4.17 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
4.17.1 Affected Environment
Executive Order 12898Executive Order 12898, Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in minority populationMinority Populations and Low-Income Populations, directs Federal agencies to address the environmental justice impacts of their actions on minority and low-income populations. Each Federal agency must analyze environmental effects, including human health, economic, and social effects, of Federal actions, including effects on minority communities and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by NEPA.
The Region of Influence (ROI) around Pantex Plant in which the target populations covered by the Executive Order were examined is an 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius circle centered in the southwest corner of Zone 4Zone 4 of Pantex Plant. As noted in sections 4.11.1.1 and 4.11.1.2, which address socioeconomic resources, nearly all minority and low-income persons in the four-county socioeconomic ROI around Pantex Plant were found to reside in the Amarillo urbanized area in 1990. The ROI utilized for the environmental justice analysis extends beyond the four-county socioeconomic ROI, but in this larger area also, most minority and/or low-income persons were found in 1990 to be residing in the Amarillo urbanized area.
According to the 1990 Census, there were 267,107 persons within the Pantex Plant ROI. White persons comprised nearly 81 percent of the population, Hispanics were the second largest group with 13 percent, and Blacks accounted for just over 4 percent of the total population. American Indians, Asians, Pacific Islanders and other racial groups totaled slightly more than 2 percent of the population within the ROI (UN 1995).
Most of the population in the ROI resides in various cities and towns (Figure 4.17.11). Amarillo is the most populous city with 157,615 persons in 1990; overall, 23 percent of Amarillos population were minority persons and 17 percent of all persons were below the poverty level. The town of Pampa, about 56 kilometers (35 miles) northeast of Pantex Plant, is the second largest community in the area, with a 1990 population of 19,959, nearly 15 percent of which was minority and 14 percent of which was below the poverty level. Forty kilometers (25 miles) north of the plant is the town of Borger, with 15,675 persons in 1990; over 18 percent of Borgers residents in 1990 were minority and 15 percent were below the poverty level.
Dumas is about 68 kilometers (42 miles) northwest of Pantex Plant and its 1990 census count was 12,871 persons; more than 30 percent of this towns population was minority and 12 percent was below the poverty level. Canyon, approximately 48 kilometers (30 miles) southwest of Pantex Plant, had 11,365 persons in 1990; nearly 14 percent of this population was minority persons and 17 percent was below the poverty level. The towns of Clarendon, Claude, Panhandle, and White Deer had 1990 populations ranging between 1,125 and 2,353, with none having more than 10 percent minority population. The remainder of the 1990 population within the ROI, approximately 43,000 persons, lived on farms and ranches and in communities with fewer than 1,000 persons (TX Cen 1992a:Table 6; TX Cen 1993:Table 178).
Figure 4.17.1-1.--Minority and Low-Income Populations in the Pantex Plant Region of Influence, 1990.
The analysis of environmental justice presented in this section is based on the definitions of minority and low-income populations as contained in the notice of the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) Office of Environmental Justice (59 FR 192). These definitions call for identification of Census tracts where 25 percent or more of the persons in 1990 were either minority group members or below poverty level based on their income in 1989. For comparison purposes, definitions of minority and low-income populations as provided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in April 1996 (CEQ 1996), and also reported in EPAs Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPAs NEPA Compliance Analysis (EPA 1996a), were also applied to the 1990 Census data. Earlier EPA guidelines (59 FR 192), used in the following discussion, identified more Census tracts with minority and low-income populations than the CEQ or later EPA guidelines (EPA 1996a). Therefore, the impacts identified in the subsequent analysis in this document are more conservative (greater) than would have been the case if Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines were applied.
The CEQ guidelines define minority populations as an area where either the minority population of the affected area (in this case, the Census tract or Block Numbering Area [BNA]) exceeds 50 percent or the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis (in this case, the ROI). Using the 50 percent criterion, only 10 Census tracts (all in the Potter County portion of the Amarillo Metropolitan Area) fall in the minority category. The second criterion of minority population being meaningfully greater than the regional average was defined as the average minority population plus one standard deviation that resulted in a minority population greater than 28.5 percent. Application of this criterion resulted in the identification of 19 Census tracts with meaningfully greater than average minority populations. In both cases, fewer than 23 tracts were identified with the application of EPA definition. If the CEQ guidelines are applied, the impacts on minority populations would be lower than those identified in this document.
The CEQ guidelines were also applied to the low-income populations. With the application of the first criterion using the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services definition, the affected Census tracts were reduced from 27 to 14 (12 in Potter County portion of the Amarillo Metropolitan Area and one each in the towns of Borger and Pampa). The number of Census tracts with low-income populations remained at 14 when the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development definition was applied. Once again, the definition applied in the present analysis on subsequent pages is more conservative (resulting in 27 Census tracts with low-income populations), and the impacts on low-income populations would be substantially lower if CEQ guidelines were applied.
Table 4.17.11 presents the 1990 Census counts of minority and low-income populations found in the rural BNAs wholly or partially within the ROI. Figure 4.17.11 identifies the BNAs where 25 percent or more of the persons, in 1990, were either minority group members or below the poverty level based on their incomes in 1989.
Figure 4.17.11 shows that 10 of the rural BNAs within the Pantex Plant ROI exceed the 25 percent thresholds for concentrations of minority and low-income persons. Most of the 10 areas are located in the outer reaches of the ROI, or more than 48 kilometers (30 miles) from Pantex Plant. Only small portions of the BNAs with minority and low-income populations in Briscoe and Castro Counties fall within the ROI. The community of Dumas in Moore County, northwest of the plant, and the rural area in the immediate vicinity of Dumas have resident populations that are more than 25 percent minority. BNA 9508, in the town of Borger in Hutchinson County due north of the plant, also has a more than 25 percent minority population. The remaining six BNAs, represent areas in which both minority and low-income populations have higher than 25 percent concentration.
Figure 4.17.1-2 presents the concentration of minority and low-income populations in the Amarillo metropolitan area, which extends across the Potter/Randall County line. Table 4.17.12 presents the 1990 Census counts of minority and low-income populations in Potter and Randall Counties.
Figure 4.17.1-2.--Minority and Low-Income Populations in the Amarillo Metropolitan Area, 1990.
There are no tracts in Randall County, within or outside of the Amarillo urban area, that had concentrations of 25 percent or more of minority or low-income persons. In Potter County, on the other hand, most tracts in the Amarillo urban area were characterized by one or both of these threshold conditions. These tracts are found primarily in the northeast quadrant of the city, in the general direction of Pantex Plant.
Tracts 125 and 141, the two tracts closest to Pantex Plant, were characterized by minority populations in excess of 25 percent, as were Tracts 107 and 128.97 in the east central and north central part of Amarillo. Tracts 103, 114, and 119, near the center of town, had more than one-fourth of their populations with incomes below the poverty level in 1989. Eighteen tracts, largely situated between the areas with one threshold condition or the other, are characterized by both threshold conditions; that is, more than 25 percent of their populations in 1990 were minority persons, and more than 25 percent of their populations were below the poverty level in 1989.
Thus, the minority and low-income populations specified by Executive Order 12898Executive Order 12898 are found in sufficient concentrations in 25 tracts in the northeast quadrant of the Amarillo urban area and in 10 rural BNAs within Pantex Plant ROI to warrant an analysis of the possible disproportionately high and adverse health and environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternatives considered in this EIS. Both Figures 4.17.11 and 4.17.12 clearly indicate that Pantex Plant is surrounded by rural tracts of white majority populations, and minority and low-income populations are located either in the Amarillo Urban area, approximately 27 kilometers (17 miles) away from Pantex Plant, or in the outer fringes of the ROI.
4.17.2 Impacts of Proposed Action
The Proposed Action includes the continuation of Pantex Plant operations at different levels of activity. Since the future stockpile requirements cannot be accurately predicted, three activities are analyzed to cover the possible range of activities at Pantex Plant: high level of activity which assumes handling of 2,000 weapons operations per year including assembly, disassembly, modifications, and surveillance activities; a moderate activity level to handle 1,000 weapons operations per year; and a low activity level to handle 500 weapons operations per year. To handle 2,000 weapons operations per year, the employment levels at Pantex Plant would remain at its 1995 operations. With no change in employment, the environmental impacts on the general population as well as on the minority and low-income populations would be similar to those currently experienced.
Approximately 60 percent of the total population in the Pantex Plant ROI is located in the City of Amarillo, and 96 percent are located in the Amarillo metropolitan area consisting of Potter and Randall Counties. Since Pantex Plant is located approximately 27 kilometers (17 miles) northeast of Amarillo, none of the biophysical impacts (such as impacts to air quality and water resources) and human health risks are experienced by the total population including the minority and low-income populations living in the metropolitan area. Even outside the Amarillo metropolitan area, most of the minority and low-income population is located in BNAs at the outer reaches of the ROI, more than 48 kilometers (30 miles) from Pantex Plant (Figure 4.17.11). The minority and low-income populations are, therefore, not expected to experience any disproportionately high or adverse human health, social, economic, or environmental effects from Pantex Plant operations.
Beneficial economic impacts of Pantex Plant are concentrated in the Amarillo metropolitan area where almost all of the employees working at the plant reside and where most of the local procurement expenditures for Pantex Plant occur. Almost 20 percent of the employees at Pantex Plant belong to the minority populations. This ratio is comparable to the minority population in the Amarillo metropolitan area where 20.9 percent of the total population belongs to minority. Employment at Pantex Plant, therefore, benefits both the majority (White) and minority populations proportionately.
Construction and/or modification of buildings for the six projects identified under the Proposed Action would not affect the minority and low-income populations disproportionately because these facilities do not require additional employees. The Gas Analysis Laboratory (GAL)Gas Analysis Laboratory, Materials Compatibility Assurance Facility (MCAF)Materials Compatibility Assurance Facility, Nondestructive Evaluation FacilityNondestructive Evaluation Facility, and Metrology and Health Physics Calibration and Acceptance Facility do not require additional workers; employees performing these functions in the existing facilities would be transferred to new facilities. Hazardous Waste Treatment and Processing Facility (HWTPF) and the Pit Reuse Facility would add 5 and 7 new employees, respectively. The impacts of these additions are considered negligible. In addition, all these facilities, except the Pit Reuse Facility, are intended to replace the existing facilities and to improve the health and safety conditions at the plant.
Overall, the minority and low-income populations in the Pantex Plant ROI are not disproportionately affected by the Proposed Action.
4.17.3 Impacts of No Action
Although the diassembly of weapons would cease at Pantex Plant once the number of pits stored at the site reaches 12,000, the weapons activity levels are assumed to stay at 2,000, 1,000, or 500. As a result, the employment levels and the biophysical impacts of the operations at Pantex Plant would be similar to those identified for the Proposed Action. No disproportionate effects on the minority and low-income populations are anticipated in the Pantex Plant ROI.
4.17.4 Impacts of Pit Storage Relocation Alternative
Even when the pitpits are relocated to other candidate site(s), the activity levels at Pantex Plant would remain the same as under the Proposed Action; only the activities related to pit storage would be eliminated. This would reduce Pantex Plant employment by approximately 30 workers and would not result in any substantial impacts. However, the pit handling activity at Pantex Plant would increase as pits are transferred to other sites. The impacts of this activity are discussed in sections 4.14, Human Health; 4.15, Aircraft Accidents; and 4.16, Intersite Transportation of Nuclear and Hazardous Materials. After the pits have been transferred to other site(s), human health and aircraft accident risks associated with the pit storage would be substantially reduced at Pantex Plant Site. These impacts are considered bk3minority populationto be beneficial to the general population as well as to the minority and bk2low-income populationlow-income populations in the Pantex Plant ROI.
4.17.5 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts presented here include impacts of the continued operations at Pantex Plant combined with impacts associated with activities described in the WM PEIS, SSM PEIS, and S&D PEIS. Since the Pantex Plant EIS Proposed Action and the SSM PEIS No Action Alternative represent a continuum of operations, the impacts associated with any new mission or facility that could be implemented at Pantex Plant are discussed in the context of that continuum. The impacts from the WM PEIS program are combined with those of the Pantex Plant EIS Proposed Action. The impacts from the S&D PEIS are combined with those of the SSM PEIS No Action Alternative. A detailed discussion of this methodology is presented in section 4.2.
The final S&D PEIS will include an alternative that is a refinement of these storage alternatives. As discussed in sections 1.4 and 1.7.3 of this volume, the final S&D PEIS will include an alternative under which pits from Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) could be transferred to Pantex Plant for storage in Zone 4 as early as 1997. The impacts of this alternative are fully accounted for in this EIS because the pits from RFETS could not cause the total number of pits stored in Zone 4 to exceed the storage limit of 20,000 pits analyzed under the Proposed Action. Furthermore, RFETS pits that could come to Pantex Plant would have the same characteristics, as analyzed in the S&D PEIS, as pits currently or previously stored at Pantex Plant.
4.17.5.1 Impacts of Alternatives in the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Neither the Proposed Action nor the WM PEIS has identified any disproportionate effects on minority or low-income population in the Pantex Plant ROI. Hence, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.
4.17.5.2 Impacts of Alternatives in the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
The SSM PEIS includes three alternatives that apply to Pantex Plant: No Action, Downsize Existing Capability, and Relocate Capability. None of the alternatives would result in impacts that would disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations in the Pantex Plant area.
4.17.5.3 Impacts of Alternatives in the Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
The S&D PEIS is considering Pantex Plant for long-term storage of inventories of nonsurplus weapons-usable plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU), storage of inventories of surplus weapons-usable plutonium and HEU pending disposition, and disposition of surplus weapons-usable plutonium. For storage, the strategy for long-term storage of weapons-usable plutonium and HEU, as well as the storage site(s), would be decided. The storage alternatives include upgrading the existing plutonium storage facilities, consolidation of plutonium from other sites, and collocation of plutonium and HEU storage. The collocation alternative is used for analysis purposes in this EIS as the bounding storage alternative.
Under the S&D PEIS Collocation Alternative, construction of new storage facilities would be required in order to store plutonium and HEU at Pantex Plant. The analysis of the demographic data indicates that even if there were any health impacts to the communities around the candidate sites, these impacts would not appear to disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations. Wind direction frequencies at all the DOE sites show that any emissions from the sites would not be disproportionately directed at minority or low-income communities.
For the disposition alternatives in the S&D PEIS, the emphasis at this stage in the NEPA decision process is on the strategy and technology mix rather than the actual site. The evolutionary Light Water Reactor is used for analysis purposes in this EIS as the bounding disposition alternative. Implementation of this disposition alternative would require the construction and operation of a pit disassembly and conversion facility, plutonium conversion facility, mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, and one or more light water reactors. The bounding alternative also assumes that all of the facilities previously mentioned would be collocated at the same site (potentially Pantex Plant).bk0environmental justice
The analysis of the demographic data indicates that even if there were any health impacts to the communities around the candidate sites, these impacts would not appear to disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations. Wind direction frequencies at all the DOE sites show that any emissions from the sites would not be disproportionately directed at minority or low-income communities (DOE 1996a:4.0).bk1Region of Influence (ROI)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
