&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5305W)
EPA530-K-00-005
April 2000
http:/%/ww.epa.gov
                 Social Aspects of Siting RCRA
                    Hazardous Waste Facilities

-------
                               Table of Contents

Introduction  	  1
A Tale of Two Sites	  2
Going the Extra Mile  	  3
Environmental Justice	  4
   Environmental Justice at EPA  	  4
   Environmental Justice and State/Local Programs	  4

What Are Quality of Life Concerns?	  5
   Location Concerns-Preserving the Community's Use of Its Space	  5
   Nuisance Concerns-Preserving the Enjoyment and Value of Property	  5
   Cultural and Social  Concerns-Preserving the Community's Sense
   of Belonging and Security 	  5
   Economic  Concerns-Promoting Economically Sound Resource Protection	  5

Identifying and Addressing Quality of Life Concerns	  6
   Identifying and Getting to Know a Community	  6
   Recognizing Potentially Cumulative Impacts on a Community 	  9

Conducting Effective Stakeholder Communication	10
   Enhancing Stakeholder Dialogue	10
   Providing Technical Assistance Puts All Stakeholders on a Level  Playing Field	12
   Accelerating Progress by  Learning from the Community	13

A Checklist on Siting Facilities	13

Resources for Further Information	14

-------
                             Introduction

    It has been almost 20 years since EPA began the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste permit program. During that time,
valuable lessons have been learned about how communities deal with siting
and permitting concerns. Although proposed hazardous waste facilities have
been granted or denied RCRA permits based on technical evaluations, some
businesses have succeeded or failed based on the level of communication and
trust built with the neighboring communities.

    Local communities often have understandable concerns about why their
site was selected and how the facility will affect their quality of life. These
concerns encompass a broad array of issues that range from health and
environmental effects to social and economic impacts. Social and economic
issues are not evaluated during the RCRA permitting process, but this does not
dimmish the legitimacy of the community's concerns and the need to address
them promptly, honestly, and thoroughly when siting a facility.

    EPA encourages facility owners and operators as well as state, tribal,
and local governments to get to know and collaborate with communities from
the beginning of the site exploration process. Early collaboration can stimulate
creative solutions to concerns and facilitate site selection and permitting.

    At the request of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the
National EnvironmentalJustice Advisory Council (NEJAC), this booklet has
been developed for industries and for government agencies that interact with
communities when hazardous waste facilities are sited. It offers examples of
quality of life concerns raised by environmental justice communities when
facilities are sited. However,  the primary purpose of this booklet is to share
experiences and creative mechanisms that have been developed in order
to work effectively with communities, as well as encourage businesses and
government agencies to address community concerns early, collaboratively,
and compassionately.

-------
                                 A  Tale of Two  Sites
         It was the best of times...

   The XYZ Company wants to construct a new
hazardous waste treatment facility.

•  The company notifies prospective states in its
   marketing region. It notifies the states' environmental
   and commerce agencies and holds a meeting with
   the agencies to discuss matters, including availability
   of property.

•  After narrowing options to three properties, the
   XYZ Company identifies and approaches key local
   government and community leaders and requests
   an open meeting to introduce concepts and obtain
   advice about local interests and sensitive social
   and environmental issues.
•  After investigating issues raised and exploring
   potential remedies, the company turns again to the
   state and local leaders, who call a public meeting.
•  Prior to the meeting, the XYZ Company prepares
   a press release, establishes a liaison office, grants
   interviews to the local press, and answers citizens'
   calls.
•  The XYZ Company announces the meeting with
   posters, local newspapers and newsletters, and
   through community groups and organizations.
•  At the meeting, the XYZ Company displays infor-
   mation posters. It asks attendees to flag where they
   live, work, or play. The meeting proceeds with
   a presentation and questions and answers. The
   company  asks for volunteers to serve on advisory
   committees.
•  Following the meeting, the company grants the press
   another interview and mails letters to attendees
   thanking them for their input, summarizing issues
   raised, outlining future activities, listing volunteers,
   etc.

•  The company modifies its plans based on community
   negotiations.

•  Dialogue  progresses and collaboration continues
   through successful permitting, construction, and
   operation of the facility.
        It was the worst of times...

   The ABC Company wants to construct a new
hazardous waste treatment facility.

•  The company begins by having someone scout
   property in a county of the chosen state.

•  The company scout contacts commercial real estate
   agencies and requests anonymity and confidentiality
   as inquiries are made about taking options on land.

•  After finding an affordable site that appears to meet
   company criteria, such as cost, environmental suit-
   ability, transit, and utility access, the ABC Company
   takes out an option on the property.

•  The local news media learn of the  land option,
   attempt to contact the ABC  Company, obtain
   secondhand information, and print a story.

•  In response to the article, the ABC Company
   contacts local government officials to confirm
   its interest. Government officials have already
   received calls from citizens  expressing concerns.

•  The ABC Company and local government hold
   a public meeting to answer community questions.

•  Attendees arrive at the meeting with a preconceived
   notion of the facility and its impacts on the quality
   of community life.

•  The meeting fails to communicate the ABC
   Company's information.

•  Citizens begin writing their county commissioners,
   legislators, governor, and congressional representa-
   tives, seeking to block the facility's construction.

•  The ABC Company abandons its plans for the site;
   the state agency is held responsible for the situation
   and does not have the information to respond to the
   Legislature and Governor's  Office.

-------
                    Going  the  Extra  Mile
                    • A Sound Investment in Society
                    • A Smart Business Strategy
   Traditionally, businesses and gov-
ernment agencies involved in siting
know and strive to comply with regu-
lations. But what incentives are there
to go beyond the "letter of the law"?
As demonstrated in the "Tale of Two
Sites," taking extra steps to work with
the community can benefit businesses
and government, as well as the com-
munity. By integrating the cultural/
social and economic needs of a
community into early site planning,
businesses and government can
encourage sustainable resources and
reduce the negative physical, social,
and economic effects of site activities.
By establishing partnerships with
communities-for example, through a
good neighbor agreement-businesses
and government can speed up the
permitting process and promote
constructive dialogue between
communities and businesses.
   Businesses that take the time to
find out about a community's quality
of life concerns and engage the com-
munity in an ongoing dialogue may
•  save on construction costs (it's
   easier to redesign than to rebuild)
•  reduce expenses of possible
   litigation or enforcement
•  speed up the permitting process
•  build trust with the community
•  discover innovative solutions to
   problems.
   Local agencies (e.g., zoning
and planning departments, siting
boards, health departments) and state
government play critical roles in facil-
ity site selection: they are caretakers
of area resources, facilitators of
constructive community dialogue, and
protectors of the community's health.
They are also creators and administra-
tors of the community development
plan and permit decision makers. By
getting involved, state and local gov-
ernments will find that
•  soliciting public involvement is
   "good government"
•  stakeholders listen and respect their
   views and ideas
•  decisions are more likely to be
   accepted and supported
•  more informed and balanced poli-
   cies and permit decisions are made
•  innovative and more technically
   sound solutions to siting and permit
   issues are found
      Integrating a
      community's
    social character
        and needs
   into site selection
   and planning can
    complement and
     enhance RCRA
   permit activities.
public health and the environment
are preserved as well as citizens'
social and cultural welfare
the risk of community-based
legal action may be reduced.
    Early, Open Dialogue Can Prevent Legal Actions

    Stakeholders may avoid drawn-out court proceedings if they
    •  seek out and address the social concerns of the community
    •  become involved in alternative dispute resolution and mediation
      when appropriate.
  Mechanisms to Address Community Concerns
  When facilities and agencies demonstrate that local citizens will share in the economic benefits of a facility, it
  becomes easier to build trust and create dialogue. This can be done by hiring a local caterer for public meetings or
  using local print shops for written materials. Once a facility is in place, it can continue to build trust by recruiting at
  local high schools and colleges.  Sometimes local job skills are mismatched with facility needs. Some facilities have
  been successful by offering training courses to help local citizens develop the needed skills.

-------
                     Environmental  Justice
                     "...fair treatment for people of all races, cultures, and incomes, regarding the
                     development and execution of environmental laws, regulations, and policies."
                     -U.S. EPA Environmental Justice Grants web site, http://es.epa.gov/oeca/oej/epagrantoffer.htnd
   In recent years, national attention
has been focused on the concern that
minority and low-income communi-
ties carry a disproportionate share of
the burdens and consequences of the
siting of hazardous waste facilities
near or within their communities.
Research has  shown that these com-
munities have been disproportionately
chosen as potential sites for RCRA
facilities (Bryant and Mohai, 1992;
Bullard, 1994; United Church of
Christ, 1987). In addition, numerous
communities have raised such
concerns to EPA.

Environmental Justice
at EPA

   EPA is working to ensure that all
segments of society have a healthy
and safe environment. Executive
Order 12898, Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-
Income Populations, helps to achieve
that goal. Executive Order  12898
directs federal agencies to make
achieving environmental justice part
of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate,  dispropor-
tionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects of
their program, policies, and activities
on minority populations and low-
income populations.
   Environmental justice communities
also lack access to information and
government or business decision-
makers. To correct this situation,
EPA conducts outreach, works with
communities, and encourages all
stakeholders to work collaboratively
to address social and economic
concerns as part of their activities.
  For further information on
  environmental justice, see
  •  Executive Order 1 2898, Federal
    Actions to Address Environmental
    Justice in Minority Populations
    and Low-Income Populations,
    http: //www. epa, go v/docs/
    oejpubs/execordr. txt. html
  •  EPA's Office of Environmental Justice
    activities, http://es.epa.
    gov/oeca/main/ej/index. html
  •  EPA's Office of Civil Rights, on ensur-
    ing compliance with nondiscrimination
    laws, http://www.epa.gov/
    civilrights/extcom.htm
  •  EPA's Office of Solid Waste
    Environmental Justice website,
    http://www. epa.gov/epaoswer/
    osw/ej/index. htm
   Many years of experience have led
EPA to conclude that community con-
cerns are best addressed when govern-
ment agencies or companies make
early and proactive efforts to under-
stand the nature of community con-
cerns and address them. This can be
best accomplished if there is a robust
understanding of the often complex
range of social and economic factors
that accompany disproportionate and
adverse environmental impacts.

Environmental Justice
and State/Local Programs
   Tribal, state and local environmen-
tal agencies also are working to
address environmental justice issues,
partly as a result of responsibilities
under their own laws and under Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Under Title VI and EPA's implement-
ing regulations, recipients of EPA
financial assistance may not take
actions that are intentionally discrimi-
natory or have a discriminatory effect
based on race, color, or national
origin.
   Historically, siting boards, zoning
and permitting agencies, and industry
have often not considered such factors
as quality of life and aesthetic,
historic, cultural, economic, or social
impacts. Although ecological and
health impacts are generally consid-
ered by environmental agencies, the
evaluations may not be oriented
toward the issues confronting minority
and/or low-income communities. In
particular, they may fail to consider
the cumulative nature of such impacts.
   EPA firmly believes that addressing
quality of life concerns represents an
important part of good business and
good government. Siting boards,
zoning and permitting agencies, and
industry can greatly enhance the
quality of all programs. Although
these concerns are often most pro-
nounced in environmental justice
communities, they are by no means
limited to such communities. Quality
of life is a universal concern of all
communities, regardless of race,
income, culture or level of education.
  Additional reading
  Bryant, Bunyan and Paul Mohai. (1992)
  Race and the Incidence of Environmental
  Hazards: A Time for Discourse. Boulder,
  CO: Westview Press, 1992.
  Bullard, Robert D.,  ed. (1994) Unequal
  Protection:  Environmental Justice and
  Communities of Color. San Francisco:
  Sierra Club Books.
  United Church of Christ Commission for
  Racial Justice (1 987) Toxic Wastes and
  Race in the United  States: A National
  Study on the Racial and Socio-Economic
  Characteristics of Communities Surround-
  ing Hazardous Waste Sites. New York:
  United Church of Christ.

-------
                    What Are Quality of  Life Concerns?
                    Quality of Life reflects the values a community places on its cultural, social, and natural resources.
                    Local residents strive to preserve those resources for current and future generations. Businesses and
                    state and local governments should recognize and respect these often intangible values and integrate
                    them into their planning.
   "Our quality of life outweighs the
business profit." This is a common
sentiment expressed by communities
being considered as potential hazard-
ous waste facility sites. Each commu-
nity (and even each stakeholder)
defines quality of life differently.
"Quality of life" is difficult to define
and measure but is critically important
to communities involved in RCRA
hazardous waste siting and permitting.

Location Concerns-
Preserving the Community's
Use of Its Space

   How near a facility is to homes,
parks, schools, retirement centers,
hospitals, and other public areas
where people live, work, garden,
learn, and play can be a concern.
Residents and other community
members want to know about
•  exposure to hazardous substances
   through air, water, soil, and food
   (for example, garden vegetables)

•  the likelihood of exposure to
   sudden, accidental environmental
   releases.
   Facility-related vehicle traffic
could present a problem to a nearby
community if transportation routes are
through "sensitive" community areas
(e.g., schools). Concerns include
•  threat of spills
•  proximity of primary evacuation
   routes to facility
•  incidental exposure to sudden
   releases
•  exhaust from idling trucks.

Nuisance Concerns-
Preserving the Enjoyment
and Value of Property

   Some hazardous waste facilities
can present nuisance concerns to a
neighboring community such as noise
and odors that
•  decrease outdoor activities
•  discourage development of
   neighboring property
•  devalue surrounding land and
   personal property.
   Air emissions can be a nuisance
when they deposit on homes, automo-
biles, and laundry and impair scenic
views.
   Citizens may also be concerned
that a facility will change the look of
their community for the worse.

Cultural and Social
Concerns-Preserving the
Community's Sense of
Belonging and Security

   How the community uses its land
(e.g., fishing, gardening, or cultural
purposes) is important to know. For
example
•  Do they garden in the area or fish
   in nearby streams, thus increasing
   their exposure to potential toxic
   releases by eating contaminated
   food?
•  If so, do they depend on this food
   for sustenance or income?

•  Will the facility deny or eliminate
   their access to social activities
   linked to land use? Disturbing
   or denying access to areas may
   be viewed as an attack on the
   community.

•  Will the facility affect or diminish
   culturally and socially significant
   areas (e.g., sacred sites, historic
   structures)?

Economic Concerns-
Promoting Economically
Sound Resource Protection

   Communities want to improve
their economy and, therefore, are
sensitive to the impact of new busi-
nesses on local human, economic,
and natural resources.
•  Will RCRA facilities devalue
   residents' investment in their
   community and discourage future
   investors?
•  Will new development bring new
   employment that does not match
   residents'job skills?
•  Will the new facility displace
   people from existing jobs?

•  Will the community feel it has lost
   economic value while others have
   gained?
  Mechanisms to Address Community Concerns
  At some facilities, real estate tools that can quantify the effect of a RCRA facility on housing value have been used
  for properties bordering the facilities. Agreeing to compensate homeowners if housing values are reduced can be a
  powerful way to alleviate quality of life and environmental justice concerns.

-------
                    Identifying  and Addressing Quality of  Life Concerns
                   EPA strongly encourages tribal, state, and local permitting agencies to provide the most effective
                   and constructive opportunities for all stakeholders to communicate concerns, exchange information,
                   and reach mutually acceptable understandings as early as possible.
   An open dialogue among stake-
holders is required to identify and
address community quality of life
concerns. Dialogue helps to develop
an understanding of the core issues of
all parties involved and facilitates the
exchange of information so that
stakeholders can make informed deci-
sions. Although public meetings are
required during the prepermitting and
permitting phases under the RCRA
Expanded Public Participation Rule,
it is always best to approach commu-
nities and address their concerns as
early as possible, preferably in the
initial stage of the process.  Because
community concerns vary greatly,
solutions will vary; this is why it is
important to get to know the commu-
nity and its concerns before proceed-
ing with siting plans.
r   :

                           \^^
                       '
                       P^
Identifying and  Getting
to  Know a Community
   The starting point for effectively
communicating with a community is
to give the community the opportunity
to define itself. At the same time,
initial research should include gather-
ing background information to iden-
tify issues and conditions affecting
that community.
   A basic knowledge of who the
community is and what helps shape
the community may suggest ways to
approach and work with the commu-
nity.
   Many types of information may
be reviewed to better understand who
community members are and what
shapes their community:
•  maps of community boundaries
   for residential and commercial use
•  demographics, including education
   level, culture,  and languages
   spoken
•  existing use of the land
•  existing traffic patterns
•  emissions from existing industrial
   sources
•  environmental permitting history
   of the community (not just RCRA)
•  identification of key community
   members and institutions (e.g.,
   local health and community cen-
   ters, schools, religious institutions).

   Some of this information is avail-
able through local, state, and federal
agencies. However, such data serve
only as an introduction to the commu-
nity.  RCRA facilities operate within
a real-life context. To know and
understand the real issues requires
getting to know those who live there.
   Community Zoyowf-Understand-
ing the layout of a community is
important to understanding the com-
munity itself. Maps can provide infor-
mation on geologic and environmental
considerations, planned types of
development, property owners, natural
and man-made features, and neighbor-
hood/town/city layout. However,
communities may define themselves
in cultural and social terms. For
example, people who attend a place
of worship near a proposed RCRA
facility may be considered part of the
community even though they do not
live there.  Thus, maps can be useful
tools on which citizens can define
areas of concern.
   Community History and Values-
Community members may have
strong feelings about past decisions
on land use. For some communities,
their quality of life has been deeply
impacted by these historical events
and decisions. It is therefore critical to
gain an understanding of these issues
from the community's standpoint.
   In addition, each community has a
unique set of values that is based on
cultural traditions, geographic loca-
tion, personal dynamics, and local
institutions. These values need to be
understood and respected in order to
understand what "quality of life"
means to each community.
  Mechanisms to Address Community Concerns
  Providing amenities packages, including landscaping, lighting, and local park areas, may address some basic concerns
  of community members with regard to the proposed RCRA facility. In addition, facilities have provided health
  services in response to local health needs independent of discussions of site impacts on local health.

-------
  A geographic information system (GIS) is an excellent tool for overlaying information
  on maps to make comparisons and gain a greater understanding of a community.
   Demographics-A community's
demographics includes variables such
as age, income, language, education,
population, ethnicity, household size,
and employment status. A study of
these factors will reveal information
about social and economic conditions
as well as the cultural basis for some
of the community's concerns and
needs (e.g., high level of unemploy-
ment or fixed-income populations).
Identifying ethnic and socioeconomic
characteristics of a potentially affected
community may be helpful in deter-
mining if there are potential environ-
mental justice considerations. Such
research is also helpful in developing
an outreach strategy.  Mapping sys-
tems  can be used to identify potential
environmental justice areas by over-
laying demographic,  land use, permit-
ting, and environmental data.
   Identification of Populations with
Health Sensitivities-Sensitive people
are those that show an adverse effect
to a toxic substance at lower doses or
show more severe or more frequent
adverse effects after exposure than the
average person. Biological sensitivity
may result from age (e.g., children),
gender (e.g., lactating females), genet-
ics, dietary and health deficiencies
(e.g., calcium deficiency), or other
factors. There is concern that releases
from or activities associated with
RCRA facilities may increase risks to
sensitive populations. Although the
state of scientific knowledge and
regulatory consideration of these
issues  is still evolving, it is prudent to
identify areas that are being  used by
sensitive populations such as schools,
  See the following web sites
  for information on sensitive
  populations:
  •  U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact
    Finder (facts such as age distribution,
    education,and ethnicity, etc. about
    specific geographical areas).
    http://factfinder.census.gov
  •  National  Institute of Environmental
    Health Sciences. http://www.
    niehs.nih.gov
  •  National  Toxicology Program (NTP)
    Chemical and Safety Data (information
    on different chemicals and the hazards
    that they  may pose). http://ehis.niehs.
    nih.gov/ntp/docs/chem_hs. html
  •  HazDat Database (information on
    hazardous waste from Superfund
    sites and  its effects on communities).
    http://www. atsdr. cdc. gov/
    hazdat. html
  •  National  Center for Health Statistics
    (various health statistics from across the
    cou ntry).  http: //www. cdc. gov/nchs
  •  State and Local Health Departments.
    http://www. cdc.gov/other. htm
  •  U.S. EPA's Sociodemographic  Data
    (used for  Identifying Potentially Highly
    Exposed  Populations). http://www.
    epa.gov/ncea/sociodeg.htm

hospitals, recreation areas and unoffi-
cial playgrounds, and address possible
impacts on their users. Possible risks
to these sensitive people can be mini-
mized or avoided entirely if the issues
and facts are fully understood and
considered before making final
decisions.

-------
   Identification of Potentially High-
ly Exposed Populations-Some popu-
lations can experience greater risk
than the general population through
higher than average exposure. Poten-
tially highly exposed populations can
be identified by factors such as
geographic area of residence, age,
gender, occupation, commuting pat-
terns, lifestyle,  race or ethnic origin,
income level, or other demographic
factors. Exposure and risk among
these populations may differ from that
of the general population as a result
of cumulative exposure from multiple
sources or pathways, food consump-
tion patterns, or behavioral or cultural
factors. Although much anecdotal and
circumstantial evidence suggests that
some subgroups may be more at risk
from environmental pollution than the
general population, little direct evi-
dence exists on actual exposures and
risk levels for other than a few specif-
ic chemicals or physical agents in the
environment.
   Many factors—both social and
environmental—make it difficult to
identify patterns or clusters of adverse
health effects that can take significant
time to become apparent. Existing
exposures (especially cumulative
exposures) may not have been
assessed previously or their effects
observed. Thus, it is important to
consider a community's existing con-
dition and activities before selecting a
site. Communities with data that indi-
cate relatively high incidences  of non-
communicable disease (e.g., asthma),
cancer, infant mortality, low birth
weight, or birth defects may be con-
cerned about the impact of a future
RCRA facility.  However, communi-
ties whose current data on cumulative
exposures, risks, and disease rates are
incomplete may also be concerned
about the addition of a new facility.
Responding to community concerns
about these issues may involve addi-
tional data collection, assessment, and
discussion, including identifying
opportunities for reducing existing
exposures in potentially highly
exposed populations.
   Land Use-Official land use gen-
erally planned and governed by the
tribal government, the local county,
the city, or town may give permitting
agencies and RCRA facilities infor-
mation on the character of the com-
munity that residents wish to develop.
However, zoned or planned land uses
may not show how different parcels
of land are actually used.
   A clear understanding of land use
areas in a community requires a three-
step process
1.  Examine  zoning/planned use and
   actual use. A community's use of
   its space is not always based on
   property lines, zoning areas, and
   plans. Customs, religion, language,
   nation of origin, race, education,
   and social standing can be impor-
   tant factors that indicate how a
   community uses its space.
2.  Examine  customary uses (e.g.,
   local fishing, gardening, and
   sacred/cultural sites). Representa-
   tives of permitting agencies and
   facilities should talk to community
   members and/or periodically visit
   locations  near the site to determine
   what activities are taking place.
    EPA has developed a number of environmental databases
    that may be helpful when assessing cumulative impact:
    •  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRIS)
    •  Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
    •  Biennial Reporting System (BRS)
    •  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
      Information System (CERCLIS)
    •  Aerometric  Information Retrieval System (AIRS)
    •  Permit Compliance System (PCS)  in the Wetlands, Oceans,  and Water-
      sheds (OWOW) and Storage Retrieval Database (STORE!)
    Data on existing community health and environmental  conditions are an
    important input to cumulative risk assessment. The data should be used
    as a tool to alert the assessor to subgroups that may experience greater
    exposures than the general population. The data also  should be used to help
    the assessor determine the number of individuals who  may be subjected  to
    increased exposures. When possible, assessors are encouraged to  collect
    site-specific data to help confirm  if any groups  are experiencing high expo-
    sures. A comprehensive risk analysis method must also be used to properly
    characterize the effects of cumulative exposure.
    For additional information, visit EPA's database website at
    http://www, epa.gov/epahome/dmedia. htm

-------
3. Understand the community's
   visions and values for the future.
   Through contact with the commu-
   nity, representatives should also
   determine what values the commu-
   nity places on the land. For exam-
   ple, siting a hazardous waste facili-
   ty in certain areas may change the
   character of rural or agricultural
   communities because of the types
   of roads, sewer designs, and water-
   line changes needed for suburban
   development.
   Zoning-The choice of locations
for siting RCRA facilities is limited
by local zoning and planning deci-
sions; this may also limit possibilities
for addressing or resolving some of
the community concerns. Although
local zoning decisions must be
respected, additional factors may need
to be considered to determine the
appropriateness of a site for hazard-
ous waste facilities:
•  Determine existing and potential
   community concerns.
•  Involve local governments in
   decision-making dialogue.
•  Allow local governments to
   suggest alternatives based on the
   community's long-term plans.
•  Consider the effects of industrial
   growth on the community.
•  Consider the potential for environ-
   mental justice issues.

Recognizing  Potentially
Cumulative Impacts
on a Community
   Existing permitted and nonpermit-
ted activities and potential polluting
sources may be of concern to the
community. To identify these activi-
ties
•  Examine the history of all permit-
   ted activities in the area (not solely
   RCRA permitting), including the
   environmental history.
•  Ask the community about the rela-
   tive burden of existing facilities.
•  Consider the location of these
   sources relative to the community,
   particularly sensitive areas such as
   neighborhoods, schools, and public
   areas or where there are high rates
   of infant mortality, cancer, and
   asthma, for example.
•  Look beyond the potential/
   proposed site. Be aware of the
   potential impacts from other
   stationary and mobile sources.
Learn how the community uses its
space.
Consider all information, not just
technical impacts.
Talk to the community to under-
stand its concerns and record its
oral history of the community's
health (e.g., their perspective on
the incidence of asthmatic children
or cancer mortalities).
  Mechanisms to Address Community Concerns
  Memoranda of Understanding or Good Neighbor Agreements reassure communities that quality of life commitments
  will be honored. When these agreements are drawn up to be legally enforceable, they promote trust between the
  community and facility because the community is secure in knowing that protective actions cannot later be ignored.

-------
   To understand the character and
concerns of a community, establish a
strong interaction with the community
prior to the RCRA permitting process.
Going beyond the minimum required
interactions between agencies, facili-
ties, and the public can be advanta-
geous. Promoting productive and
ongoing dialogue and addressing
stakeholder concerns can greatly
smooth any environmental permitting
process by reducing conflict, delays,
and permit challenges.
    Important elements of effective
communication include understanding
the following:
•  how the community communicates
   with its members and others
•  how the community gets its infor-
   mation (e.g., church bulletins,
   ethnic radio, ethnic or local paper,
   word of mouth, and languages
   commonly used).

Enhancing  Stakeholder
Dialogue

   Communicate Early-EPA strongly
encourages permit applicants and
authorities to reach out to communi-
ties in advance of site selection and
permit filing. Often, notifying the
public and holding hearings after a
site has been chosen and technical
design decisions have been made
provokes distrust among communities,
industry, and permitting authorities.
Early, honest communication develops
   Resources for effective outreach and communication include
   the following:
   •  The Model Plan for Public Participation. EPA National Environmental Justice
     Advisory Council.  Contact  EPA Office of Environmental Justice, http://es.epa.
     gov/oeca/oej/nejac/pub/icat. html
   •  American Society  for Testing & Materials (ASTM) Standard Guide to the Process
     of Sustainable Brownfields  Redevelopment. (ASTM Standard E-1 984-98).
     Contact ASTM Subcommittee E50.03. http://www.astm.org
   •  RCRA Public Participation Manual. (EPA 530-R-98-007). Contact the RCRA Informa-
     tion Center, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/permit/
     pubpart/manual. htm
   •  Improving Dialogue with Communities: A Risk Communication Manual for
     Government.  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1988.
   •  Public Participation and the Environment: What Works. Caron Chess and Kristen
     Purcell, 1997. Center for Environmental Communication,  Rutgers University,
     31 Pine Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-2883.
   •  Constructive Engagement Resource Guide: Practical Advice for Dialogue Among
     Facilities,  Workers, Communities, and Regulators. (EPA-745-B-99-008). June 1999.
     Contact EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications.
credibility for all parties and can
lead to cooperative problem solving
instead of stand-offs and delays.
   During the Initial Phase-Commu-
nity members offer a variety of useful
information that may influence siting
decisions:
•  historic land uses (official and
   unofficial)
•  existing environmental conditions
•  conflicting land uses (e.g., use
   of a stream for fishing, use of a
   vacant lot for community vegetable
   gardening)
•  vision of sustainable uses of land,
   water, and air resources
•  acceptable alternatives or modifica-
   tions to proposed plans
•  religious, cultural, or other special
   values of the land.
    As a result, facility plans are less
likely to  encounter opposition and be
delayed because of permit challenges.
   During the Design Phase-Design
issues that may benefit from commu-
nity involvement include
•  facility risk management plan
•  visibility and buffering  of site
•  location of outfalls (if any)
•  hours of operation
  Mechanisms to Address Community Concerns
  During and after the permitting process, communications can become strained. It pays to discuss and agree upon
  protocols for communication early to avoid delays due to disputes. For instance, parties might agree to have a trained
  facilitator or mediator present during discussions.
 10

-------
•  inclusion of pollution prevention
   activities
•  truck routing - community knowl-
   edge of congested areas and alter-
   nate routes.
   Businesses may be concerned
about incurring open-ended costs if
they promise to address quality of life
issues not addressed by regulation.
Such concern can be alleviated by
working with communities to define
and prioritize quality of life issues that
are most important and agreeing on a
schedule for resolution. Likewise, any
compensation agreements can be
defined and their limits set.


  Central objectives of an
  effective communication  plan:
  • Build trust
  • Keep the dialogue open
  • Hold effective public meetings
  • Devise effective outreach methods.
   Build Trust-As a result of past
siting decisions, a history of distrust
has built up in many communities,
leaving some feeling burdened by
industrial facilities. To overcome the
legacy of distrust, permit applicants
and permitting agencies must seek to
begin and develop a dialogue with the
community very early in the siting/
permitting process. Effective steps
would be to
•  Approach the community early
   in the process.
•  Respond to community  concerns
   and explain clearly how concerns
   will be addressed (e.g., routine
   releases, spill response,  truck
   operating hours).
     There is no doubt in my
  mind that when a neighbor-
  hood or community becomes
  informed and involved, they
    will do afar better job of
    deciding what is right for
   their children, for their air,
    for their water, than any
       government agency.
     -EPA Administrator Carol Browner
    http: X/www. epa. gov/docs/oej pubs/
         strategy/strategy.txt. html
•  Arrange open houses and tours for
   neighbors at hours fitting commu-
   nity needs.
•  Hold events, such as training
   sessions, dinners, or picnics, to
   bring plant employees together
   with members of the community.
•  Annually review the status of
   relations with the community to
   ensure the facility is addressing
   any concerns related to protection,
   resources, rights, and lands.
•  Obtain annual feedback from the
   community on how the facility is
   performing  environmentally.
•  Annually review state or local
   agency's performance to ensure
   that the facility fulfills its obliga-
   tions.
•  Maintain an open and accessible
   channel  of communication with the
   community.
   Keep the Dialogue Open-Develop-
ing trust through early dialogue is
only the beginning. To maintain
communication
•  meet regularly to ensure that
   everyone understands the issues
•  be honest
•  be direct and open
•  respond to all comments
   In addition, a Community Advisory
Panel (CAP) that reflects local diver-
sity can be formed. CAPs can provide
insight and external input and may
oversee administration of amenities or
compensation agreed upon
as part of siting discussions. For
instance, a CAP might be formed to
administer funds allocated for plan-
ning, education grants, or job training
programs.
   Hold Effective Public Meetings-
Effective public meetings inform and
address the concerns of community
members. Such meetings also send a
message to community members that
they have a part in the actual decision-
making process. Goals are best
achieved when community organiza-
tions cosponsor the meetings and help
establish the meeting's goals, agenda,
and outreach. To ensure effective
meetings
•  Engage a facilitator who is experi-
   enced or trained in working with
   communities and in addressing
   environmental justice concerns.
  Mechanisms to Address Community Concerns
  An industry may agree to provide pull-off areas for trucks so they don't have to idle in line, increasing exhaust
  emissions. Agreements can also be arrived at with the community concerning truck routes, truck traffic, and turning
  off motors.
                                                                                                             11

-------
•  Include an assortment of tools that
   attendees can use to share their
   concerns, such as maps with color-
   coded pins, handouts, brief sur-
   veys, and individual comment
   cards.
•  Where possible, arrange seating to
   promote an atmosphere of equal
   participation. (This might mean
   having community members at the
   head table, or even avoiding the
   head table layout entirely.)
   Public meetings are often  designed
so that many members of the public
are given time to speak and raise
questions. More constructive, howev-
er, are meetings designed so that
members of the public can engage in
substantive dialogue with agencies
and permittees. During these meetings
•  Break out into  small discussion
   groups to facilitate productive
   discussion.
•  Reassemble all attendees so that
   small groups can report their views
   to everyone.

   Devise Effective Outreach Meth-
ods- Communities, agencies, and
other stakeholders may have  different
ideas on what constitutes public par-
ticipation. An agency or industry may
feel that it has fulfilled its public par-
ticipation obligations while the poten-
tially affected community may not. To
ensure effective public outreach
•  Schedule meetings at convenient
   times and locations for community
   members.
•  Announce meetings through
   community channels, such as
   church bulletins and local papers.
•  Announce meetings in common
   languages.
•  Provide easy-to-understand infor-
   mation to community members.
•  Provide publications and speakers
   in the appropriate languages other
   than English.

Providing Technical
Assistance Puts All
Stakeholders on a Level
Playing Field

    Community members can readily
become legitimate participants when
they understand the issues at stake,
their roles, and the regulatory process-
es. Individuals responsible for inform-
ing and responding to the community
should have the appropriate knowl-
edge, training, and ability to provide
clear explanations of technical issues.
They should
•  Inform the community of technical
   and legal considerations by using
   understandable terms, familiar
   language, and similar experiences.
•  Explore what type of information
   needs to be made available to the
   public and how that information
   is to be presented, including
   languages other than English.
•  Provide information on regulatory
   processes, technology performance,
   and stakeholder rights.
•  Present relevant technical and reg-
   ulatory information available from
   RCRA facilities and permitting
   agencies as simply as possible—in
   a language people will understand.
•  Collect and maintain pertinent
   technical information in a publicly
   accessible place, such as the local
   public library or community center.
   Independent Consultants-Under
some circumstances, the community
may require impartial independent
technical assistance to ensure unbias-
ed, informed opinions and informa-
tion. Many case studies report suc-
cesses when grants are awarded for
this purpose. Success is attributed to
•  creating the same degree of
   credibility as other stakeholders
•  lowering frustration levels, because
   consultants can "translate" commu-
   nity quality of life concerns into
   terms that are commonly used
   within the siting or permitting
   process.
   Community Monitoring-After the
facility is permitted and constructed,
some communities have obtained
resources to perform their own emis-
sions monitoring. This type of moni-
toring is comparable to the "river-
keeper" concept used in water quality
scenarios. At first the idea may make
   Permitting can progress with strong community support when public outreach
   and participation are carefully planned and implemented from the beginning.
   Community participation and  consent can be critical to business development.
   For example, a city's community development agency can build a neighbor-
   hood working group to meet periodically in open meetings to discuss prospec-
   tive business plans. The working group can identify and report its concerns and
   call on the city and business to implement actions. Once the city and prospec-
   tive businesses negotiate or agree on what's to be done, the site's development
   and permitting may move forward with stronger public support.
  Mechanisms to Address Community Concerns
  Keeping the doors of communication open is a two-way process. One effective mechanism for communication is
  a facility newsletter that informs community members about RCRA facility-related information, such as accidental
  releases, site tours, community outreach programs, and emergency response procedures.
 12

-------
the facility uncomfortable, i.e., turning
over monitoring to the public, but it
may be worth the time invested to
promote good community relations.
   Councils of Government-Local
councils of government are good
resources for providing planning
guidance and identifying consultants
(if independent technical assistance is
sought by the  community).

Accelerating Progress
by Learning from the
Community

   Agencies and permittees must
recognize that community values and
feelings are a legitimate aspect of
environmental health issues. Residents
are often very aware of subtle changes
that take place around them. Ignoring
  Analytical methods are being devel-
  oped to help incorporate quality
  of life concerns into a technical
  decision-making framework. Local
  universities may be able to provide
  researchers familiar with the appli-
  cation of these methods.
factors that influence public percep-
tions of risk, labeling them as irra-
tional, or discounting public concerns
may lead to hostility between commu-
nity members, the facility, and the
permitting or siting agency. Public
trust can disintegrate  if it appears that
community concerns  are not being
taken seriously.
    Agencies and RCRA facilities
often focus on risk-based technical
information from monitoring data,
reports, and risk assessments; yet the
public may be more likely to take
into account public perceptions and
cultural values. For instance, the
threat of loss of enjoyment and the
potential devaluation
of their property resulting from
nuisances may be as serious and as
important as health concerns to a
community. A community may also be
uncomfortable with the "look" of the
facility—it may not fit with how resi-
dents view their community's general
appearance.
 A Checklist on Siting Facilities
 Address the fundamentals
   D Integrate cultural/social and
      economic needs of a community
      into early site planning
   D Establish partnerships with
      communities
   D Take time to find out about
      a community's quality of life
      concerns
   D Learn about environmental
      justice programs that may apply
      at the site
 Be prepared to answer questions on
   D Routine environmental exposure
   D Threat of spills and likelihood
      of exposure from accidental
      releases
   D Evacuation routes and alternate
      routes
   D Noise and odor
   D Influence on outdoor activities
   D Influence on development
      of neighboring property
   D Devaluation of surrounding land
      and personal property
   D Gardening and fishing activity
     nearby—recreational or subsist-
     ence
   D Effect on property of cultural and
     social significance
   D Displacement of existing jobs or
     potential for new jobs and skills
     match
 Collect information on
   D Community boundaries—
     residential and commercial
   D Demographics
   D Education level of residents
   D Cultural background and values
     of residents
   D Actual land use
   D Relative burden of existing facili-
     ties, e.g., existing emission sources
     and cumulative impacts
   D Environmental permitting history
   D Key community  members and
     institutions
   D Existing contamination infor-
     mation
   D Areas used by high-risk popula-
     tions (schools, hospitals, recreation
     areas)
   D History of all environmentally
     permitted activities
   D Oral history of community's health
   D Location of sites of special cultur-
     al, religious, or historical impor-
     tance
 Develop effective communication plan
 based on
   D How the community members
     communicate with each other
   D How the community gets its
     information
   D Building trust with a two-way,
     open dialogue, responding to all
     comments and questions
   D Holding effective public meetings
   D Early on, devising and using
     an effective outreach strategy
   D Providing technical assistance
     to community members
   D Reaching out before site selection
                                                                                                                  13

-------
Resources for
Further Information
   For further information on the
environmental justice and public
participation issues discussed in this
brochure, see the following sources:

Publications:
Chemistry Cleans Up A Factory,
  New York Times, July 18, 1999.
Executive Order 12898, Federal
  Actions to Address Environmental
  Justice in Minority Populations
  and Low-Income Populations
  http://www.epa.gov/docs/oejpubs/
  execorder. txt.html.
Community Advisory Panels within
  the Chemical Industry: Anteced-
  ents and Issues, F. Lynn and C.
  Chess, Business Strategy and the
  Environment, Summer 1994, 3,
  Pt. 2, pp. 92-99. An examination of
  potential problems with corporate
  CACs, based on research on gov-
  ernment citizen advisory commit-
  tees.
Industry Relationships with Commu-
  nities, C. Chess and F. Lynn, in
  K. Fisher et al. (eds.), The Green-
  ing of Industry Network: Resource
  Guide and Annotated Bibliography
  (Washington, DC: Island Press,
  1996), pp. 87-110. A discussion of
  the relationship between the chem-
  ical industry and communities,
  including mediations, community
  advisory committees, and good
  neighbor agreements.
Interim Guidance for Investigating
  Title VIAdministrative Complaints
  Challenging Permits
  http://es. epa.gov/oeca/oej/
  titlevi.html

Telephone Contacts:

• Office of Solid Waste, Permits
  and State Programs Division
  (703) 308-8404
• RCRA Hotline (800) 424-9346
  (TDD 533-7676)
• Office of Environmental Justice
  (800) 962-6215
• RCRA Information Center
  (703) 603-9230

Web Sites:

• Environmental Justice
  http://www. epa.gov/oeca/main/
  ej/index.html
• Office of Solid Waste
  http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw,
  index.htm
• Envirofacts (RCRIS, AIRS, etc.)
  http://www. epa.gov/enviro/
  index. Java.html
• Environmental Atlas
  http://www. epa.gov/ceiswebl/
  ceishome/atlas
• Technical Outreach Services
  for Communities (TOSC)
  http://w ww. toscprogram. org/
• U.S. Department of Justice,
  Civil Rights Division
  http://www. usdoj.gov/crt/
• USEPA, Office of Civil Rights,
  http://www.epa.gov/civilrights
&EPA

-------