EDF Health

Selected tag(s): Civil rights

Rhode Island expects LSL replacements to be ‘simultaneous and complete’ when funded by SRF

By Roya Alkafaji / Published: March 17, 2023

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative
and Roya Alkafaji, Manager, Healthy Communities

What Happened: The Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) published notices on January 18 and January 30 indicating that Providence Water would need to stop partial replacement of lead service lines (LSLs) when the work is funded by the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program.

RIDOH specified that “only [LSL] replacement that results in simultaneous and complete replacement of both the public (water main to curb stop) and private (curb stop to water meter inside buildings) portions of the lead service lines will occur.”

Why It Matters: EPA made it clear in its FAQs that federal SRF funds should not be used to support harmful partial LSL replacements, which increases the risk of lead exposure in drinking water.[1] To our knowledge, Rhode Island is the first state that has applied its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-like environmental review process to protect residents from partial LSL replacements by requiring the simultaneous and complete replacement of an LSL. All states have a similar review process pursuant to EPA requirements and should be taking similar action.

Our Take: RIDOH’s determination is an important application of the state’s environmental review requirements for its SRF program. We strongly supported RIDOH’s action in comments. We also asked that it be applied to six other SRF-funded projects that are likely to disturb LSLs, like water main replacement and asked for a public hearing if RIDOH allows partials for those other projects.

The Backstory: EDF objected to RIDOH’s March 2022 proposal to grant Providence Water a categorical exclusion that would have allowed partial LSL replacements. We reasoned that the practice would “disproportionately and adversely affect the health of low-income, Black, Latinx, and Native American residents by increasing their risk of exposure to lead in drinking water.” Accordingly, the utility was not eligible for a categorical exclusion and must either stop partial LSL replacements or conduct a full environmental review. This review would likely demonstrate the project was not eligible for funding.

Later, RIDOH withdrew the proposal based on follow-up discussions with EDF and separate discussions with Childhood Lead Action Project.

Go Deeper: Read RIDOH’s April 2022 and January 2023 public notices, a related civil rights administrative complaint filed with EPA, and EDF’s objections to RIDOH’s April 2022 proposal.

 

[1] EPA Frequent Questions about Bipartisan Infrastructure Law State Revolving Funds and LSLR:

“Question 4. If some customers (e.g., homeowners) refuse to allow the water utility access to replace the privately-owned portion of the lead service line, does this affect the project’s DWSRF funding?

State DWSRF programs may still fund the overall project but are strongly encouraged to use technical assistance and other outreach methods to achieve the fullest possible participation. If the customer continues to refuse access, then the water system should leave the publicly-owned portion of the lead service line in place (so as to not create a partial replacement) and document this action. To be clear, partial service line replacements are not eligible for DWSRF funding (from any DWSRF funding source).”

Posted in Civil rights / Also tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

EPA should ensure federal funds do not support harmful partial LSL replacements

By Roya Alkafaji / Published: November 8, 2022

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative and Roya Alkafaji, Manager, Healthy Communities

Last year, the White House set a goal of eliminating lead service lines (LSLs) by 2032 and worked with Congress to enact the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)—also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law—which included critical resources to help meet this goal.

Through IIJA, communities across the United States have access to federal funds to replace an estimated 9 million LSLs, which are the pipes that connect homes to water mains under the street. EDF fully supports the President’s goal and related efforts to protect public health and advance environmental justice.

EPA is off to a good start. The agency:

  • Distributed the first of five years of IIJA funds to state revolving fund (SRF) programs, including $15 billion dedicated to LSL replacement and $11.7 billion in general funding for drinking water infrastructure projects (which may also be used for LSL replacement).
  • Provided guidance to states to help ensure the funds go to “disadvantaged communities” and that the $15 billion is used for full (not partial) replacements.
  • Plans to publish the results of its drinking water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment. That report is crucial to updating the formula by which SRF funds will be allocated to states in subsequent years.

However, as states begin to administer SRF funds from the $11.7 billion in general infrastructure funding, EPA’s lack of clarity on what the funds can and cannot be used for reveals problems. Specifically, some states may allow this funding to pay for partial – as opposed to full – LSL replacements when a utility works on aging water mains that have LSLs attached to them.

Read More »

Posted in Civil rights, Drinking water, Health policy, Lead, Public health / Also tagged , , , , , , | Comments are closed

Flint area residents raise the bar on environmental justice concerns

By Ugbaad Ali / Published: December 14, 2021

Ugbaad Ali, Community Environmental Health Tom Graff Fellow

We all deserve to live in a healthy and vibrant community, yet many residents of Flint, Michigan, are overburdened by a lifetime of toxic exposures and environmental injustice. Recently, a coalition of environmental justice groups and community organizers in Flint used their combined power to organize against the siting of a new hot mix asphalt facility.

The Stop Ajax Asphalt Coalition was formed to protect neighboring communities from further environmental harm. The Coalition, which includes residents from Flint and Genesee Township, St. Francis Prayer Center, C.A.U.T.I.O.N, Environmental Transformation Movement of Flint, Flint Rising, Greater Holy Temple Church, Michigan United, R. L. Jones Community Outreach Center Campus, and Mi JustUs, submitted extensive comments and generated hundreds of public comments to contest the state’s permitting of a hot mixed asphalt facility by Ajax Materials Corp. near homes, schools, and parks.

Historically air permit decisions have been made in isolation, ignoring the cumulative impact from surrounding exposure sources. After hearing from the Coalition, the regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – which serves Michigan and five other states – weighed in with a letter that recommended Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) “conduct a cumulative analysis of the projected emissions from all emission units at the proposed facility, fugitive emissions from the proposed facility, and emissions from nearby industrial facilities, to provide a more complete assessment of the ambient air impacts of the proposed facility on this community.” It concluded that “because of the environmental conditions already facing this community, and the potential for disproportionate impacts, the siting of this facility may raise civil rights concerns.”

The U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) regional office also  raised serious civil rights concerns in a letter to EGLE, highlighting that the proposed location is near two HUD-assisted communities housing low-income families of color – and expressing concern that EGLE failed to engage HUD on a decision that could impact HUD-assisted residents.

“This isn’t a defeat for the citizens of Flint.
We’re just getting started.”
 – Anthony Paciorek, Michigan United (ABC News)

Despite the public comments and federal agency letters, EGLE approved the air permit, but with tightened requirements. The Coalition remains concerned about the siting of the facility and is committed to challenging the state to require additional measures to protect their community. Read More »

Posted in Air pollution, Civil rights / Also tagged , , | Authors: / Read 1 Response