TESTIMONY on HB 6360

to the

Connecticut Legislature’s Public Health Committee

by

Mark A. Mitchell, M.D., MPH

February 4, 2003

 

Good Morning Representative Feltman, Senator Murphy, and members of the Committee.  My name is Mark Mitchell.  I am a public health physician, specializing in environmental health, and am President of the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice.  We are a statewide organization that was established in 1998 to address environmental disparities in urban areas in Connecticut.  We now have approximately 50 organizational members and about 3000 individual participants.  Our mission statement is attached.

 

In Connecticut, as in many states, potential environmental hazards are disproportionately located in Communities of Color and in low-income communities.  This has been shown in an analysis of the distribution of ten types of potential environmental hazards, which was conducted by the CT Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP).   It concludes that "with one notable exception, Connecticut residents who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups and those living below the federal poverty line live in towns with anywhere from 15% to 220% more potential environmental sources than whites or those living above the federal poverty level."

 

A recent study published by the University of Hartford shows that, since 1985, waste facilities have been disproportionately closed in white suburban communities, and that the newer, much larger regional waste facilities that have replaced them are being disproportionately opened in urban black and Latino communities.  The strongest predictor of the likelihood of potentially hazardous environmental facilities being located in a town in Connecticut is the percentage of Blacks and Latinos in that town.

 

Not only do we see environmental hazards located in these towns, we also see more environmental health problems there.  Diseases such as asthma, respiratory illness, cancer, allergies, lupus, endometriosis, and even diabetes are being shown to be caused in large part by environmental exposures to toxins or other substances.  Particulate matter 2.5 microns in size or smaller (PM 2.5) comes primarily from the burning of fossil fuels such as in power plants and diesel buses.  These have been shown to cause exacerbation of asthma, and premature death from heart attacks, respiratory disease, and cancer.   Sulfur oxides, primarily from power plants and nitrogen oxides, from high temperature combustion, are known to cause asthma-like responses in healthy individuals, as well as increasing asthma exacerbations and respiratory symptoms in those with pre-existing illness.  Dioxin is one of the most toxic substances known to science.   It causes cancer, endometriosis, and appears to promote diabetes, although the evidence is not yet conclusive.  It is produced primarily from burning trash and sewage sludge.  Connecticut is a leading incineration state.

Unlike most diseases, environmental   diseases seem to be increasing dramatically and disproportionately in communities of color.  We believe that this is not a coincidence.

 

CTDEP established an environmental justice policy in 1993.  Although the implementation of this policy has substantially increased community notification and environmental enforcement in urban communities, it does not have the force of law and cannot reduce the disproportionate burden placed on communities of color, or even prevent the increase in concentration of new potential environmental hazards in these communities.   Proposed new operations of power plants, transfer stations, and medical waste facilities are current examples of continued environmental racism.  According to our research, at least 90% of point source emissions in Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven are from potential environmentally hazardous regional facilities.  These facilities should be located near as few people as possible, not in densely populated urban areas.

 

We need to follow the precedence of other states such as Alabama, Arkansas, and California in establishing an Environmental Justice law.  Language in HB6360 is based on the Federal Executive Order 12898, and successful California legislation that treats Environmental Justice as a human rights issue and requires Environmental Action plans to alleviate demonstrated disproportionate environmental burdens.

 

We urge you to pass this legislation with minor changes as outlined by Mr. Parmlee.  Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee.

 

TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF RAISED BILL 6360

By

Richard Parmlee

Connecticut Campaign for Environmental Justice

February 4, 2003

 

Good morning Senator Murphy, Representative Feltman and members of the Committee.  My name is Richard Parmlee and I am a resident of Hartford.  I am here to speak today on behalf of the Connecticut Campaign for Environmental Justice.  We are here to support Raised Bill 6360 and to suggest some modifications to the language of the bill.

 

The CT Campaign for Environmental Justice involves the 50 organizational members of the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice plus over 20 additional organizations including the American Lung Association, the Sierra Club of CT, the Archdiocese of Hartford, the State of Connecticut NAACP Conference, Clean Water Action, and other members as listed below. 

 

The CT Campaign for Environmental Justice strongly supports this legislation, however, we have some suggestions for improving it.  In the definition of the Environmental Action plan, we believe it should require agencies to submit a timetable for implementation of the plan, as well as specify the mechanisms for public involvement in the development of the plan.

 

Section 2, paragraph (b), before the current part 1, there should be a new part 1 that says:  “propose new statutes, programs, policies, processes, rules, actions, and public participation processes to provide equal protection to areas that are overburdened.”   This will authorize agencies to recommend new changes that they believe are necessary.

 

Section 3 should require the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities not only to review the Environmental Justice Action Plan, but also to make recommendations regarding its composition, as well as its implementation.

 

Section 4, subsection (2) lists the factors that need to be taken into account by the CT Siting Council when deciding whether to approve a location for a new facility.  “Environmental Justice” should simply be added to that list and defined elsewhere in that statute rather than adding the proposed language in Raised Bill 6360.  This might be a simpler way of requiring EJ considerations in the siting of new facilities that are under the jurisdiction of the Siting Council.

 

I want to thank the Committee and especially Rep. Feltman for raising this important bill for consideration before the Connecticut General Assembly.

 

With the Chairman’s indulgence, I would prefer to answer any questions after Dr. Mitchell’s testimony.

 

The members of the Connecticut Campaign for Environmental Justice are: