 One of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s priorities is to 

“Expand the conversation on environmentalism and 

working for environmental justice” by:

 Including environmental justice (EJ) in all of EPA’s 

decisions. 

4
Regulatory Development

 Integrate EJ into regulatory development process.

 Where in the process?

 How to analytically incorporate EJ

 Integrate equity considerations into policy choices 

that evolve from the process.

5
 Develop a science-based approach for consistently 

identifying disproportionately impacted minority and 

low income populations.

6
 Activity 1: Identify factors that are associated with 

disparities in environmental health among minority, 

low income and tribal populations.

 Activity 2: Develop critical science reviews on the 

contribution of these factors to disparities in 

environmental health among minority, low income 

and tribal populations.

 Activity 3: Science and policy Symposium

7
8
1. Proximity to pollution sources

2. Unique exposure pathways

3. Multiple and cumulative exposures and impacts

4. Physical Infrastructure

5. Diminished capacity to participate in decision making

Source: Lee, Charles. 2005. Environmental Justice. In: Environmental Health: From 

Global to Local, (Howard Frumkin, ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 170-194

6. Psychosocial Stress

9
WHO (2006). Principles for Evaluating Health Risks in Children. 

Environmental Health Criteria 237.

 “a matrix of physical, chemical, biological, social, and cultural factors 

that result in certain communities and subpopulations being more 

susceptible to environmental factors because of greater exposure to 

such factors or a compromised ability to cope with and/or recover from 

such exposure.”

10
Source: Morello-Frosch, R. and Shenassa, E.D. (2003). The Environmental Riskscape and 

Social Inequality: Implications for Maternal and Child Health Disparities. EHP 114(8):1150-1153. 

11
 Several studies suggest a higher prevalence 

of minority and low income populations near 

pollution sources such as landfills, hazardous 

waste facilities, industrial complexes, etc.  Proximity to hazards can affect disparities 

in both exposure and ability to cope or 

recover from exposure.  UCC (2007): After controlling for 

socioeconomic factors, race remains a robust 

predictor of the location of commercial 

hazardous waste facilities in the United 

States.

12
 Cultural practices, community activities or behaviors that are unique. 

These activities may lead to:

 Exposures to hazards, where other groups in the population are unexposed; 

 Exposure to higher levels of environmental hazards

 Subsistence fish or shellfish harvesting in contaminated local 

waters for consumption e.g. Hmong, African American and Latino 

anglers

13
 Multiple sources, higher pollution burden, 

more likely to experience exposure to 

multiple chemical stressors.

 UCC (2007): Neighborhoods with clustered 

facilities have statistically significantly higher 

percentages of African Americans compared to 

neighborhoods with non-clustered facilities.

 Additive or synergistic interactions--

higher risks of adverse health impacts or 

more severe health outcomes.

 Interactions could also occur between chemical and 

non-chemical stressors (e.g. noise, psychosocial 

stress) to exacerbate risk.

14
 Housing conditions – overcrowding, deteriorated lead 

based paint, mold, pest infestation, heating and air 

conditioning, physically unstable structures/safety issues, 

etc

 Gaitens et al. (2009):

 Higher income is a significant predictor of lower floor lead dust 

levels in U.S.

 Klitzman et al. (2005)

 96% of sampled homes in a low income neighborhood in 

Brooklyn had multiple environmental hazards – lead based paint, 

vermin, mold, safety hazards

 Neighborhood/community resources or lack thereof:

 Lack of resources and services to promote or maintain 

healthy lifestyles e.g. access to healthy foods, safe 

environments for walking.

 Lack of access to community sanitation and water systems, 

etc

 Gatto et al. (2009)

 Consumption of private well water in rural California is 

statistically significantly associated with increased odds of 

Parkinson’s disease

Source: EHP 113(5): A310-317

15
 An effect modifier?

 Glass et al. (2009): Neighborhood psychosocial hazards exacerbate 

the adverse effect of Pb on language and executive functioning 

after adjustment for known risk factors. 

 Peters et al. (2007): Persons with self-reported high stress levels 

have 2.66 times the risk of developing high BP for 1S.D. increase in 

tibia Pb

 Maternal stress enhances neurodevelopmental effects of Pb -

Virgolini et al. (2008)

16
 Pastor et al. (2001): Periods of greatest community demographic change 

“ethnic churning” correlate with introduction of noxious land uses. 

 Community’s social capital, in terms of stable leaders, networks, and 

institutions, is perhaps lowest during such periods. 

 Communities may not be able to participate in decision making process for 

several reasons:

 Lack of access to information

 Lack of representation

 Linguistic or cultural barriers

17
18
 Charge questions:

 Describe the contribution of each vulnerability factor to 

environmental health risks/impacts.

 Describe the contribution of each factor contributes to 

disparities in environmental health risks/impacts

 Identify knowledge gaps and research needs to advance policy

 Commissioned a paper on approaches for 

incorporating vulnerability into risk assessment.

19
20
21

Objective #1: Describe state 

of the science on factors 

that contribute to 

disproportionate 

environmental health 

impacts

Objective #2: Explore 

assessment and policy 

analysis 

frameworks/tools/methods

Objective #3: Identify goals 

to inform blueprint for an 

action agenda

Outcomes

1. Publications:

•Critical reviews of the science 

underlying disproportionate 

environmental health impacts

•Applications papers – how to 

incorporate equity into decisionmaking assessments, frameworks, 

tools, and methods.

2. Goals to inform blueprint for an action 

agenda
 March 17-19, 2010 science symposium: 

“Strengthening Environmental Justice Research and Decision-Making: 

A Symposium on the Science of Disproportionate Environmental 

Health Impacts”

 In attendance: 

 Policy makers, scientists, analysts, community representatives.

 Topics covered: 

 Critical science reviews of factors that may drive disparities in environmental health 

for low income and minority populations; 

 Discussions on EPA’s tools and policy and analytical approaches and how to 

incorporate equity considerations;

 Plenary sessions on the nexus between health disparities and the environment, 

and research needs for advancing the consideration of equity in EPA’s regulatory 

decision-making.

22
23
 Four broad areas: 

 Science, policy, capacity building, Healthy communities

 Recommendations received from:

 Community stakeholders

 Scientists, 

 Policy makers

 Policy analysts

24
 Science

 Explore the approach of using communities to collect data to overcome 

limitations of government data such as privacy issues and poor 

geospatial resolution.

 Identify low-cost, reliable and easy to use ambient media monitors for 

communities to collect data that can supplement data used by EPA in 

risk based decisions.

 Develop and use models for determining air toxics monitoring locations.

 Develop measures for the social environment.

 Identify toxicity pathways and upstream indicators of adverse outcomes.

25
 Combine proximity analysis with air monitoring data to enhance 

quality of information.

 Provide communities with access to tools for mapping information 

they collect about their environment.

 Policy

 Assure that analysis informs policy choices. 

 Land use policy should create buffer zones for land use planning to 

separate residential uses from contaminated sites or noxious land 

uses.

 Need inter-agency collaboration; regulatory activity is fragmented 

across the federal agencies; agencies with sometimes conflicting 

mandates.

26
 Healthy Communities

 Need interagency collaboration focused on solutions at 

community level.

 Recognize and address the vulnerabilities in communities due to 

lack of access to health care, socioeconomic factors, social 

environment, etc

 Community Capacity Building 

 Funding for community originated research

 Training to engage in decision-making

27
 Review recommendations and develop correspondent action 

items.

 Develop technical guidance on how to analytically 

incorporate EJ considerations into regulatory development 

decisions.

 Develop a research strategy to address policy-relevant 

scientific gaps.

28
 Lisa Garcia, Esq. – Snr. Advisor to the Administrator for Environmental Justice

 Peter Grevatt, PhD – Director, Office of Children’s Health Protection

 Charles Lee – Director, Office of Environmental Justice

 Al McGartland, PhD – Director, National Center for Environmental Economics

 Devon Payne-Sturges, DrPH – Asst. Director for Human Health, National Center 

for Environmental Research, Office of Research and Development.

 William H. Sanders, III, DrPH – Director, National Center for Environmental 

Research, Office of Research and Development

 Hal Zenick, PhD – Director, National Health and Environmental Effects 

Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development

29
 NIH

 National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities

 National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences

 EPA

 Office of Environmental Justice

 National Center for Environmental Research

 National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory

 Office of Children’s Health Protection and Environmental Education

 National Center for Environmental Economics

 Office of Minority Health/Dept of Health and Human Services

 CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry/National Center for 

Environmental Health

 CDC/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

 Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies with generous support from The 

Kellogg Foundation

 The Kresge Foundation

 American Public Health Association

 Johns Hopkins University Center for a Livable Future

30
1. Gaitens JM, Dixon SL, Jacobs DE, Nagaraja J, Strauss W, Wilson JW, Ashley PJ. 2009. Exposure of U.S. 

Children to Residential Dust Lead, 1999–2004: I. Housing and Demographic Factors. EHP 117:461-467

2. Gatto NM, Cockburn M, Bronstein J, Manthripragada AD, Ritz B. 2009. Well Water Consumption and 

Parkinson’s Disease in Rural California. EHP. doi: 10.1289/ehp.0900852

3. Glass TA, Bandeen-Roche K, McAtee M, Bolla K, Todd AC and Schwartz B. 2009. Neighborhood Psychosocial 

Hazards and the Association of Cumulative Lead Dose With Cognitive Function in Older Adults. Am J. Epi. 

169(6):683-692.

4. Klitzman S, Caravanos J, Deitcher D, Rothenberg L, Belanoff C, Kramer R and Cohen L. 2005. Prevalence and 

Predictors of Residential Health Hazards: A Pilot Study. J. Occ. Health and Env. Hygiene 2:293-301.

5. Morello-Frosch, R. and Shenassa, E.D. (2003). The Environmental Riskscape and Social Inequality: 

Implications for Maternal and Child Health Disparities. EHP 114(8):1150-1153. 

6. Peters JL, Kubzansky L, McNeely E, Schwartz J, Spiro III A., Sparrow D, Wright, RO et al. 2007. Stress as a 

Potential Modifier of the Impact of Lead Levels on Blood Pressure: The Normative Aging Study. EHP 115:1154-

1159.

7. Virgolini MB, Rossi-George A, Lisek DD, Weston M, et al. CNS effects of developmental Pb exposure are 

enhanced by combined maternal and offspring stress. Neurotox 29:812-827 

8. UCC. 2007. Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: Grassroots Struggle to Dismantle Environmental Racism in the 

United States. A report prepared for the United Church of Christ and Witness Ministries.

31
32