United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
EPA 905-R-97-001
January 1997
v>EPA Customer Service
in Region 5
-------
*< PRO*'
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590
^ , ~ _, - nn~ REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF:
December 23, 1996
On behalf of the Region's Senior Leadership Team, I am pleased to
accept this report, Customer Service in Region 5, and
wholeheartedly endorse its recommendations. Not only is it
critical that we listen to our customers, but it is extremely
important that we change the way we approach our business where
necessary to be responsive to their concerns. By implementing
these recommendations, I am confident we can improve our service
to the citizens of Region 5, resulting in a better environment
for all.
I would like to thank the following members of the Customer
Service Task Force for their efforts in planning the stakeholder
meetings discussed in this report and for developing the
recommendations for us to implement:
Jennifer Beese Beatrice Daviston
Jeffrey Kelley Norman Niedergang
John O'Grady Daniel O'Riordan
Phyllis Reed Dianne Sipe
Kenneth Westlake
Limited copies of this report are available from the Office of
Public Affairs. The report is also available electronically, both
on the Internet (http://www.epa.gov/region5) and on the Region 5
Intranet.
Together, with our customers, we can solve environmental
problems, with communities, in common sense ways.
Valdas V.
Regional
Recycled/Recyclable-Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
-------
Customer Service in Region 5
A Report from the Customer Service Task Force
to the Senior Leadership Team
December 1996
Background
As part of the Administration's efforts to reinvent Federal government and its interaction with its primary
customer —the American taxpayer —President Bill Clinton, on September 11, 1993, issued Executive Order
12862: Setting Customer Service Standards to every Federal department and agency, requiring each to publish
readily available customer service plans by September 1994. In response, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency developed and published Putting Customers First: EPA Rises to the Challenge of Executive Order 12862'
and, as follow up, Putting Customers First: EPA's Customer Service Plan2. In these documents, EPA reaffirmed its
commitment "... to providing the best customer service possible... (and) to achieve this through increased public
participation, increased public access to information, and more effectively responding to customer needs." EPA
identified eight "core processes" around which further customer service tasks were assigned: permitting and
licensing; pesticide registration; research and demonstration grants; rulemaking; public access; State, Tribal, and
local program grants; enforcement compliance assistance; and voluntary programs. EPA Headquarters has taken
the lead in these ongoing efforts.
Region 5 Vision, Mission, and Values
Environmental Vision
A sustainable environment where air, water, and land resources are restored and protected to benefit all life.
Operational Vision
Together, we can solve environmental problems with communities in common-sense ways.
Mission
Our mission is to:
Protect human health and preserve natural resources;
Prevent and abate pollution to improve the environment;
Serve the public with education, innovation, action, and results; and
Lead the way in restoring and protecting the Great Lakes and all Midwestern ecosystems.
Values
Region 5 aspires to be a Region which respects all people, personally and professionally, and which demonstrates
integrity and honesty in all of our dealings. We strive to communicate effectively in our work and to listen to the people
we serve, with a preference for action to solve problems and achieve results.
In doing so, we hope to provide effective leadership and build strong partnerships with State, Tribal, and local
governments and other Agencies in protecting the environment, and ensuring a future where air, water, and land
resources are restored and protected to benefit all life.
1 Putting Customers First: EPA Rises to the Challenge of Executive Order 12862. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. September 1994.
2Putting Customers First: EPA's Customer Service Plan (EPA 230-B-95-004). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office
of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. September 1995.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 2
In Spring 1995, Region 5's Senior Leadership Team (SLT) established a Customer Service Task Force to focus on
efforts to improve customer service at a regional level. The SLT also determined the Task Force's first projects: an
all-employee memo from Regional Administrator Valdas V. Adamkus proclaiming the Region's emphasis on
customer service (Appendix A), and the expanded use of an existing customer comment and feedback card
(Appendix B).
Concurrently, Region 5 was in the midst of a fundamental reorganization, initiated October 1, 1995. The SLT
wished to share the nature of the reorganization and its newly developed Mission, Vision, Value statement (see
box on page 1) with key extramural groups, many of which were the same groups from whom the Task Force
wished to hear. The two efforts were combined, and a series of stakeholder meetings were planned.
Methodology
Four key stakeholder groups were selected to take part in the pilot Region 5 Vision/Customer Service Rollout:
environmental groups (May 13, 1996); business and industry (May 20, 1996); small business (May 31, 1996); and
local government (June 21, 1996). The Task Force identified 20 or more appropriate invitees to each session
(invitees needed to be within a day's travel of Chicago), with the goal of 15-25 attendees at each session.
Invitations were extended over the telephone, with written follow-up materials (EPA's Customer Service Plan,
Region 5 organization chart, Region 5's Community-Based Environmental Protection Action Plan, Region 5's
Vision, Mission and Values) mailed to those who accepted. The SLT pledged that four of its members, including
the Regional Administrator or one of his deputies, would participate at each session. Of the 16 environmental
groups that accepted an invitation to the May 13 session, 11 attended. Of the 19 business and industry
representatives that accepted the invitation to the May 20 session, 14 attended. Of the 25 small business
representatives that accepted the invitation to the May 31 session, 11 attended. Finally, of the 19 local
government entities who accepted the invitation to attend the June 21 session, 12 attended. Most of those in
attendance were from the Chicago area, but a fair number of participants came from other parts of Illinois, as well
as southern Wisconsin and northwest Indiana. A list of attendees is provided in Appendix C.
Since routine, senior level meetings are held with our State and Tribal partners, we did not plan separate
stakeholder sessions with them.
Agenda for Action
Environmental Priorities
Reduction of toxics, especially mercury Brownfields redevelopment
Ensure environmental justice Sediment clean up
Attain air quality standards for ozone Protect and restore critical ecosystems
Principal Places
Lake Superior Lake Michigan Lake Erie
Upper Mississippi River Greater Chicago Southeast Michigan
Gateway (East St. Louis,IL) Northeast Ohio Crandon Mine
Tribal lands International Northwest Indiana
Critical Approaches
Internal resource investments for change Community based environmental protection
Using common sense Preventing pollution
State/Local/Tribal Partnerships Enhanced public communication
Enforcement and compliance assurance Multimedia approaches
Risk and science-based decision making Measuring and managing for environmental results
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 3
The agenda for the sessions (Appendix D) devoted the morning to an explanation of the Region's Vision and
reorganization. The afternoon session focused on customer-service related issues (some of the meetings dispensed
with lunch, running through the entire agenda by early afternoon). Notes from each of the meetings are provided
in Appendix E. The tenor of the meetings was cordial, encouraging free and open discussion.
Universal Customer Service Standards
In carrying out our mission to protect public health and the environment,
1. We will be courteous, professional, flexible, honest, and helpful in all dealings with our customers. We will actively
listen so we can better understand what motivates our customers and how we can best provide the environmental
products, services and information they value, and be fully responsive to customer concerns and needs regarding our
services.
2. We will answer all telephone calls promptly, and will respond to them by close of the next business day. If the person
receiving the call cannot fully respond to the inquiry, the customer will be accurately referred to someone who can.
3. We will respond to all correspondence within 10 working days of receipt. If we cannot provide a complete reply
within 10 working days, we will contact the customer as soon as possible within the 10 day period to acknowledge and
clarify their request, discuss what is required to provide a full response, and determine when they will receive a full
response.
4. We will provide our customers with clear, easy to understand, timely, and accurate information about products,
services, policies and procedures. We will ensure that customers have easy access to information, available through
convenient channels, and in various formats.
5. Relationships with our co-implementors of environmental programs, the State, Tribal and local governments, and
other Federal agencies, will be characterized by partnership, flexibility, and assistance that empowers them to expand
their ability to deliver environmental protection.
6. We will seek customer input to inform our decisions on policies, programs, and rules.
Feedback Received
The following section summarizes some of the common concerns raised at the meetings and provides Task Force
responses and recommendations.
Flexibility
Comments
The need to provide various types of increased flexibility was raised by each of the stakeholder
groups. Environmental groups felt EPA needed to be more flexible in how priorities are set.
Business representatives stated we were at our best when our staff found ways to be flexible and
at our worst when we rigidly applied policies and regulations. One participant remarked that our
values should serve to bound how far we can be flexible. The need to be open to innovative
approaches and emerging technologies was highlighted. Local government representatives felt
that the "Region often fails to see flexibility intended by headquarters regulation writers."
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 4
Response
Through our operational vision we hope to redirect our efforts to solving environmental problems,
rather than the simple application of media-specific regulations. Our decisions must always be
consistent with our statutes and regulations, but the critical approaches the Region intends to use
in solving these problems, such as common sense, compliance assurance, and community-based
environmental protection, all demand increased flexibility from regional employees. Agency
initiatives such as Project XL ("Excellence and Leadership") specifically allow for regulatory
flexibility where superior environmental results can be achieved. We have found that local
comparative risk and other environmental priorities projects, either funded or not funded by EPA,
are excellent methods for working with local communities to identify priorities and plan action.
Recommendations
1. For each principal place where the Region focuses, stakeholder input will play a critical
role in developing an agenda for identifying and prioritizing environmental problems to
be solved.
2. The Region will actively participate in the Agency's Project XL in order to provide
maximum regulatory flexibility to accepted projects.
3. The Region will reinforce with its own staff its duty to "Serve the public with education,
innovation, action and results," with the understanding that increased flexibility is
necessary for this innovation.
Individual Staff Responsiveness
Comments
Environmental groups expressed frustration with "flip" answers and the "unresponsiveness" of
EPA employees. Large businesses suggested that EPA staff need to be more "civil and well-
informed."
Response
Improving staff responsiveness is a key component of the universal customer-service standards
recently developed by Headquarters (see Box below). These standards call for all EPA employees
to be courteous, professional, flexible, honest, and helpful. In addition, the standards commit
each employee to responding to all telephone calls by the close of the next business day. If the
person receiving the call cannot fully respond to the inquiry, the caller will be accurately referred
to someone who can. With regard to written correspondence, the new customer-service standards
will commit employees to responding to all correspondence within 10 working days. If this is not
possible, the writer will be contacted as soon as possible to acknowledge their request, and
determine when they will receive a full response. The universal customer service standards and
the standards for each of the Agency's core processes are included in Appendix F.
Recommendations
4. Aggressively roll-out the customer-service standards to staff and determine what follow-
up training may be appropriate.
5. Develop systems to measure performance under the standards.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 _ Page 5
Lengthy Permit Process
Comments
One small business representative was particularly concerned about the seemingly inordinate
amount of time needed to issue a permit for a simple activity. The permitting process was
characterized as "pure red tape." Other business representatives referred to the Clean Air Act
Title V permit program as the "most inflexible operating system ever." Since business expansion
often hinges on these permits, timeliness can be of critical importance.
Response
In July 1994, the Agency formed a Permit Improvement Team (PIT) to develop recommendations
to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the permitting process. The PIT, which includes
representatives from EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices and state, tribal and local permitting
agencies, held numerous stakeholder meetings to solicit input on the most critical issues. On May
10, 1996, the PIT's recommendations were published in the Federal Register3. The
recommendations include:
• Permitting agencies' review of permits should be more performance-based. Up-front
technical reviews would be reduced to those needed to provide reasonable assurance that
the permittee will meet performance standards.
• Permitting agencies should reduce the number of times permits need to be formally
modified. Modifications would only be required when process changes would increase
pollution, or when they are needed to insure proper operation or monitoring of a facility.
• Permitting agencies should use the permitting process to encourage facilities to practice
pollution prevention.
Some of the recommendations included in the Federal Register will need further public input and
may require regulatory changes to implement.
The Region cannot change the procedures used by State and local governments to issue permits,
but can encourage changes by serving as a model for more streamlined permitting processes.
Recommendations
6. Each Regional program should develop a model time line to be followed in reviewing and
responding to permit applicant". Programs should share a model- or facility-specific time
line with permit applicants.
7. When a facility has multiple environmental permit applications pending, the Region
should appoint a single point of contact to resolve any cross-cutting issues among the
involved programs and to ensure a coordinated approach to reaching the permit decisions.
^Federal Register, vol. 61, no. 92, pg. 21855. May 10, 1996
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 6
Level Playing Field
Comments
The business community, large and small, seeks a level playing field, where businesses and their
competitors receive fair and equitable treatment, regardless of the jurisdiction in which they
operate. Businesses that operate in multiple States or Regions complained that they often
encounter inconsistent requirements from one jurisdiction to another, creating confusion over
permitting and compliance requirements, and generating additional transaction costs. Business
expressed the concern that "across Regions, decisions need to be consistent." Environmental
groups expressed concerns that pollution havens could be created in States with less stringent
regulations or enforcement.
Business cited yet another factor that contributes to an uneven playing field: parties who operate
outside the regulatory structure. One business representative asked, "how can the agencies
identify and bring into compliance those who don't notify and remain underground?" Another
business representative offered, "Make rules more usable and understandable to reduce incentives
[by those 'underground'] to avoid regulatory framework."
Response
EPA reviews authorized State programs for consistency with minimum Federal requirements.
Minimum Federal requirements need to be clearly written and well disseminated both within
government and to the regulated community, so that State and EPA staff can deliver consistent
information as to what the national baseline is and where areas of discretion and flexibility exist.
Improved staff training will aid in delivery of consistent regulatory messages across jurisdictions.
EPA maintains a compliance and enforcement presence in addition to the States, in instances of: 1)
a compelling Federal interest (e.g., interstate issues); 2) cases referred by the States; and 3) cases
where the States lack the interest or resources to tackle issues consistent with Federal enforcement
policies. Federal enforcement penalties seek to recover the economic benefit of non-compliance, so
that violators do not tilt the playing field by gaining an economic advantage over complying
competitors.
Reduced Federal oversight and increased reliance on States for program implementation hold the
potential for greater variability across States in their approaches to specific permitting and
compliance/enforcement issues. EPA and the States must accelerate their shift to performance-
based regulations and measures, so that the environmental results sought are consistent across
jurisdictions but flexibility is enhanced on how those results are achieved.
With respect to the problem of noncomplying sources remaining "underground," (i.e., beyond the
knowledge of regulators), several States, including Illinois, have experimented with small-business
amnesty programs. These programs, targeted at a given geographic area or business sector, use
intensive publicity and cooperation with the business community to encourage non-notifiers and
other unknown parties to identify themselves (often without penalty) and obtain technical
assistance so as to achieve compliance. Ignorance of requirements and fear of enforcement are
reasons often given by these parties as to why they did not notify. The Agency's Interim Policy on
Compliance Incentives for Small Business4 attempts to provide an incentive for these businesses to
come forward to request compliance assistance.
^Federal Register, vol 61, no. 107, pg. 27984, June 3, 1996
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 7
State/Federal Relationship
Comments
Environmental groups called for more EPA oversight of States, expressing concerns that State
government was more susceptible to economic and political influences from the regulated
community. One commentor noted, "Better oversight is needed to ensure states are up to par."
Another noted, "Some States' programs are more capable than others." These commentors
maintained that a strong Federal presence and increased Federal oversight would help ensure that
environmental issues of regional or national importance get proper attention, and that pollution
havens aren't created by States seeking to improve their business climates.
Environmental groups, large businesses, and local governments all commented that EPA and the
States needed to better align their priorities. Business complained, "EPA and the States need to
solve the game of whose problem and decision it is" on a given issue. Big business continued by
calling for better communication (including regular meetings) between EPA, the States, and
industry. "On key projects, there needs to be more senior involvement of State and Federal
management." Business regarded EPA regional office involvement in interstate issues as being
"helpful."
Response
EPA and the States are pursuing better alignment through joint priority setting. Strategic
Directions for the Midwest Environment* is a jointly developed multi-year document that has
established a number of over-arching themes for common emphasis. Building on this, the Region
and States have identified a set of joint priorities. The Environmental Performance Partnership
Agreements (EnPPA's) that EPA is establishing with the States pursuant to the National
Environmental Performance Partnership System6 embody these common priorities and better
define State and Federal roles in implementing both delegated base programs and special
initiatives. The intent is to make State and Federal efforts more complementary rather than
overlapping or duplicative. Development and implementation of EnPPA's will include
stakeholder involvement, which should allow other governments, the regulated community, and
the public a voice in setting priorities, solving place-based problems, and monitoring results.
EPA is shifting toward reduced oversight as experienced State agencies implement delegated
programs. Performance Partnership Grants (PPG's) and block grants will give States greater
flexibility, and shift the emphasis for accountability from administrative activity measures to
actual environmental results. In the long term, less attention will be given to how a source
complies or how a State runs a delegated program in favor of more emphasis on the environmental
outcomes of performance. Intensive oversight is reserved for those State programs where
capability is not demonstrated. Increased routine dialog between State and Federal agencies and
stakeholders is needed to allow all parties, including skeptics, to see whether increased State
empowerment actually produces better environmental results with lower transaction costs, and
also to see that alignment on priorities actually occurs.
EnPPA's will also establish a clearer definition of State versus Federal roles, which should clarify
for the agencies and the regulated community questions of jurisdiction over specific problems and
decisions. By giving more authority to lower echelons of management, EPA hopes to reduce the
5'Strategic Directions for the Midwest Environment (EPA 905-X-93-001), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5,
December 1993.
6'Joint Commitment to Reform Oversight and Create a National Environmental Performance Partnership System, U.S. EPA and
State/EPA Capacity Committee, May 17, 1995
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 8
need for senior management involvement to resolve issues. However, EPA commits to faster
escalation of problems, and involvement of senior-level State counterparts, when issues with the
regulated community or the public cannot be solved promptly at lower levels.
Recommendations
8. Finalize EnPPA's with four States during fiscal year 1997.
9. Finalize PPG's with two States during fiscal year 1997.
Catalyst Role
Comments
Several of the groups identified a need for the Region to serve in a so-called "catalyst" role. This
evidenced itself particularly in discussions about our new teams, especially the geographically
oriented teams. Another catalyst role involved bringing other Federal and State agencies together
around topics of mutual concern.
Response
For some program areas, such as ground-water protection, habitat protection, and endangered
species, the Region has existing relationships with U.S. Geologic Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and State equivalent agencies. We also realize that we have not necessarily developed all
the connections which would be desirable to deal with some newer topics, such as urban sprawl
and land-use planning.
Recommendations
10. The SLT and regional managers should develop means for on-going dialogue among State,
local and Federal agencies, Tribes and non-government organizations when addressing
cross-agency topics or in response to identified community needs that are not within our
responsibility. The Region should offer to be the convener of such dialogue, if
appropriate.
Dissatisfaction with the Superfund Program
Comments
Business, small business, and local government officials complained that the Superfund process is
unnecessarily laborious, inequitable, and inefficient, causing lengthy clean-up delays.
Response
EPA is already working to address the concerns expressed in the meetings. These concerns, and
others, are why the Agency has issued three sets of administrative reforms. The Region is
participating in these reforms and is supportive of the changes they will bring about. The
Superfund issues, however, do appear to be of national concern, and not necessarily Region
specific.
There are some concerns about Superfund that cannot be addressed except through statutory
changes, such as retroactive liability, joint and several liability, etc. That is not to say, however,
that these provisions could not be implemented more fairly.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 9
While it is true that Superfund cleanups may have taken an inordinate amount of time in the past,
current and future cleanups are following a much accelerated process. The Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model uses emergency removal authorities to expedite site cleanups. Also, very few sites
will be added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in the future; most will be handled by either
voluntary cleanup or an accelerated Federal process.
Recommendations
11. Continue to work with States to build capacity to manage the Superfund program at State-
lead sites, providing managerial and programmatic expertise as necessary to assist the
State.
12. Ensure that our customers are aware of the administrative reforms we are taking as an
Agency.
13. Solicit feedback and recommendations from small and big business/industry,
environmental groups, and local politicians on the effectiveness of Superfund in their
realm of experience, and address those concerns on an ongoing basis.
Multimedia Inspections
Comments
Multimedia inspections are a burden to facilities, overwhelming plant staff.
Response
The Region is committed to conducting multimedia inspections, which are a way to provide a
comprehensive environmental assessment for a facility.
The on-site work for multimedia inspections generally is completed within 2 weeks. The Region
feels that through careful scheduling, or the use of smaller inspection teams, the multimedia
approach can be used effectively at smaller facilities than those the Region has already inspected,
which are generally the larger facilities.
In fact, the regional multimedia inspection teams are already building upon what has been learned
from previous multimedia inspections.
Recommendations
14. Continue to internally coordinate the results of inspections with other programs so that
recommendations from one program contribute to the successful implementation of other
programs.
15. Continue to develop the knowledge-base and glean more information from the multimedia
inspectors and from industries where those inspections have been conducted. Each
program that participates in multimedia inspections should be tapped for this information-
gathering effort to determine what the inspectors and programs have learned from
performing multimedia inspections that may assist in planning future multimedia
inspections.
16. Trade associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute, Chemical Manufacturers
Association, and National Association of Chemical Distributors, could be consulted
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 10
regarding the value and benefits derived from multimedia inspections, and any possible
improvements they may wish to suggest that would make multimedia inspections even
more useful to the industry and the Region.
17. In an effort to promote partnership and cooperation between the regulated community
and the Region, large corporations which have already undergone one or more
multimedia inspection should be contacted to learn what has been useful, as well as what
has not been useful, as a result of multimedia inspections at their facilities.
ISO 14OOO
Comments
Several large businesses encouraged EPA to take a leadership role in the ISO 14000 dialogue. ISO
14000 is a set of international voluntary environmental standards currently under development by
the International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14001, environmental management
systems, will be the first standard to be completed under this effort.
Response
The Region will co-host, with the Global Environment and Technology Foundation and the
American National Standards Institute, a conference on ISO 14001 on November 19 and 20, 1996,
in Chicago. In addition, several of the pilot re-invention efforts underway in Region 5 and other
Regional offices will evaluate the use of environmental management systems such as ISO 14001.
Region 5 is participating on a national workgroup to explore the use of environmental
management systems in the National Water Program.
Continued Dialogue with EPA; Increased EPA Visibility
Comments
All of the stakeholder groups appreciated the opportunity to meet with EPA, and encouraged the
Agency to continue its dialogue with outside groups through future meetings and events. In
addition, the stakeholders groups encouraged EPA to find ways to make staff more visible and
accessible to external customers.
Response
The reorganization in Region 5 implemented on October 1, 1995, shifted the focus of the Region's
resources to six key environmental priorities in ten principal places. The reorganization
established Regional Teams to manage the Region's work in these areas. The result has been the
creation of high-visibility initiatives in such places as Greater Chicago, Southeast Michigan,
Northwest Indiana, and three of the Great Lakes.
The Region has had ongoing discussions about the idea of moving some employees into the
"priority places" (see Agenda for Action box). In fact, there is an existing field office in the
Northeast Ohio initiative area. The Region is in the process of detailing staff to the Upper
Mississippi area as well and has placed three employees in the field to serve as Tribal liaisons. For
some program areas, such as ground-water protection, habitat protection, and endangered species,
the Region has existing relationships with U.S. Geologic Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and State equivalent agencies. We also realize that we have not necessarily developed all the
connections which would be desirable to deal with some newc- topics, such as urban sprawl and
land-use planning.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 ___^_ Page 11
Recommendations
18. To fulfill the Agency's commitment to community-based environmental protection, each
of the regional place-based teams should consider assigning staff to the field to work more
closely with our State and Tribal partners and be more accessible and effective in helping
communities meet environmental challenges.
19. The Region's Senior Leadership Team and Customer Service Task Force should continue
its dialogue with stakeholders in the coming year. The Region should take the series "on
the road" to another metropolitan areas. The series should consist of four half-day
meetings focused on stakeholder concerns and suggestions for improvement.
Measuring Success
Comments
Both environmental groups and businesses were interested in seeing the Agency move from the
"bean-counting" mode of doing business to capturing the improvements made in environmental
quality.
Response
The Agency as a whole and Region 5 in particular have been working diligently in the last several
years to identify outcome-based measures of success and a standard set of environmental
indicators. Several programs have developed environmental indicators and prepared annual
reports for several years, but the Region has not yet achieved a consistent set of indicators or a
Region-wide State of the Environment Report. We have recently developed a Region-wide
indicator workgroup to this end.
Recommendations
20. Continue Region-wide move to outcome-based environmental planning, accountability,
and reporting.
21. Prepare a pilot State of the Environment Report by the end of FY97 using environmental
indicators; plan a full report in FY98; include a communication plan to share the State of
the Environment Report with our customers.
Balance Compliance Assistance with Enforcement
Comments
Compliance assistance should be institutionalized as an Agency response to regulatory violations.
Response
Many of EPA's programs have provided, and continue to provide, this type of assistance to
regulated parties. Historically, however, the role and effect of the Agency's compliance assistance
may not have been as prominent as the role and deterrent effect of enforcement. In addition to
preserving a level playing field and deterring violations through targeted enforcement actions,
EPA will encourage compliance through incentives and, for small businesses seeking to comply
with environmental requirements, more effective compliance assistance. This approach is
consistent with the President's and Vice President's "reinventing environmental regulation"
theme.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 12
Enforcement is typically used after a violation has occurred. Compliance assistance, however, can
be provided either "proactively" (e.g., where EPA takes the initiative to educate an industrial
sector on regulations before a violation occurs) or "reactively" (e.g., after compliance monitoring
of compliance incentives has detected or confirmed a violation, after a regulated party has
requested assistance but before compliance monitoring or compliance incentives have detected or
confirmed any noncompliance, etc.)
Several programs, EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act) Section 313,
for example, host annual compliance assistance workshops just before the reporting deadline.
Another example, the Toxic Release Inventory program holds at least one workshop per State.
Region 5's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Team has committed to develop a Regional
Compliance Assistance Strategy which will put in place elements of infrastructure which will
"routinize" assistance provided in conjunction with new regulations and actively market policies
encouraging voluntary compliance. Additionally, the strategy will contain a specific plan for
compliance-assistance projects which will be conducted during FY97. These projects will provide
a clear near-term direction for the Region's activities and include associated performance
measures. Based on the success of these initial projects, annual development of compliance-
assistance projects will occur.
Recommendations
22. Complete the Compliance Assistance Strategy.
23. Provide training to affected regional staff on the role of compliance assistance in the
Region's activities and on the Regional Compliance Assistance Strategy.
Regulatory Complexity and Technical Assistance
Comments
Enhanced technical assistance should be a goal of EPA, particularly as part of community-based
environmental protection activities. The complexity and sophistication of environmental
regulations necessitate formal and routine technical assistance availability for all EPA customers.
Technical assistance in regulatory interpretation is needed by many EPA customers. Most small
businesses lack the internal expertise to fully understand the complex regulations, but small
business representatives expressed a resistance to asking EPA staff technical questions, because
enforcement was a feared outcome. Some companies stated they would only approach EPA
through third parties such as attorneys or consultants, which can create a financial burden. Small
business and local government participants suggested that outreach on regulatory requirements be
conducted with sufficient lead time to provide for compliance, and also be easily understood. It
was also encouraged that EPA investigate ways to improve the responsiveness and accuracy of
advice provided by technical agency staff: the concept of one stop shopping for questions was
encouraged. Environmental organization representatives also expressed the need to receive
technical assistance on regulatory requirements and interpretation of environmental data. It was
noted that as EPA expands its community-based environmental protection activities, more citizens
and community groups will be seeking technical assistance.
Response
EPA, both regionally and nationally, is enhancing its institutional technical assistance programs.
More widespread distribution and publication of hotline numbers will provide greater utilization
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 13
of that resource. The EPA Office of the Small Business Ombudsman acts as a conduit for small
businesses to access EPA. The Superfund and hazardous waste programs have each established
Ombudsman positions. Information about these resources could be more widely disseminated to
our customer base. Finally, pursuant to the Clean Air Act, all States are required to develop Small
Business Technical and Environmental Assistance Programs. These are already operational and
most programs offer multimedia assistance to small businesses. In conjunction with our State
partners, EPA may direct businesses to these resources as technical assistance providers.
Within the Region, certain staff are responsible for working with specific industries and could
serve as a point of contact for specific businesses seeking assistance. Likewise, the geographic-
based team managers are logical contacts for community members who seek technical assistance.
Development and implementation of customer service standards for EPA staff will reinforce the
expectation that all staff are responsible for provision of timely, accurate and courteous service to
all customers.
The regional programs are looking for better ways to communicate with and provide regulatory
information to various customer groups. For example, the Greater Chicago Pollution Prevention
Partnership, which is funded by EPA and includes business, government, and citizen groups, is
exploring options to improve regulatory and assistance delivery systems in Cook County.
Examples include the planned development of an environmental quick response team and hotline,
designed to provide 24-hour turn-around time to general regulatory questions. Also, as part of the
Regional Compliance Assistance Strategy, the Region will be developing a process which
routinizes outreach to industry on new regulations. In addition, the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance in EPA Headquarters, in response to the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), will be developing Compliance Guides to assist small business
in understanding and complying with new regulations.
Recommendations
24. Develop a "contacts" list for each program and each geographic-based team, denoting who
the public can call for help with specific problems.
25. Develop a program to further publicize the availability of Compliance Assistance Centers,
hotlines, and other technical assistance resources.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 14
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 15
Appendices
Appendix A: Regional Administrator's Memorandum dated November 5, 1995, subject, "Customer Service"
Appendix B: Regional Administrator's Memorandum dated November 5, 1995, subject, "Customer Feedback"
Appendix C: List of Stakeholder Attendees
Appendix D: Agenda for Stakeholder Meetings
Appendix E: Flip Chart Notes form Stakeholder Meetings
Appendix F: EPA's Customer-Service Standards, dated September 24, 1996
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 16
Appendix A
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 2, 1995
SUBJECT: Customer Service
FROM: Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
TO: All Region 5 Employees
In response to recommendations within the National Performance Review, the President issued Executive Order
12862: Setting Customer Servire Standards. There, the President commented, "Putting people first means
ensuring that the Federal Government provides the highest quality service possible to the American people.
Public officials must embark upon a revolution within the Federal Government to change the way it does business.
This will require continual reform of the executive branch's management practices and operations to provide
service to the public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector."
We have much to be proud of in our dealings with all of our customers—those people involved with or served by
Region 5. Senior management efforts to break down internal barriers in order to move toward a multi-media
approach have already borne fruit in improving our service to all customers, internal and external. The Region's
reorganization will advance, expand, and refine these efforts. Customer service, in short, has always been one of
Region 5's values. In any process, however, there is a need for continuous monitoring and improvement.
I would like to emphasize the following customer service guidelines:
(1) As a regulatory agency, we often need to promote actions, activities, and attitudes to businesses, government,
and individuals that they would not opt to take on their own, even when they understand it to be in the best
interest of the general public. Our goal, therefore, is to build a cooperative and supportive relationship with these
customers, supplying them with the tools they need to be able to pursue their business and personal activities in a
way that protects the environment, and
ensures - for all of us, for our children, and for future generations - a prosperous, sustainable, and healthy world.
(2) In all of our relationships, voluntary and nonvoluntary, cooperative or enforcement-related, our goal is to
handle all interactions in a fair, courteous, and professional manner. Our goal is also to provide affected parties
with a clear understanding of the reasons for our actions.
With that in mind, let me present some interim goals toward which each of us in Region 5 may aspire:
Public Access: We will seek opportunities to increase the participation of our customers in the policy and
decision-making processes of the Agency.
Listening to our Customers: We will improve our understanding of our customers' circumstances and
motivations so that we can provide them with the environmental information and services they value. Through
the use of public roundtables, focus groups, and formal surveys, we will listen to what our customers tell us about
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 _ Page 21
Appendix E
Stakeholder Meeting
Environmental Groups
May 13, 1996
FEEDBACK ON VISION/MISSION/VALUES
- Appreciate involvement in this discussion and vision.
- EPA training citizens in areas of concern, i.e. opacity violation.
- States in better position to do community based environmental protection (CBEP).
- How do these priorities and methods fit with EPA traditional mission/roles.
- What is CBEP really? Is it community driven really?
- Conflict between CBEP & risk based v. resource intensive
- Base of resources on rule making enforcement
- To be successful in CBEP:
- Need clear simple list of guidelines of what EPA can & can't do.
- Need a shopping list.
- Be firm about where EPA responsibility lies. Tell people where resources going.
- How do we do information exchange between Federal Agencies across multiple programs. (Specialist list). [Lead
shot in wetlands]
- Collaboration on research & diagnostic support.
- Environmental catalyst—not well defined
Staff already doing — have time on their hands.
- Results may be hit or miss — not well quantified.
May not have enough structure to get results.
- Common sense — define it!
- Concept — do we not want to do what seems "nutty" to public?
- EPA staff - can they keep up?
This is broader issue than EPA — applies in business, interest groups, etc.
- Do EPA and others feel too constrained by law?
- Community not defined.
- Community needs technical assistance.
- How do we ensure technical assistance for communities if we want them to be full partners?
- Beware conflict of interest?
- Partnership — have specific goal in mind.
- National priorities:
- Research, rulemaking, enforcement —not our priorities—concern too much emphasis on community-
based—needs to have local support — staff in communities
- Need to have hammer in back pocket to be effective—need to use hammer to maintain credibility in community.
- Division of labor State/Federal?
Like what priorities and where. Concerned about how .
Trying to do things better suited for the States
- States not as politically insulated
- Think about satellite offices and geographically-based staffing
- Conflict between regulation and partner
- Better communication—
- Agree with priorities
- Environmental Justice (EJ) — Representation not EJ at this meeting (lack of diversity)
- Different perspectives important to include
- Whole heartedly enthusiastic about community-based
- Does EPA mean it?
- Business needs to be a partner
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 22
- "The policeman is your friend" campaign
- Think up great examples; big examples; collaborative approach; advertise this approach. Get the word out that
this is different. Need an example where it will work to prove.
- Clear guidance to "consumers"
- Understand limitations of groups which want to do collaborative work. No one can come to lots of meetings.
- Need to get things done quickly with a small amount of staff time. But, we would like to help prove that this can
work within resource limitations.
- Partner vs. Enforcer — business may not want to be at table with EPA. Don't sacrifice enforcement role for
partner.
- Opportunity for groups to come to EPA with ideas for community-based projects/support.
- Do communities approach us for assistance or does EPA decide what to do?
- Put out guidelines—rats/houses example — not in priorities listed.
- What happens when go into a community where problems are not in the "what" category.
- 90-95% of transactions would work
- What happens if one doesn't work? When is US EPA going to step out of partnership to protect the
environment. Those 5% will be community based — when communities come to EPA saying partnership not
working.
- EPA believed to be above local politics — Community-based will draw back into local politics.
- When deal with EPA people issue is if they can be problem solvers — nurture staff who can "keep up".
Community is already thinking this way.
- How are you going know when you're manipulated by your partner—non-good faith by State or industry. Any
partner could act in bad faith.
- Common Sense — double edged sword. This will not always well with community. Common sense changes —
PCB's over time. What does common sense mean?
- EPA needs better response to active opposition. No response to EPA criticism — falls on environmental groups to
respond.
- Better understanding of opposition — clear up misconceptions earlier about environmental issues.
- Get as smart as the opposition. Reality is that there are well-funded entities trying to undermine EPA programs
and the Agency itself.
- Department of Interior/Department of Agriculture have historic service component. EPA doesn't have this as
role was more regulatory. Need to partner with other federal agencies — some work already being done by other
agencies. Some issues may be better dealt with by a different agency.
AFTERNOON SESSION
BEST
- Dealing with Great Lakes Initiative & Water programs in the Region.
- EPA stand on Homestead case in Michigan
—Where the Region has had the flexibility to adapt.
- Every time EPA has issued a post-sanction order to move Illinois along
- Provided support for good use of non-congestion funds.
- Region should scale things down and focus on research, rulemaking & enforcement and work with States on
other activities—States are better equipped for some things than Feds.
- Lawsuits and settlements with Northwest Indiana Steel industry.
- Open and frank discussions with Environmental groups about how we can work together.
- Great waters report.
- Attending environmental group meetings.
- Using sanctions to get Northwest Indiana Inspection & Maintenance
- Need better oversight of State programs.
- Need to keep triennial reviews on schedule.
- Willingness of Region to sign unilateral order for Waste, Inc. Site.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 23
- Dredge of sediments in minority community.
- Willingness of senior management to meet with public.
- Need to build public and grass roots support into programs — fear of increased State capacity because of politics.
- Need to develop benchmarks for measuring progress.
- Miracle of Ken Westlake
- Oak Savannah Conference/initiative
—People moving beyond job descriptions
- Initiation of Chicago wilderness
- Would like to see State and Federal both work on community-level work.
- Need to find outstanding individuals and empower them to innovate.
- EPA providing more resources for community organizations to do their work — EJ summit.
- Work with Office of Regional Counsel on reflecting community concerns in Supplemental Environmental Projects
(SEP's).
- Greater Chicago Pollution Prevention Alliance.
- U.S. EPA support on Balefill issue.
- Needs to be better oversight of State agencies
- Need to see the Agency not just talking, but taking action.
WORST/SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
- Moratorium bill in IL on Hazardous Waste Incineration. Superfund capacity assurance process by EPA undercut
Environmental Group efforts.
- Too many decisions are made at Headquarters or State level.
- IL non-ctg RACT regulations: U.S. EPA could not define who was/was not complying. [Note: "non-ctg RACT"
under the Clean Air Act refers to Reasonable Available Control Technologies for facility categories lacking Control
Technology Guidelines.)
- Meetings with stakeholders haven't yielded as much as hoped, because Congress, others restrict EPA's ability to
act.
- Lost Grant application.
- Inconsistent answers/responses from different levels of government.
- Outreach must go beyond groups that traditionally deal with environmental issues (e.g., housing groups
concerned about lead, asbestos, indoor air, energy efficiency.
- Frustration with Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) on LA Gear (mercury battery problem).
Company's response was bogus, "used" EPA. EPA was asked to press company to make their program legitimate,
and wasn't responsive.
- Disappointed at initial years of Southeast Chicago initiative.
Frequent turnover, no concrete plans or results.
- Because difficult to do community-based work from Regional offices, have other players take a greater role. Get
more community buy-in, less "top-down".
- Keep EPA focused primarily on research, rulemaking, enforcement
- Don't have community-based activities draw off substantial resources from core processes.
- Need community input/understanding to make regulatory programs more palatable, build support.
- EPA needs to be more cognizant of the rest of City, work with more non-governmental organizations. Don't just
pick a few communities at the expense of other areas.
- Indiana potential EPA program takeback, then deferred to State.
- Better oversight of State programs to ensure they are up to par.
- EPA can do mapping/monitoring/info sharing/analysis to allow for better targeting and results.
- 1987 Contaminated sediments not acted on because water quality approvals had been poorly documented.
- Failure to apply best available control technology to a power plant scrubber at Northwest Indiana power plant.
- Failure to adequately assess health impacts at Superfund sites. Need more site access controls.
- Inability of EPA to cluster sites for Superfund action.
- Flip answers, unresponsiveness from EPA employees.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 24
- Once opening up to community, don't limit the numbers who can participate.
- Having to finesse who/how to talk to EPA (politics, protocol, lack of coordination/real response).
- Interoffice politics, backstabbing, more concern about who gets credit than with results.
- EPA Staff to grass-roots groups to provide expertise, resources.
FOLLOW UP
- Commitment for meeting notes within three weeks.
- Summary report once four customer sessions are complete.
- Provide notes from other stakeholder meetings to today's participants.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 25
Stakeholder Meeting
Business/Industry
May 20, 1996
MORNING SESSION
- Mission still feels like Command and Control — Maybe style problem
"We exist to FACILITATE . . . "
- Absence of process — have core competencies, but not for EPA Regulations.
- What do you feel so strongly about you fund.
- Never say we will become a Total Quality Agency.
- What kind of management organization will ?
- Satisfy customers
What do customers want?
What do we offer?
- What — Not stated but assumed
- Assure regulatory compliance
- Past role - Cop (more PUSH than PULL)
- Want to see more PULL.
- Audit privilege developing in States urges EPA to support State audit laws.
- EPA should recognize industry efforts
- EPA should not demand notice if reporting not required and prompt correction occurs
- EPA should recognize companies doing well
- Incorporate in Enforcement Policy
- Help industry plan 5-10-20 years
- Flexibility (i.e. Permits) needs resource support e.g. external contractors
- Holding meetings between Industry, State(s), and EPA
- Eliminate State and EPA duplication
-Region help with Headquarters issues
One of recipients of TSCA subpoena on New River Section 21 Petition; RCRA allegation of maquillodores-
non-compliance without evidence
- HOW — Efficiency — i.e. Superfund settlements —EPA contribute orphan share — Settle with good faith cost
Enforcement vs. Recalcitrant non-settlers
- Curious about how Federal Government chooses community — why would Federal Government work with
community rather than facilitate State involvement.
- Operational Vision — Felt left out
- Regulated industry not a customer
- Businesses are often at odds with community
- Suggest "solve environmental problems with all affected persons"
- We found helpful Cliff Notes on what words mean
- We see values as boundaries of how we make decisions
- Accountability absent — people need to be held accountable
- Experience is that there is a difference between what managers and "middle layer" say. Accountability for
middle layer.
- Agree with needing more pull, less push
- Feel definition of community including business needs to be strengthened. Some people will miss it.
- How will success be measured?
- Cost-effective solutions — people don't look at $$ as a recourse.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 26
- Streamlining process — people want a lot of information. People need to define what will be done with
information. Creates efficiency/accountability.
- Role of Regional Office — integrate other agencies. People need to look at how things can be done in a timely
fashion.
- Mechanism for community feedback (measurement)
- Commit to continue improvement
- What — Where is business in defining the priorities
- Part of the problem and part of solution
- Business priorities have to do with sustainability of business
- Should engage others in priority setting.
- See EPA Regional Offices involvement in Interstate issues as good
- Need measurement on how well we're doing at doing business differently
- Measure also defines roles of people in the community
- Agency problem — Industry will never "love" EPA —EPA has job of identifying Stakeholders and when to
include them and when not to.
- Measurement is a struggle, not just what EPA needs but wants
- Priorities International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14000 priority for business, but don't see it in
priorities...open forum to better align public and private organizations.
- Commendable that Agency is going through process of vision and planning.
- Will really help organization point itself in the direction it wants to go, and get there.
- Inability to have regulatory structure to fulfill some of the vision innovations. "How do I enable this to
happen?" Will need to create flexibility.
- Identify a mechanism for EPA to "slip out" of enforcement mode to work differently with business and
community.
Example — Class V injection wells under Safe Drinking Water Act— letters went out (?????) 1-2 responses -
- Bad data and unwillingness to be identified
- Work at local level to get positive results to programs (especially when large number of small businesses).
- We appear to be saying we facilitate from enforcement position not corrective action position.
- Clean Air Act — Is system too complex to work with?
- In own company measure is number Notices of Violation/Fines logging time to correct environmental problems as
a measure
- Environmental Vision — sustainable environment. Who is the owner? Ideally, provide powerful
tools/infrastructure provided to owners of risk to reduce environmental problems?
- Title 5 of Clean Air Act is worst of all possible scenarios
Too long a cycle to make competitive changes. Cannot compete with long lag periods before change allowed.
- EPA must follow dictate of Congress. What choice do you have?
- clarify community
- Values — Region really needs to work on what's said here
- Region/State (game) of whose problem/decision it is. Need to solve!
- Across Regions decisions need to be consistent (level playing field)
- Sees Title 5 (of CAA) permitting as a continuous process for business success — new Maximum Achievable
Control Technology standard jointly developed. It worked.
- Good things from Title 5 (of CAA) forced people to talk to each other within a plant (managers and assembly
line).
- Forced to talk to regulators more.
- Will be most inflexible operating situation ever.
- Complexity is an issue. There all the time.
Example where to site a new facility. Meld OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and Clean Air
Act section 112 (R). Focus on what ultimate outcome is and we can get there cheaper/faster/easier.
- Complexity very real. Yorktown study would get same results for $10M instead of $40M.
- Expansion is based on permits —CAA Title 5 cannot get permits out fast enough.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 27
- Are groups within Agency which find out how to slap when involved in collaborative activities. Message is that
should not have been involved in collaborative efforts.
- Accountability needed within Agency.
- Asking Agency to invent process to get past complexity. Need to find way to circumvent complexity.
- Region + Process (Headquartes/Regions/States) adds to complexity (model CAA Title 5 meeting in Puerto Rico)
- Process — simplify forms
Forms/Databases should be so simple. It is easy to report and match to community values.
- Private sector role to complete reports and put in Agency databases.
AFTERNOON SESSION
BEST
- Steve Rothblatt & Clean Air Partners Asthmatics
- Superfund remedial investigation of landfill — timely response
- Effective treating Tribes as States
- Good relationship with Agency — Asking Region 5 for priorities
- Asking EPA to speak to company
- Ambassador Program — Superfund, Brownfields Program in Illinois
- Listened well (Superfund section 106 order)
- Negotiating Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Consent Order — NEIC
- Industrial Technical Assistance was good—Very professional conduct by EPA.
- Good give and take on both sides.
- EPA doing outreach on Regulations
- This meeting good experience
- Delegate programs to States so we don't have to deal with US EPA.
- Rulemaking
- Process input
- Dialogue to define solution
- Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) problem solved on permit
- Communication and Flexibility
- Good work with Illinois EPA
- Good inspectors — Technically competent; train others as needed.
- Is compliance assistance helping to improve compliance rate?
- Asbestos Project on track in timely (14 day) fashion.
- At our best when not around — let States do job.
- Always available when industry wants to talk.
- New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and other Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air programs.
- How will we incorporate our 5-year Midwest Strategy Plan with output of this process - Share with participants.
WORST/SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
- Do more meetings like today.
- Tech. People should be more open to new technology.
- SF clearing-house on technology.
- More Total Quality Management training for Superfund remedial program managers.
- Lower turnover of staff
- Be open re: Priorities
- On key projects, have more senior involvement of Federal/State management.
- Convey message to EPA Headquarters regarding RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) Maximum
Achievable Control Technology
- Follow-up meeting one year from now
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 28
- Regional/State/Industry meeting on specific topics i.e. IEPA chamber meetings
- Be more user friendly
- Total Quality concept — develop stronger program with industry — make them accountable
- Make States accountable
- Simplify process.
- Have informational meeting (non-confrontational)
- Work through Trade Association to present information.
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14000 should be #1 approach for EPA
- EPA should be guide, educator, philosopher.
- Flexibility
- Action should match idea
- Communication important.
- One stop shopping on phone calls.
- Be responsible for making initial success
- Full voluntary progress
- If outreach/compliance assistance achieves results without enforcement, take credit.
- More EPA training of own staff.
- Focus on environmental improvement, not punitive actions.
- Give innovative programs support.
- Urged EPA to embrace International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14000.
- Be open to participate & dialogue (Don't snub request to participate).
- Timely resolution of problems/violations.
- Informal process for dispute, resolution(State Agency) & EPA together with industry.
- Communicate results to States
- Get EPA & State in alignment.
- EPA should be open to new information, new approaches.
- Don't kill innovation by making process so difficult that almost no one can qualify.
- Lack of trust
- Need ability to make things simpler rather than planning for every contingency.
- Single point of contact to get answers.
- Commit to make innovations work. Give volunteers a reason to do so. Learn from experiences.
- Flexibility
- Figure out how to bring process together
- Develop strategy
- Share 5-year strategy with business
- Continue these types of meetings
- Ensure follow-up
- Need working level interaction.
- Better advice to States.
- Communicate State/Region/Industry
- EPA Staff- Be civil & well informed.
- Keep communication simple & consistent
- EPA develops internal policies (without benefit of statute/rulemaking.) Need to make policy-development
process more open to stakeholder input.
- Look for ways that innovation can occur, not reasons not to.
- Don't hesitate to call to clarify.
- Do more meetings like today
- Technical people should be more open to new technology.
- Be more flexible — Be truly open to innovation
- Remind Staff of ultimate goal; Goal - How things can be done.
- Communication
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 29
- Look for ways that innovation can occur, not reasons not to. - Don't hesitate to call to clarify.
- Memorandum of Understanding on Brownfields with each State on voluntary cleanup.
- Enforcement case on RCRA (Recource Conservation and Recovery Act) Boilers & Industrial Furnaces; saw no
environmental harm, extensive case concluded with satisfactory outcome, but shouldn't have occurred.
- Air; Ft. Howard boiler has been reviewed for 20 years.
Ft. Howard area-wide Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan establishment. Once attitudes hardened,
communication stopped.
- Sediments; EPA not flexible..Unrealistic risk scenarios
- Superfund Record of Decision management wasteful
- Quality Assurance/Quality Control
- Superfund Enforcement
- Sediment remediation requires too many permits, too many participants.
- Leadership need to be more involved to establish goals
- Superfund case dragged on 12 years
- Urged carve out for settlers, get tough on non-settlers.
- Mass mailing on maquilodores (Mexican border factories) non-compliance without getting evidence first.
- Having to pay attorneys to contact EPA, in desire to ask questions anonymously.
- How to get Superfund scoring data. Very unresponsive timing.
- Lake Michigan water study, potential to translate to other basins.
- Ozone Transport Assessment Group is pushing consistency in different areas, despite different risks?
- Snubbed by EPA to participate in training/informational seminars, despite EPA promises to attend.
- Being told "You can't do it that way", without viable options offered
- Many information requests over 5-year period without issuance of complaint or negotiations.
- State Inspector holding Huge abandoned industrial site to same practices as an occupied specified approach.
- Suggest forum for resolving State dispute without legions of attorneys.
- Concern over State/Federal inconsistency.
- 3 months shutdown because contamination wasn't documented/acted upon quickly (too much time-consuming
paperwork)
- Too much reporting (costs time/$ to generate, is it really needed?) e.g., Clean Air Act Title 5 Data
-Multi-media inspection is nightmare. Plant staff overwhelmed
2-year dialog ensues.
- Too much paperwork without adequate basis.
- Agree with/1 Division & couldn't solve problems with other Division.
- Import violation that based on confusion of where compliance reported Headquarters vs. Region.
- New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) industrial boiler Enforcement case in early 80's
- Flexibility. Make it real!
- How to take this input, turn it into strategy that EPA/States/others implement.
- Industry need to understand EPA's direction so they can be pro-active.
- Need these meetings to be at least yearly and have interactive dialogue, and implementation.
- States hesitant to innovate, worried about EPA reaction.
- State/Region couldn't make Best Available Control Technology Determination under Clean Air Act—Delay.
- Compliance demonstration led to very unpleasant, rude litigation. Attorney unable to articulate rationale. Never
resolved, pending for years.
- Wants courtesy call/heads-up before inquiry turns into order with press release.
- Rude, ill-informed, abrasive attorney at EPA.
- Notifiers can become TARGETS.
- How to identify/bring into compliance those who don't notify, remain underground?
- Make rules more usable, understandable to reduce incentives to avoid regulatory framework.
- Difficult consistent messages throughout organizations.
- EPA failing to act consistently. Don't let staff be a roadblock. Escalate issues to reflect management vision.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 30
Stakeholder Meeting
Small Business
May 31, 1996
Observations
- EPA should realize culture and importance of small business
- EPA perceived with fear
- EPA perceived putting them out of business
- Not here to put out of business, but to help
- EPA doesn't directly communicate until trouble
- Need pro-active communication with small business
- Offer technical assistance on alternatives, not just enforcement
- Most small business wants to do right things; wants help, not reprisals
- Improve EPA/small business communication
- Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program major issue for petroleum marketers
- Fear that EPA will put people out of business; local governments have same concerns, "big hammer"
- Most business people concerned about environment, but fear cleanups that would otherwise occur
- Public review of community based plans
- Issues develop when residences follow business
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14000 — will we have our own standards or use ISO 14000?
- EPA supports environmental management/information systems for business
- Supports technical assistance especially on pollution prevention
- Business relates more directly with states. Why should states have to get federal approval (e.g., IL amnesty
program). Note: EPA was asked, but declined to endorse, but Federal approval not needed
- Urge good public education without heavy threat of fines
- Concern that 80% of cleanup costs go to lawyers
- Had to bring suit to get de minimis settlement at superfund site. Had to make financial disclosure. Process was
very intimidating
- Address the superfund ratio = $ to lawyers: $ to cleanup, Now:80 : 20; Ideal:20 : 80
- Change culture; Start in schools, focus on improvements over time, define rules more precisely; work more
closely with folks doing clean-up
- There are issues with bureaucracies
- Figure out priorities
- Stop/prevent pollution
- Look for better, cheaper ways
- How are EPA standards set?
- Understand natural processes relations with pollutants
- Be reasonable in standard setting
- U.S. EPA dictates to Illinois EPA, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District to business
- Irritation that big government doesn't understand how small business works
- Especially critical time impacts on business
- Laws are so difficult to understand, have to hire people to understand, Why can't government help figure it out?
- Huge time delays in permits for simple things. Pure red tape. Silly things: need all day seminar, 2 or 3 times a
year to explain what needs to be done
- Common-sense outreach needed to educate business on how to do right thing quickly without time-consuming
red tape
- Competitive pressures drive business timing
- Need more emphasis on training/education, so that small business doesn't have to rely so heavily on consultants,
attorneys
- Make EPA staff more accessible to answer questions, provide timely service
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 31
- Businesses want to comply, but in practical, reasonable, timely ways
- EPA perceived as "rule quoter"
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14000 policy - goes to suppliers
- Are policies based on current technologies or future technologies?
- Clean Air Act Title 5 issues rely on futuristic technologies
- Concerns over paperwork, proofs needed for reclamation
- EPA used to specify technology, shifting to environmental results, with flexibility on how these standards are
achieved
- New plants should drive/use up-to-date approaches
- Difficult for industry, especially small firms, to react to costly shifts in requirements
- Better EPA outreach will give business more lead time to react.
- Superfund liability has driven many small firms out of business.
- Small firms can't afford outside experts.
- Government representatives don't know about their industry. Need more industry specific information.
- Communicate! Go to their town—grassroots; there are 1000's of companies who want to work with you, but
don't know how; make things understandable.
- Fear of EPA. Call for meeting surprised by "yes" reply. This company is involved; most fear...
- Why does it take so long to get rid of bad players? Even after conviction, they often stay in business.
- Concerned with getting bounced around EPA to have questions answered.
- Asbestos flooring removal generates more chemical hazardousness than mechanical methods.
- Got the run-around and mis-information. That cost the firm money and generated safety problems. Regulatory
barriers to use of new technology.
- EPA: example of needing performance based (such a system of distrust)
- EPA: cultural problems with change.
- We are here as friends, but even here all have problems.
- EPA: this is very positive for us to hear; Superfund potentially responsible parties (PRP) big problem
- Q: on standards for underground storage tanks. EPA will check.
- Renovation of tank farm — expensive planning & $$.
- Education is key to business handling chemicals safely.
- Extensive state/local oversight of tank installation & remediation.
- Firm benefitted from attending seminars, keeping current on technical/regulatory developments.
- How to get information to large number of firms in timely fashion?
- EPA will provide list of free software for variety of environmental issues.
- Software to Small Business Administration & state association
- Idea-anonymous hotline for problems. Example: problem—Illinois EPA came, kept the project going.
- National Association of Chemical Distributors; problem solves: has fact sheets, etc.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 32
EPA/Stakeholder Meeting
Local Governments
June 21,1996
- Inability to communicate EPA priorities to local community level
- Too much top- down identification of problems with solutions being directed to locals
- Customer service message being lost in translation through IEPA
- IEPA/EPA/Local = needs to be better partnership
- IEPA rapid response on Brownfields sites working well
- Approach everything with team concept, with shorter response times, more genuine listening/engagement
- EPA discussed performance partnership agreement to redefine roles/expectations
- How has EPA built partnerships, especially with smaller municipalities
- Local governments fear seeking compliance assistance out of fear of enforcement
- IEPA clean break small business amnesty seen as mechanism for compliance assistance
- Provide small business self audit policies
- Local air agencies concerned about impacts of performance partnerships
- Concern that when agreements made with one level of government, others don't/won't honor (Illinois tanks
program is example)
- Funds come as a "Demonstration" and not transferable
- Environmental software available from EPA (including via Internet)
- Provide lists of software to attendees
- Need to share more national work products with locals
- Increasingly local government contacts are with States, little with Feds
- EPA trying to share workload, less hierarchical, less duplication
- EPA publications high quality
- Planning - Focus on having local government involved in planning process (EPA involved in local government
planning)
- S.E. Wisconsin - Urban Sprawl/Land use in largest problem
- EPA should find ways to support solid land use planning
- Urban sprawl — explain connections to Environmental issues; "Inform the debate".
- EPA information often so technical that it doesn't reach, inform, or impact local decision-makers or general
public
- Tailor information in understandable/accessible ways
- Talk via existing organizations (e.g. Northwest Municipal Conference, Illinois Municipal League)
- Local governments want to have quality of life, but need understanding & practical tools. Why are certain
programs/practices needed?
- Present alternatives and explain why it is important to achieve results
- EPA's goals/local government goals need to be understood by each other
- EPA should be wary of being "used" by factions of local government—be cautious
- West Central Municipal Conference Brownfields Grant has worked to improve trust
-EPA outreach facilitates all parties involvement in problem identification and solution
- Provide environment for problem identification and solution and avoid a adversarial environment of court
- Best: Interaction with EPA personnel (e.g., Klevs, Sipe)
- Best: Involvement in Chicago biodiversity project (catalyst, expertise, networking)
- Best: Staff who are risk-takers/innovators. Those who aren't (e.g. by-the-book staff) are detriment
- Best: EPA plan involvement with local/State on Chiwaukee Prairie preservation resolved problems, had
environmental benefit
- Best: Brownfield Team. Mind set of assistance-providers
- Brownfields — supports creativity (start may have internal struggle among EPA staff)
- Timely and appropriate response by Agency Staff has changed from '87->'95. Improved greatly in '95
- Pretreatment technical assistance and information dissemination has improved greatly
- Internal Agency issues get in the way of working well together: Headquarters vs. Region, etc.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 33
- Will EPA stay committed to community-based? Will EPA's culture change with administrations or will new
approaches survive/permeate organization?
- EPA reply: Feels customer focus culture will endure. Size isn't as critical as effectiveness
- Important to simplify/clarify our publications and communications tools (e.g.Small-Quantity Generator, Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks brochures excellent)
- Explain what is needed and why. Be more pro-active disseminating these
- EPA needs to address local groups and associations in clear fashion. Use these forums routinely
- Region 5/State communication needs to filter down to local government — clarify regulation interpretations
- Need to plan for new rules sooner/better
- Local customer service with Dave Kee (Region 5 Air and Radiation Division) great!
- We no longer confuse announcement with discussion
- Agency not always informed about existing environmental situation
- How well does EPA understand a specific environmental problem? Need more sharing of relevant information
across levels of government
- Region often fails to see flexibility intended by Headquarters regulation writers
- Failure to examine issues holistically/cross-media. One EPA program undercutting credibility of another
program (example: Water standards not understood by Air program)
- State filtering of Federal Policy. Understanding/options lost in transition
- Direct implementation of Wetland Advanced Identification filled gaps of State role with locals
- Do Better: Visit the customers once in awhile
- Waukegan Harbor cleanup better off on balance since this occurred; landfill answers need to come soon
- Waukegan Mayors Fishing Derby — You can now eat the salmon
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 34
Appendix F
September 24 Draft
CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS
of
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA's Universal Standards represent the overarching goals of the Agency for its customer service performance.
The Universal Standards are for all employees use in serving all external and internal customers. An EPA
organization may set its own customized standards which may be more rigorous.
UNIVERSAL CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS
In carrying out our mission to protect public health and the environment,
1. We will be courteous, professional, flexible, honest, and helpful in all dealings with our customers. We
will actively listen so we can better understand what motivates our customers and how we can best
provide the environmental products, services and information they value, and be fully responsive to
customer concerns and needs regarding our services.
2. We will answer all telephone calls promptly, and will respond to them by close of the next business day. If
the person receiving the call cannot fully respond to the inquiry, the customer will be accurately referred
to someone who can.
3. We will respond to all correspondence within 10 working days of receipt. If we cannot provide a complete
reply within 10 working days, we will contact the customer as soon as possible within the 10 day period
to acknowledge and clarify their request, discuss what is required to provide a full response, and
determine when they will receive a full response.
4. We will provide our customers with clear, easy to understand, timely, and accurate information about
products, services, policies and procedures. We will ensure that customers have easy access to
information, available through convenient channels, and in various formats.
5. Relationships with our co-implementors of environmental programs, the State, Tribal and local
governments, and other Federal agencies, will be characterized by partnership, flexibility, and assistance
that empowers them to expand their ability to deliver environmental protection.
6. We will seek customer input to inform our decisions on policies, programs, and rules.
The groups of standards below apply specifically to each of the eight Core Processes which provide products and
services to Agency customers.
PUBLIC ACCESS STANDARDS
These standards apply to requests for general information from the public. They do not apply where legal
requirements take precedence, such as Freedom of Information Act inquiries. They are in addition to the universal
standards and amplify them as they apply to working with the general public.
1. We will strive to make information available through a variety of channels, including electronic media and
intermediaries, such as, community organizations and local libraries.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 35
2. We will hold ourselves accountable for a satisfactory response by providing mechanisms (contact names
and telephone numbers or e-mail addresses) for reporting back on the quality of our responses and
referrals.
3. If you write to us (via mail, fax or computer):
• We will mail a response within ten business days of receipt. If we need more time to research the
answer, we will contact you within those ten days to tell you when to expect our response and
who the contact person is.
4. If you telephone us:
• We will provide an Agency-wide public information telephone line, which will help route
inquiries.
• We will answer the call promptly and courteously.
• We will make every effort to answer questions immediately. Where that is not possible, we will
provide a timetable for responding during the initial conversation.
5. If you contact us via computer:
• We will provide a single address for connection to all EPA resources on the Internet
[http://www.epa.gov].
• We will provide descriptions, including source and known quality, of data made available
electronically.
RESEARCH GRANTS STANDARDS
The following standards amplify and expand the universal standards, applying them to the research grants
process:
1. When issuing requests for proposals to all interested parties, we will include a tentative timetable for
activities in the selection process, so that applicants will know when they may learn if their proposal is
selected for funding.
2. We will acknowledge receipt of proposals and applications within 15 working days from the cut-off date
for receipt. The acknowledgment will include a unique identification number for each proposal and
application so that applicants and agency personnel can more efficiently track their status.
3. The grants management office will conduct the administrative and legal reviews required for a proper
award and issue the award of assistance agreements within 60 days from having received a complete
request for funding from the research organization.
4. For active grants, the grants management office will process requests for administrative amendments to
grants and issue the amendments within four weeks of the receipt of complete requests forwarded by the
research organization.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 36
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION STANDARDS
The standards following apply specifically to tbe pesticide registration process and should be used in conjunction
with the universal standards. They are still undergoing review by customers and staff, and will be revised in the
near future.
1. We will answer telephone calls within 24 hours of receipt, when possible. If the person receiving the call
cannot fully respond to the inquiry, the customer will be forwarded to someone who can.
2. We will work to answer all correspondence within 10 working days of receipt. However, if our customers
have raised questions which require extensive research to answer, it may take us longer. If we cannot
provide a complete reply promptly, we will contact the customer within the 10-day period to explain why
and when they may expect a full response.
3. We will seek opportunities to involve all affected stakeholders prior to our major regulatory or policy
decisions.
4. We will provide clear and accurate information about the policies and procedures for pesticide
registrations and reregistrations.
5. We will process applications and complete evaluations as promptly and as efficiently as possible without
compromising either scientific quality or health and safety considerations.
6. We will ensure that we meet our statutory responsibilities to provide customers with easy access to all
available information on pesticides.
7. We will proactively involve States, Tribes, and EPA Regions prior to establishing major policies or making
major regulatory decisions affecting them.
8. We will undertake periodic surveys to find out what our customers think of our services and how we
could make further improvements.
PERMITTING STANDARDS
In addition to the universal standards, the following four standards apply to this process:
For our three major customer groups (the general public, the regulated community and delegated State, Tribal, and
local programs):
1. We will prepare permits that are clear, fair, appropriate, and effective.
2. Our staff will be knowledgeable, responsive, cooperative, and available.
3. We will work with representatives of delegated programs to continually improve our delegation processes,
so that they are as efficient, effective, and nonburden.>ome as possible.
4. For the regulated community, we will make our permit decision within the time frame that is established
for the type of permit being requested.
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS STANDARDS
The following standards amplify the universal standards and provide additional goals for this process:
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 37
1. We will always treat our customers with professional courtesy and respect.
2. We will proactively provide our customers accurate, up-to-date, and reliable information, products, and
services, including high quality documents and publications.
3. We will actively listen to our customers' concerns and needs regarding our services and will develop
technical assistance services, where possible, designed to address those needs and concerns.
4. We will ensure that inquiries will be referred to the right office and individual in EPA, or beyond EPA, if
appropriate. We will encourage customers to report back on unsuccessful referrals.
5. We will respond as expeditiously as possible to inquiries for information.
6. We will strive to make information available through various channels, including electronic media, faxes,
and intermediaries such as state assistance organizations, trade associations, and state agencies.
7. We will recognize and publicly acknowledge the accomplishments of our customers who achieve success
in voluntary programs.
8. We will make every effort to streamline and make customer reporting requirements as practical and least
burdensome as possible.
STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL PROGRAM GRANTS STANDARDS
The Program Grants Core Process standards were distributed to customers in July 1996 with a questionnaire
recently approved by OMB. Changes to the standards will be based on customer feedback as well as comments
from EPA staff.
1. We will reduce the amount of grant paperwork by 25% through such activities as consolidation of
application and reporting requirements, electronic transfer, and multi-year grant work programs.
2. We will acknowledge receipt of all grant applications within 10 working days.
3. For established grant programs, we will award grants funds within 90 days after receipt of a complete
grant application (provided that the responsible EPA office has received funding authorization).
4. We will consult, in a timely manner, with states, tribes, and localities throughout the development of all
major grants guidance and policy documents.
ENFORCEMENT INSPECTIONS AND COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE STANDARDS
The following standards apply in addition to the universal standards:
Compliance Assistance Field Representatives:
1. Requests for field assistance will be provided in a timely manner, taking resource constraints and expertise
into consideration. Where assistance cannot be provided by the Agency, accurate referrals to other
Federal, State or local agencies; private organizations; or educational institutions will be provided as
appropriate.
-------
Customer Service in Region 5 Page 38
2. Field representatives will be technically knowledgeable, understand the Federal regulatory requirements
and Agency compliance and enforcement policies that apply to the facility, and be courteous and
professional.
Compliance Inspectors:
3. Inspectors will make clear who he or she represents and the purpose of the visit.
4. Inspectors will be technically knowledgeable; understand the Federal regulatory requirements and
Agency compliance and enforcement policies that apply to the facility, and be courteous and professional.
Compliance Assistance Tools:
5. In developing compliance assistance tools, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance will:
o Develop tools responsive to the needs and concerns raised by all interested stakeholders.
o Seek opportunities to involve all interested stakeholders in the development of compliance
assistance tools.
o Strive to make information available through a variety of channels, including electronic media and
intermediaries (e.g., trade associations, state assistance organizations, state agencies, and
community organizations)
Compliance Assistance Centers
6. All Compliance Assistance Centers will be operated consistent with the universal and public access
standards, and any additional standards established for individual centers.
Enforcement
,7. In all enforcement actions, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance will be legally and
technically knowledgeable, courteous and professional, and will work to resolve issues as expeditiously as
possible.
RULEMAKING STANDARDS
In addition to the universal standards, the following standards apply to rulemaking:
1. We will ensure that customers have input into the rule development process by conducting public forums,
or using electronic media or other forms of communication.
2. We will write rules so they can be understood by the people who use and implement them. Rules will be
tailored to the legal and technical knowledge and resources available to those affected.
3. We will include, in the preamble of all Federal Register notices accompanying a proposed or final rule, a
plain English explanation summarizing the problem the rule is trying to solve, a summary of what the rule
requires, and a short explanation of how the rule solves the problem.
4. We will work to ensure that all members of the regulated community know what is expected of them. To
the extent possible, we will work with trade association, the press and others to notify all known parties
who must comply with the rule through written or electronic media.
------- |