United States Office of Policy, EPA 100-R 00-024
Environmental Protection Economics, and October 2000
Agency Innovation (1801) www.epa.gov/ProjectXL
Project XL
Stakeholder
Involvement
Evaluation
Final Report
October 2000
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
by the Southeast Negotiation Network
-------
Credits
This evaluation report was prepared based on interviews with over seventy-five
participants in Project XL stakeholder processes. The names of these individuals are noted in
Appendix A of this report.
Consultant support was provided under Contract 68-W4-0001 between EPA and
RESOLVE, Inc. and Contract 68-W-99-010 between EPA and Marasco Newton Group, Ltd.
Under subcontract to RESOLVE and Marasco Newton Group, Michael Elliott of the Southeast
Negotiation Network, Atlanta, Georgia, served as principal investigator and author. Research
assistance was provided by Tony Giarrusso and Alison Nichols.
The Project Officer was Katherine Dawes, of EPA's Office of Environmental Policy
Innovation. Eric Marsh, also of EPA's Office of Environmental Policy Innovation, assisted in the
review and editing of this report.
-------
Table of Contents
Credits i
Table of Contents ii
Executive Summary
Stakeholder Involvement in Project XL 1
Approach to Evaluating Stakeholder Involvement for Project XL 2
Major Findings 2
Strategic Findings and Opportunities for Improvement 7
Evaluation Protocols and Overview
Stakeholder Involvement in Project XL 11
How do Stakeholder Involvement Processes Fit Into Project XL Decision Making? ... 12
Approach to Evaluating Stakeholder Involvement for Project XL 13
Brief Overview of the Eight XL Projects 14
Organization of this Report 19
Findings and Conclusions
1. The Need for Flexibility 21
2. Stakeholders' Expectations and Concerns 26
3. Barriers to Effective Stakeholder Involvement 34
Strategic Opportunities for Improvement
1. Link goals, roles, expectations and resources through effective process design 39
2. Develop incentives for more meaningful participation 39
3. Promote facilitative leadership within EPA 40
4. Develop clearer guidance on how best to involve national stakeholders,
particularly in strategically directed XL projects 40
5. Systematize and share the experience of past XL projects
to improve future efforts 41
6. Examine the impact of the Federal Advisory Committee Act on efforts to promote
stakeholder participation in innovative and experimental processes 41
Case Studies
Andersen Corporation 45
Atlantic Steel 51
CK Witco 63
ExxonMobil 69
HADCO 77
Intel 83
New England Universities Laboratories 89
-------
Vandenberg Air Force Base 99
Appendices
A. List of Interviewees by Project 104
B. Research Method 107
C. Glossary 109
in
-------
Executive Summary
Stakeholder Involvement in Project XL
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency initiated Project XL in March 1995. Project
XL seeks to promote innovative initiatives that improve environmental performance at reduced
cost. Each project is initiated by a sponsor who proposes an environmental management project
that requires some flexibility in environmental regulations or procedures. All projects are
individually designed by project sponsors and reviewed by EPA personnel for inclusion into
Project XL. If EPA approves the project, the project sponsor is afforded flexibility on an
experimental basis, conditional on demonstration of expected environmental benefits.
EPA seeks to ensure that modification of regulatory requirements or procedures will meet
local needs while protecting the environment. To this end, EPA requires meaningful and
organized participation on the part of stakeholders in all XL projects. Stakeholder involvement is
a collaborative working relationship between project sponsors (organizations who propose XL
projects) and stakeholders (people who believe they or their community could be affected by the
project).
Such participation helps ensure that projects remain open and accountable to the
communities in which they are located. Stakeholder involvement requirements also help ensure
that stakeholders with an interest in the proposed project have an opportunity to learn about the
nature of the project, identify issues that may have escaped the notice of project sponsors and
regulators, and provide feedback regarding their concerns.
As a program designed to promote innovation, Project XL has attracted a wide diversity
of projects. Sponsors of projects range from manufacturing facilities and university labs to
municipalities and military installations, with projects spanning from pollution prevention to air
pollution control to urban redevelopment. Communities in which projects are located are
similarly varied, ranging from very rural to very urban. Stakeholder groups are at times small,
homogenous communities and at other times a rich diversity of competing interests and
perspectives. Projects are located in EPA regions from across the United States.
Not surprisingly, the approaches used by project sponsors to involve stakeholders varies
considerably as well. While EPA policies and guidance documents establish a common basis for
designing these processes, the guidance provides considerable latitude. As a result, project
sponsors work with stakeholders in very different ways.
We are left, then, with several important questions related to program flexibility,
expectations of stakeholders and project sponsors, and barriers to effective involvement. These
questions include:
! Flexibility in process design: To what degree of specificity should EPA policy
delineate stakeholder involvement processes? How much flexibility should be afforded
Executive Summary - 1
-------
project sponsors? How can EPA most effectively promote best practices in the design
and implementation of stakeholder processes?
! Expectations of stakeholders and sponsors: Under existing EPA policies, are
stakeholders afforded opportunities to participate that are coincident with their
expectations, concerns and stake in the outcome? How does this mesh with the
concerns of project sponsors? How can EPA most effectively facilitate productive
relationships between stakeholders and sponsors?
! Barriers to effective involvement: Can we identify specific characteristics of
stakeholder involvement processes that contribute to or block effective involvement
and satisfaction with that involvement? What might EPA do to reduce the impact of
these barriers?
These questions frame our evaluation of the Project XL stakeholder involvement
processes.
Approach to Evaluating Stakeholder Involvement for Project XL
Researchers with the Southeast Negotiation Network evaluated the eight XL projects
presented in this report in 1999. The cases were selected to clarify the purposes, techniques and
impacts of stakeholder involvement at various stages of decision-making. The projects assessed
included Andersen Corporation, Atlantic Steel Site (Jacoby Development), CK Witco (previously
Witco and OSi Specialties), Exxon/Mobil (Sharon Steel Superfund Site), HADCO, Intel, New
England Universities Laboratories, and Vandenberg Air Force Base.
For each case, the evaluation team interviewed participants in the stakeholder involvement
process. For the eight cases, interviews were conducted with over 75 community representatives,
company sponsors, EPA staff, local and state government agency staff and other stakeholders.
Major Findings
The Need for Flexibility
While some XL projects attract strong interest on the part of many stakeholders (e.g.,
Atlantic Steel), others attract little concern from stakeholders other than government agencies
(e.g., Vandenberg Air Force Base and HADCO). More commonly, projects may attract varying
degrees of concern from different stakeholders (e.g., New England Universities Laboratories
attracted little participation from either neighbors of the labs or environmental activists, but
considerably more from potentially affected laboratories).
A number of factors help shape the demand for stakeholder participation. These include
the proximity of the stakeholders to the project site, the potential impact of the project on specific
stakeholders, the trust afforded to the sponsor and EPA, the relationship that existed between the
sponsor and the stakeholders prior to the Project XL application, the perceived desirability of the
project, the technical complexity of the project, the potential for setting precedents, and the scale
of the stakeholder groups.
Executive Summary - 2
-------
Each of these factors is important to the design of stakeholder involvement processes.
Thus, flexibility is needed in the design and implementation of stakeholder processes if those
processes are to respond effectively to differences in local context and concerns. EPA's policy to
provide overall guidance while permitting considerable latitude in process design therefore seems
appropriate.
At the same time, while flexibility is needed, EPA policy appears to provide too much
discretion to project sponsors. In particular, the policy does not delineate criteria for determining
which stakeholders should be afforded what levels of involvement. This can engender significant
tension when the expectations of the stakeholders for involvement in the process exceed the
willingness of project sponsors to involve these stakeholders.
Project XL stakeholder involvement processes are designed and implemented by the
project sponsors. Within the eight XL projects evaluated for this report, over half of the sponsors
developed involvement processes that primarily sought to share information with stakeholders,
while a smaller number sought to promote dialogue or to build consensus with stakeholders. In
most cases, the differences in levels of involvement bear a reasonable relationship to the context
and preferences of the stakeholders for participation. But the cases also show that the
predilections of the sponsors to involve stakeholders, as well as the ability of the sponsors to
design and manage more complex forms of participation, also play an important role in shaping
the levels of participation.
EPA's guidance documents for stakeholder processes contribute to expectations on the
part of some stakeholders as to their influence over project decisions. Stakeholders who seek
active involvement and a voice in XL project decisions read the EPA criteria as allowing them a
choice as to their level of involvement. At the same time, XL project sponsors feel they have the
responsibility and authority to design processes. Consequently, some stakeholder processes are
designed in ways that do not meet stakeholders' expectations for involvement.
Differences in expectations between sponsor and stakeholders are by no means unique to
Project XL. Differences in interests often lead to differences in perception and expectations in
stakeholder involvement processes. Yet two aspects of this problem stand out. First, greater
attention to the design of the stakeholder process and to the development of clear goals for the
process will provide a more solid foundation for managing the involvement processes. Second,
EPA often has more incentive to design and implement effective participation processes than do
project sponsors. In particular, the person best positioned to assess the adequacy of the
stakeholder involvement process is the regional EPA project coordinator assigned to oversee the
project.
EPA minimum standards for stakeholder involvement, particularly as interpreted by the
regional XL project coordinators, appear to be the most important external impetus to the
sponsor for designing participation processes. But the influence of EPA project coordinators over
stakeholder processes is used sparingly. Often, EPA personnel felt that more full participation
would have been desirable. But while EPA personnel felt free to insist on minimal standards of
acceptability, they rarely pressed for levels of participation not clearly required in the guidance
documents.
Executive Summary - 3
-------
Two dynamics seem to contribute to project coordinators' hesitancy at promoting more
effective participation processes. First, as environmental specialists, project coordinators are
primarily concerned with improving environmental quality. Moreover, they rarely are trained in
stakeholder involvement processes, and are therefore less confident of their judgements in this
arena. In practice, then, coordinators are often cautious in their promotion of stakeholder
processes.
Second, the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) add to the
uncertainty of project coordinators. Advisory committees established by federal agencies must
meet a wide array of FACA requirements associated with public notice, composition, and process
design and implementation. If EPA directly organized XL participation processes, FACA would
apply. Since many of FACA's requirements are designed for large-scale advisory processes, these
requirements would be difficult to meet in the case of XL projects. Project XL guidance
documents therefore give responsibility for stakeholder involvement processes to XL project
sponsors, and not EPA. At the same time, guidance documents establish criteria for effective
participation. Yet, from the perspective of many EPA coordinators, project sponsors remain
solely responsible for the design and implementation of the stakeholder involvement process. This
limits the willingness of project coordinators to press for substantial improvements in process
design, even though they could exercise influence through their review of the project sponsor's
adherence to participation guidance criteria.
What can be done to balance these conflicting concerns within EPA? To begin with, EPA
has already made significant progress in clarifying the role of stakeholder processes in XL project
development, and in providing clearer guidelines for process design and implementation. In
addition, EPA could provide project sponsors with more concrete assistance in the design of
effective processes. Effective design helps operationalize EPA criteria in the context of a
particular XL project. Moreover, project sponsors appear to be more open to suggestions early in
the process, before they are committed to a particular approach to public involvement. Since
process design requires more expertise and experience than regional EPA staff are likely to
possess, EPA Headquarters will need to work more closely with project sponsors and regional
EPA project coordinators to provide such assistance early in the process.
Stakeholders' Expectations and Concerns
Stakeholder involvement processes are designed largely by project sponsors, and the
resultant processes are mostly geared toward meeting the sponsor's needs. Sponsors that must
negotiate with stakeholders over potentially conflicting issues or sponsors that are high profile
companies that seek to build good working relationships with their constituencies develop more
sophisticated processes of involvement. Sponsors with more localized constituencies and with less
controversial projects involve non-agency stakeholders later in the process and in more limited
ways.
Sponsors often envision the primary objective of the stakeholder process as building
legitimacy for the proposed project, rather than interactively working out problems that emerge
from the project. Negotiations occur rarely except between project sponsors and regulatory
agencies, or informally between sponsors and specific interest groups. The primary emphasis is on
transparency, with project sponsors (often based on EPA project staff advice) acting to provide
Executive Summary - 4
-------
information to the community, and checking to make sure that no significant opposition emerges
from stakeholder groups.
A large proportion of participants in the stakeholder involvement processes interviewed
were satisfied with the projects set forth in final project agreements. Most participants were also
satisfied with their roles in the processes, even though these roles were often limited to
information exchange or commentary. However, in XL projects where important differences in
interests and perspectives existed, stakeholders were less satisfied, often insisting that more
dialogue and consensus-based processes were needed. In these cases, expectations of participants
exceeded that of sponsors with regard to citizen involvement in decision-making.
Overall, satisfaction with participatory processes depended primarily on three variables: 1)
the willingness of project sponsors to involve stakeholders at a level consistent with the
stakeholders' concerns and expectations, 2) the consistency between the stakeholders'
expectations as to their influence over decision-making and the stakeholders' perception about
their actual impact, and 3) the level and efficiency of effort required to participate.
The degree of community involvement is often, but not always, related to the degree of
community concern and the potential impact of the project on the surrounding community. In
communities where desire to participate is low, sponsors have little incentive to actively engage
stakeholders. More active involvement processes are usually found in communities with active
concerns. Yet, projects that elicit a high degree of community concern and that have greater
potential for negative impacts on stakeholders do not necessarily develop processes that
encourage greater participation. Stakeholder involvement is also linked to the local and regional
politics of the project. Sponsors of complex and potentially conflictual projects may well design
processes that bifurcate stakeholders in ways that allows for more direct involvement of parties
with the power to block the project, and less direct involvement of impacted stakeholders who
lack that power.
From the cases examined, sponsors are most likely to design interactive, dialogue-based
forums for participation when the proposed project affects a clearly recognizable community of
stakeholders, those stakeholders are capable of organizing, and the stakeholders are important
constituencies of the project sponsor.
XL participation processes that promote acceptance of project agreements and satisfaction
with participation processes exhibit several shared characteristics. Successful processes clearly
present the intent of the sponsor as to the purpose of the process and its impact on decision
making, effectively identify participants who represent the range of stakeholders and community
interests, and effectively design processes of participation that remain open and transparent to
stakeholders, resolve stakeholder concerns where possible, provide for fair opportunities for
participation, and efficiently use the time and resources of stakeholders, government agencies and
sponsors.
In several projects, neither the project sponsors nor EPA personnel involved in the
projects had specific training or experience in developing stakeholder involvement processes. In
these cases, project sponsors designed involvement processes that lacked clear structure and
Executive Summary - 5
-------
objectives, were reactive rather than proactive, and fostered stakeholder expectations that were
inconsistent with process design.
Barriers to Effective Stakeholder Involvement
XL stakeholder processes face a number of obstacles. The significance of the obstacles
vary by whether the involvement process was designed to promote consultation and consensus
building, or sought a more limited goal of exchanging information between the sponsor and
stakeholders.
In consultative and consensus building processes, the two most significant barriers to
effective participation include time commitments required to participate and the capacity of
stakeholders to understand and verify technical issues. Time commitments are a problem,
particularly for community representatives, because meaningful consultation and consensus
building are often time consuming. Technical issues further complicate these processes because
most XL projects involve a variety of complex technical decisions. When stakeholders trust the
sponsor, they often simply accepted explanations provided by sponsors and EPA. However, when
stakeholders either do not trust the sponsor or disagree with the sponsor's conclusions,
participants need better access to and more capacity to verify the conclusions drawn from
technical data. This often creates conflict, since few participants have the skills and resources
needed to verify information independently from EPA or the sponsor.
In information exchange processes, the most significant barrier to participation is the
design and implementation of the process. While some information-exchange processes are
systematically designed, most have no clear plan of action. In the absence of systematic
approaches to encourage information exchange, efforts to communicate with and to elicit
responses from stakeholders often produce little result.
Other findings of interest include the following.
! Efforts to focus the XL project meetings exclusively on XL issues often frustrated
stakeholders. This was particularly true when stakeholders were primarily concerned
with issues associated with, but not directly caused by, the XL project.
! Few processes actively involved national groups. Moreover, in projects where national
groups were included, the interaction between local and national stakeholders was very
limited. In most cases, national groups chose to conserve their resources by providing
written and verbal comments instead of directly participating, or to not participate at
all. At the same time, processes were rarely designed to provide efficient opportunities
for involvement by national stakeholders, and a few created impediments to direct
involvement.
! Management of meetings was rarely seen as an issue in and of itself. Issues concerning
the management of meetings were almost always linked to larger issues of process
design and implementation.
! Finally, participation dropped significantly during the implementation phase.
Executive Summary - 6
-------
Strategic Findings and Opportunities for Improvement
1. Link goals, roles, expectations and resources through effective process design.
The stakeholder involvement process within Project XL requires considerable flexibility to
meet the diverse needs of different projects. At the same time, flexibility can contribute to a
significant gap between the language incorporated into EPA's guidance documents and the
standards applied in local processes. On the one hand, the guidance documents set a goal of
providing stakeholders with a choice as to how they wish to participate. On the other hand, the
program requirements allow project sponsors to delineate the range of options available to
stakeholders, as well as who has access to which options. As a result, expectations of
participation at times exceeds opportunities for participation.
To maintain flexibility while promoting more effective participation, greater care is needed
in the design and early implementation of the participation processes. Sponsors (and EPA) should
implement more systematic convening processes, in which the needs and concerns of the various
stakeholder groups are identified, potential representatives are selected, and the stakeholder
involvement process is appropriately designed.
A well designed process helps clarify the goals of the process and the roles of the various
parties and stakeholders. This in turn provides a more realistic basis for stakeholder expectations
and helps identify resources needed to implement the process. Effective convening is made even
more important by EPA's attempts to streamline the XL process. Streamlining increases the speed
at which timely involvement processes must be developed and implemented.. EPA's recent
provision of facilitation services for initial Project XL stakeholder meetings is a step in the right
direction, but a more systematic approach to convening, process design and early facilitation
services is needed.
2. Develop incentives for more meaningful participation.
Consider that XL projects are experiments, designed in part to help EPA and sponsors
understand the impacts of innovative environmental protection strategies. In this light, stakeholder
processes are meant to promote learning by holding decision making and outcomes open and
accountable. Yet, stakeholder processes will contribute to innovation and learning only if they are
designed to do so. In practice, this implies that processes should promote creativity and openness
to new ideas. Most participants in these processes, however, are less concerned about
experimentation than about specific outcomes in their community, and are reasonably risk averse
in the way that they relate to other parties to the process. In particular, many project sponsors see
little to gain from conducting innovative stakeholder involvement processes, or from developing
the expertise necessary to design and manage an innovative process well.
To date, EPA's efforts at improving stakeholder processes have focused on making it
easier for well-intentioned project sponsors to design better processes. This support has included
guidance documents that delineate best practices and funding for facilitation to help initiate
processes. While this support is valuable, in the absence of more clearly delineated incentives or
procedures, Project XL sponsors will often provide stakeholders with limited opportunities for
involvement within cautiously scripted processes.
Executive Summary - 7
-------
3. Promote facilitative leadership within EPA.
One of the most important opportunities for improving stakeholder processes lies in
developing facilitative leadership within EPA. Facilitative leaders enable other parties to work
more effectively together to achieve goals shared with the facilitative leader. For XL projects,
EPA staff can facilitate effective innovation by clearly envisioning and guiding the design and
implementation of effective stakeholder processes. These skills are particularly important in
projects where highly diverse stakeholder groups express competing interests and concerns.
Often, project sponsors respond well to EPA when knowledgeable staff act to expedite new
working relationships between project sponsors and the communities of interest that surround
their projects. However, most EPA Project XL coordinators are not specifically trained in the
stakeholder process skills needed.
EPA staff currently receive limited training in team-building. More is needed. First, EPA
staff need the skills to build effective teams that can internally resolve issues between team
members, and then clearly and consistently communicate EPA goals and concerns to stakeholder
groups. Key EPA staff also need rudimentary process design and consensus building skills in
order to promote more proactive leadership on the part of EPA staff in the community. Attention
should also be paid to the clear communication of technical information to lay audiences in XL
projects.
On-the-job consultations are also needed. Project XL involves a wide range of projects
and project personnel. The personnel must draw on skills appropriate to the context and
conditions of the XL project in which they are working. Because XL processes are idiosyncratic,
personalized consultations are likely to prove highly useful to EPA staff. Project XL therefore
needs to maintain process-competent staff within EPA Headquarters and Regions who can
respond to the specific needs of EPA project coordinators and staff as XL stakeholder processes
unfold.
4. Develop clearer guidance on how best to involve national stakeholders, particularly in
strategically directed XL projects.
The Project XL program is increasingly identifying projects for consideration based on
strategic concerns with industrial and commercial sectors. Recently, for example, many XL
projects have clustered into sectors such as bio-reactor, paper and pulp, and POTW operations.
By combining the experience of several individual projects into an assessment of the sector as a
whole, EPA staff hopes to raise the potential for innovation.
At the same time, systematic participation will become more important as Project XL
increasingly works on strategic issues. Because sectoral issues involve efforts to generalize from
several specific XL projects to sector-wide issues, mechanisms for incorporating national
stakeholder groups into this process of evaluation and generalization should be developed. Such
efforts may also provide a more effective means of focusing the concerns of national stakeholder
groups onto issues of national importance.
5. Systematize and share the experience of past XL projects to improve future efforts.
EPA has worked hard to learn from past XL projects and to communicate that learning to
sponsors, EPA staff and stakeholders in newly developing and ongoing XL projects. These efforts
should continue. Specifically, evaluations of past XL stakeholder processes, including this one,
Executive Summary - 8
-------
should be used to develop more concrete advice on how to manage different configurations of
projects, sponsors and communities. What are the essential differences between working in
communities with considerable shared experience compared to communities with highly diverse
stakeholders? How do Project XL coordinators build consensus within EPA itself? Efforts to
answer questions such as these should allow for flexibility, but sketch out possible answers in
sufficient detail so as to encourage project participants to explore alternatives.
6. Examine the impact of the Federal Advisory Committee Act on efforts to promote
stakeholder participation in innovative and experimental processes.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act seeks to promote well-considered relationships
between federal agencies and advisory groups. The requirements, however, often conflict with
goals of innovative and experimental processes such as Project XL. The practical result of such
requirements is that EPA does not initiate nor manage stakeholder processes within such
programs, but rather requires project sponsors to do so.
Yet, more direct EPA involvement in the design and management of stakeholder
involvement processes would go far in resolving some of the issues raised in this report. EPA
should examine the impact of FACA on the capacity of the agency to develop innovative
participatory processes. If appropriate, the agency should propose amendments that would
promote more effective stakeholder involvement in programs such as Project XL.
Executive Summary - 9
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Executive Summary - 10
-------
Evaluation Protocols and Overview
Stakeholder Involvement in Project XL
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency initiated Project XL in March 1995. Project
XL seeks to promote innovative initiatives that improve environmental performance at reduced
cost. Sponsors of projects range from manufacturing facilities and university labs to municipalities
and military installations. Each sponsor proposes an environmental management project that
requires some flexibility in environmental regulations or procedures. All projects are therefore
individually designed by project sponsors and reviewed by EPA personnel for inclusion into
Project XL. If the project is approved, flexibility is afforded to project sponsors on an
experimental basis, conditional on demonstration of expected environmental benefits. If the
experiment is successful, EPA plans to incorporate the lessons learned from the project into the
overall regulatory structure.
EPA seeks to ensure that modification of regulatory requirements or procedures will truly
meet local needs while protecting the environment. To this end, EPA requires meaningful and
organized participation on the part of stakeholders in all XL projects. Stakeholder involvement is
a collaborative working relationship between sponsors - the organizations who propose the XL
project - and people who believe they or their community could be affected by the project. EPA
defines stakeholders as
! communities near the project,
! federal, state, tribal or local governments,
! businesses,
! environmental and other public interest groups, or
! similar entities.
Such participation helps ensure that negotiations around specific projects involve the
communities in which they are located. Stakeholder involvement requirements also help ensure
that stakeholders with an interest in the proposed project have an opportunity to learn about the
nature of the project, identify issues that may have escaped the notice of project sponsors and
regulators, and provide feedback regarding their concerns.1
To assist project sponsors and stakeholders, EPA provides guidance as to who constitutes
a stakeholder and what constitutes meaningful and organized participation. In the April 1997
Federal Register notice, EPA delineated stakeholders into three categories:
! direct participants: stakeholders who work in partnership with the project sponsors to
develop the project agreement in detail, either because they have legal authority to
issue permits and rules necessary for implementation of the project (e.g., federal, state,
1 April 23, 1997 Federal Register Notice.
Protocols and Overview - 11
-------
local or tribal agencies or authorities) or because they have a strong interest in the
project (e.g., impacted neighbors, community residents, environmental groups, and
other businesses);
! commentors: stakeholders with a strong interest in the project, but who choose to
participate indirectly by providing written or verbal comments throughout the process
rather than directly in an organized group; and
! the general public: stakeholders who wish to be kept abreast of developments and to
have access to the proposal development process in response to public notices and in
public meetings.
To help clarify what constitutes meaningful participation, EPA took steps to improve and
streamline the XL stakeholder involvement process. To this end, EPA published Project XL
Stakeholder Involvement: Guide for Sponsors and Stakeholders. The stakeholder guide provides
information concerning the type of process that is appropriate, stakeholder needs, and the scope
and complexity of the involvement process.
While these efforts are helping to guide stakeholder involvement in XL projects, the types
of stakeholder processes used and stakeholder satisfaction with these processes remain highly
variable. In an on-going effort to improve the stakeholder processes associated with XL projects,
EPA continues to assess how effective the stakeholder involvement process has been at providing
meaningful and organized participation for stakeholders, and how satisfied stakeholders have been
with the process itself and with their ability to affect XL project decisions.
How do Stakeholder Involvement Processes Fit Into Project XL Decision Making?
Project sponsors are responsible for designing and implementing the stakeholder
involvement processes. EPA guidance policies and documents provide support for these activities,
as do EPA personnel involved in the project. Project sponsors are required to develop a
stakeholder involvement plan. This plan is submitted as part of the XL project proposal.
The stakeholder involvement plan delineates the goals and specific actions to be taken to
involve interested stakeholders. Some involvement processes seek primarily to share information
with stakeholders and identify concerns. Others encourage a dialogue between the project
sponsor and stakeholders, with community stakeholders serving an advisory role to the project.
Finally, at least one project established a consensus building process in which participants actively
negotiated with the project sponsor over the design of the Final Project Agreement. The choice
of whether a process will focus on information sharing, consultation, dialogue or consensus
building lies with the project sponsor and is largely set in the stakeholder plan.
Project sponsors are also responsible for the management of the stakeholder process.
EPA commonly makes suggestions about specific aspects of the process (such as when to hold
public meetings), but does not seek to fundamentally alter the processes designed by the sponsors.
By comparison, the one project in which EPA staff did strongly encourage additional stakeholder
Protocols and Overview - 12
-------
involvement was a Superfund site, and the suggestions were made in reference to the citizen
involvement requirements of Superfund, rather than Project XL.
EPA encourages, but does not require, involvement of stakeholders in the development of
the proposal. Only one of the eight project sponsors discussed in this report actively involved
stakeholders in developing the project proposal and the stakeholder plan. Thus, decisions about
how to involve stakeholders are often made before stakeholders are involved in the process.
The most active phase of stakeholder involvement occurs during the development of the
Final Project Agreement (FPA). The FPA serves as the agreement amongst the signatories and
delineates the specifics of the XL project. The FPA is negotiated amongst these "direct
participants." Signatories typically include the project sponsor, EPA, and local and state agencies.
Signatories can also include other stakeholders, although this is uncommon..
Stakeholders are also involved in monitoring implementation of the FPA, and possibly in
renegotiating clauses in the FPA as conditions change. Citizen and environmental stakeholders
are typically less actively involved in this phase of the XL project.
Approach to Evaluating Stakeholder Involvement for Project XL
In September 1998, a report entitled Evaluation of Project XL Stakeholder Processes was
prepared by RESOLVE, Inc. This report provided a review of the design and conduct of the
stakeholder processes at four of the initial XL projects to reach Final Project Agreements. For
each XL project reviewed, the report describes how stakeholders were involved in the drafting
and/or implementation of the Final Project Agreement, the stakeholder involvement model used
by company sponsors, and the level of stakeholder satisfaction with the process.
Following completion of this initial evaluation, evaluators with the Southeast Negotiation
Network evaluated the eight XL projects presented in this report in 1999. The assessment
evaluates six new XL projects and further evaluates two projects previously documented by
RESOLVE. The projects were selected to clarify the purposes, techniques and impacts of
stakeholder involvement at the various stages of decision-making.
At the start of the evaluation, the evaluation team selected two XL projects that were
developing their project agreements, two that had recently finalized their project agreements, and
four that had been implementing their project agreements for one year or more. For projects in
the process of developing their project agreements, the analysis focused on the initiation and early
dynamics of the stakeholder process. These case studies included:
! Atlantic Steel, and
! New England Universities Laboratories
For projects that had recently signed the Final Project Agreement (FPA), the analysis
focused on stakeholder satisfaction and the effectiveness of stakeholder involvement in the
process. These case studies included:
Protocols and Overview - 13
-------
! Andersen Corporation and
! ExxonMobil (previously Exxon).
And finally, for projects that had finalized their FPA at least one year previously, the
analysis focused on stakeholder involvement during implementation of the agreement. These case
studies included:
! CK Witco (the company, created by the merger of Witco and OSi Specialties, changed
its name to Crompton after completion of this evaluation),
! HADCO,
! Intel, and
! Vandenberg Air Force Base.
By examining cases in each of these time periods, the evaluation team sought to develop a
more comprehensive understanding of factors that contribute to success and those that pose
challenges to stakeholder involvement processes. Further, since the evaluations examine projects
at different time periods, future evaluations may be able to provide longitudinal data that shows
how a process evolves over time.
For each case, the evaluation team interviewed participants in the stakeholder involvement
process. For the eight cases, interviews were conducted with over 75 community representatives,
company sponsors, EPA staff, local and state government agency staff and other stakeholders. A
list of interviewees is presented in Appendix A. The research method is described in more detail
in Appendix B.
Brief Overview of the Eight XL Projects
The XL projects evaluated by the research team include the following eight cases:
! Andersen Corporation is a window manufacturer located in a rural county in
Minnesota. The company sought to manage the environmental impacts of their
manufacturing facility more comprehensively, by focusing on material reuse, waste
minimization and emissions reductions. The company established a community
advisory committee to encourage an on-going dialogue with community stakeholders.
! The Atlantic Steel Site is a 138-acre brownfields site being redeveloped by Jacoby
Development. For many decades, the site was used in the manufacture of steel and is
contaminated. At the same time, the site is adjacent to the Midtown district, a rapidly
developing commercial and residential district in Atlanta. Jacoby proposed a
comprehensive redevelopment of the site. This development project, however,
depended on construction of a bridge linking the site to Midtown from across the
adjacent interstate highway, a project which required EPA approval. From a
stakeholder involvement perspective, the Atlantic Steel project is the most complex
Protocols and Overview - 14
-------
project of the eight examined in this report. The project was set in a highly urban
community and involved a wide range of development issues, governmental
procedures, and constituencies. The stakeholder involvement process used by Jacoby
focused on public meetings, with informal negotiations between Jacoby and specific
stakeholders around issues of particular concern to those stakeholders.
! CK Witco is a chemical specialties manufacturer. The facility is located on an 1,300
acre site in rural West Virginia. The CK Witco XL project seeks to reduce air
emissions and to promote waste minimization and pollution prevention. CK Witco's
stakeholder involvement process included community outreach, the inclusion of two
community representatives on the project negotiation team, and involvement of a
representative of the Natural Resource Defense Council on a number of conference
calls.
! ExxonMobil (Sharon Steel Superfund Site) involves the cleanup of a Superfund site.
The proposal describes an alternative strategy for investigation, risk assessment,
remedy selection and remediation of the site. Using an administratively streamlined
process, ExxonMobil hopes to clean up the contaminated site in half the time of
traditional cleanups and at less cost. Additionally, ExxonMobil is working with
stakeholders to locate businesses interested in redeveloping the site. ExxonMobil
involved stakeholders through a community advisory committee.
! HADCO is a leading manufacturer of printed wiring boards (PWB) and electronic
interconnection products, located in New Hampshire, New York and elsewhere. As a
PWB manufacturer, HADCO generates wastes that are classified as hazardous waste
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Since the wastewater
sludge produced by HADCO's operations is classified as hazardous under RCRA, it
must be shipped to a third-party processor before it can be sent to a smelter for
reclamation of the valuable copper contained within. HADCO seeks a conditional
delisting of the sludge that would allow them to bypass the third-party processor and
ship the wastes directly to an approved smelter. Efforts to involve stakeholders proved
difficult, and little participation was achieved in this project.
! Intel, a large semiconductor manufacturer, produces Pentium microprocessors and
other state-of-the-art computer chips. Located in Chandler, Arizona, in the Phoenix
metropolitan area, the FAB-12 facility is a state-of-the-art facility. The FPA provides
for a facility-wide cap on various air pollutants. The facility-wide cap replaces
individual permit limits for different air emissions sources. The FPA also limits water
use and waste generation. Intel designed and implemented a consensus building
process to involve stakeholders in the design and implementation of the FPA.
! New England Universities Laboratories seek to develop flexible performance-based
standards for managing university laboratory hazardous waste. The project is designed
to develop and implement an integrated Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for
managing hazardous lab waste at three universities (Boston College; University of
Massachusetts, Boston; and University of Vermont). These laboratories typically use
small quantities of many different chemicals. A management plan to control their use
Protocols and Overview - 15
-------
and disposal offered environmental advantages relative to the traditional regulatory
requirements set forth in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
New England Universities Laboratories employed two distinct stakeholder involvement
processes, one national and a series of local ones. The national process focused on
national constituencies with an interest in the environmental management of university
laboratories, and was managed by a central staff. Local processes were organized and
managed by the three individual universities, and focused on internal local
constituencies (university administrators, faculty, staff and students) with an interest in
safety and environmental protection on the campuses of universities participating in the
XL project, and external local constituencies (residents and communities adjoining
these universities) with an interest in potential off-site impacts.
! Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) conducts and supports missile launches, operates
the Western Test Range and responds to worldwide military contingencies. The base
covers more than 98,000 acres and is the Air Force's third largest military installation.
Vandenberg AFB is located in rural southern California, 15 miles from the nearest
municipality. Under Title V of the Clean Air Act, Vandenberg AFB would be
designated as a major source of ozone precursor emissions. The designation would
require the base to obtain new permits for up to 300 previously unregulated emission
sources. The base sought to substantially reduce ozone precursor emissions, sufficient
to be redesignated as a minor source and to fund these emission reduction projects
using money that would otherwise be spent complying with administrative
requirements of Title V. Vandenberg based its stakeholder involvement process on
existing environmental review boards.
Protocols and Overview - 16
-------
Table 1 provides an overview of the primary characteristics of these XL projects.
Table 1
Eight XL Projects Evaluated: Location, Status and Format of Participation
XL Project &
Location
Andersen
Corporation
Bayport, MN
/*-. * *-« i \
(rural;
Atlantic Steel
Atlanta, GA
(urban)
CK Witco
(OSi
Specialties)
Sistersville,
WV (rural)
ExxonMobil
Fairmont, WV
(rural)
HADCO
Owego, NY
Deny and
Hudson, NH
(small town)
Intel
Chandler, AZ
(suburban)
Year of Initial
Project XL
Proposal and
Project Status
as of June
1999
1997
FPA recently
finalized
1998
Developing
FPA
1995
In implemen-
tation for more
than one year
1998
FPA recently
finalized
1995
In implemen-
tation for more
than one year
1995
In implemen-
tation for more
than one year
Activity of
Project
Sponsor
window
manufacturing
redevelopment
of 138-acre
brownfield site
located in a
central city
chemical
specialities
manufacturing
Superfund
remediation
printed wiring
board
manufacturing
computer chip
manufacturing
Environmental
Benefit of
Project
reduce air
emissions; reuse
waste materials
redevelop
brownfield site;
minimize
transportation-
induced air
pollution and
urban sprawl
reduce air
emissions;
pollution
prevention
more timely and
efficient
Superfund
cleanup
hazardous waste
delisting; material
reuse
pollution
prevention;
reduce air
emissions;
increase water
reuse
Format for Participation
Direct dialogue within a 15-
person Community Advisory
Committee composed mostly
of citizens
Public meetings, with written
and oral comments; several
interactive workshops
sponsored by stakeholders
other than the project
sponsor
Public meetings and an
informal XL project team
that included two citizens
and an NRDC representative
Direct dialogue within a 25-
person stakeholder panel
composed mostly of citizens
Primarily direct negotiations
between project sponsor and
government agencies
Direct dialogue and
consensus building within a
stakeholder negotiation
group that included four
citizen members
Protocols and Overview - 17
-------
Table 1
Eight XL Projects Evaluated: Location, Status and Format of Participation
XL Project &
Location
New England
Universities
Laboratories
Boston
College
UMASS-
Boston
Univ. of
Vermont
(urban)
Vandenberg
AFB
Santa Barbara
County, CA
(rural)
Year of Initial
Project XL
Proposal and
Project Status
as of June
1999
1997
Developing
FPA
1995
In implemen-
tation for more
than one year
Activity of
Project
Sponsor
experimental
research lab
management
air force base
management
Environmental
Benefit of
Project
manage
hazardous lab
waste more
comprehensively;
reuse materials
reduce air
emissions
Format for Participation
Divided into two distinct
types of processes:
National Process: Problem
solving workshops and an
email list server involving
research labs
Local Processes: informal
meetings with university
personnel and various forms
of public outreach to
communities located around
the universities
Presentations to pre-existing
environmental citizen
committees
As a program designed to promote innovation, Project XL has attracted a wide diversity
of projects. The diversity is apparent when looking at the range of project sponsors (from small
university labs to large corporate manufacturing facilities and a military base), communities (from
very rural to very urban), EPA regions (from across the United States), stakeholders (from small,
homogenous communities of impacted individuals to a rich diversity of interest groups) and
project type (from pollution prevention to urban development).
Not surprisingly, the approaches used by project sponsors to involve stakeholders varies
considerably as well. While EPA policies and guidance documents establish a common basis for
designing these processes, the guidance provides considerable latitude. As a result, project
sponsors work with stakeholders in very different ways.
We are left, then, with several important questions. First, to what degree of specificity
should EPA policy delineate the design and implementation of stakeholder involvement
processes? Second, under existing EPA policies, are stakeholders afforded opportunities to
participate that are coincident with their expectations, concerns and stake in the outcome? And,
third, can we identify specific characteristics of stakeholder involvement processes that contribute
Protocols and Overview - 18
-------
to or block effective involvement and satisfaction with that involvement? These questions frame
our evaluation of the Project XL stakeholder involvement processes.
Organization of this Report
The remainder of this report first presents the findings and conclusions that emerged from
our evaluation of the XL project stakeholder involvement processes. Following this discussion,
the report presents more detailed project descriptions and assessments for each of the eight XL
project studied. A list of interviewees, a description of the research method, and a glossary of
terms is presented in the appendices.
Protocols and Overview - 19
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
20
-------
Findings and Conclusions
The findings and conclusions of this report are presented with reference to the three major
questions raised above. First, we examine the need for flexibility in the design of stakeholder
involvement processes, and the implications of this on EPA policy and guidance efforts. Second,
we examine the degree to which involvement processes afford stakeholders opportunities to
participate consistent with their expectations, concerns and stake in the outcome. And, third, we
identify specific characteristics of stakeholder involvement processes that contribute to, or block
effective involvement and satisfaction with, that involvement.
1. The Need for Flexibility
To what degree should EPA policies and guidance documents prescribe specific
approaches to stakeholder involvement? The eight case analyses indicate that projects are highly
diverse in context and levels of complexity and concern. For stakeholder processes to respond
effectively to these varying conditions, the policies developed by EPA need to provide for a wide
latitude of processes. At the same time, this flexibility increases the responsibility of EPA project
coordinators to ensure that the design and implementation of stakeholder processes are consistent
with the objectives of meaningful involvement.
1.1. EPA policies and guidance documents provide considerable latitude in the
design of XL project stakeholder involvement processes.
Guidance documents set a goal that the process of strategy development "engages those
parties affected by environmental regulations and policies in an unprecedented effort to find
solutions that work better." EPA Project XL guidance documents describe three levels of
possible involvement for stakeholders to participate in an XL project:
! direct participants who engage in the day-to-day negotiations,
! commenters who have a direct interest in the project but who do not participate in
day-to-day negotiations or project development, but instead provide written or oral
comments, and
! the general public, who are to be provided clear access to information on project
development and results.
Thus Project XL envisions a range of possible roles, with differing levels of participation.
At one extreme are stakeholders who "negotiate," while at the other extreme are stakeholders
who have "clear access to information." In the middle, commentors have access to information
and can present their perspectives. Alternatively, we can describe these three roles as each based
on the following forms of communication:
Findings - 21
-------
! two-way communication (including weakly consultative, strongly consultative, joint
problem solving, and consensus building processes),
! double one-way communication (where project proponents and stakeholders share
information and concerns by means of oral or written announcements and comments,
without interactive dialogue), or
! one-way communication (the project proponents make information available that
citizens may access).
1.2. The flexibility afforded by EPA policy allows XL projects to respond to
variations in needs for stakeholder involvement. These needs vary considerably
amongst XL projects.
The variety of possible roles envisioned in EPA policy provides flexibility for managing the
diversity of project types and stakeholder needs. While some XL projects attract strong interest
on the part of many stakeholders (e.g., Atlantic Steel), others attract little concern from
stakeholders other than government agencies (e.g., Vandenberg AFB and HADCO). More
commonly, projects may attract varying degrees of concern from different stakeholders (e.g., New
England Universities Laboratories attracted little participation from neighbors of the labs and
environmental activists but considerably more from potentially affected laboratories).
A number of factors help shape the demand for stakeholder participation. These include:
! the proximity of the stakeholders to the project site (interest in participating decreases
with distance from the facility),
! the potential impact of the project on specific stakeholders (interest increases as the
stake to specific individuals or groups becomes more obvious),
! the trust afforded to the sponsor and EPA (interest decreases as a community's trust in
EPA or the sponsor increases),
! the perceived desirability of the project (participation becomes less critical when the
overall project is widely perceived as desirable),
! the technical complexity of the project (participation becomes more specialized as the
issues become more technical),
! the potential for setting precedents (participation by national stakeholders increases as
the potential for project agreements to affect future environmental decision making
broadens), and
! the scale of the stakeholder groups (national stakeholders seek more time efficient
forms of involvement - often limited to review and comment - while local groups seek
more interactive and participatory forms).
Findings - 22
-------
Each of these factors is important to the design of stakeholder involvement processes.
Thus, flexibility is needed in the design and implementation of stakeholder processes if those
processes are to respond effectively to differences in local context and concerns. EPA's policy to
provide overall guidance while permitting considerable latitude in process design therefore seems
appropriate.
1.3. EPA policy, while providing flexibility to process design, does not delineate
criteria for determining which stakeholders should be afforded what levels of
involvement. This can engender significant tension when the expectations of the
stakeholders for involvement in the process exceed the willingness of project
sponsors to involve these stakeholders.
Given the broad policies established by EPA, how does EPA ensure that individual XL
projects meet the fundamental goal of involvement processes, namely to develop a collaborative
working relationship between Project XL sponsors and people who believe that they or their
communities might be affected by these projects? What happens when the expectations of the
sponsors differ significantly from the expectations for involvement held by stakeholders?
Project XL stakeholder involvement processes are designed and implemented by the
project sponsors. Project sponsors are the companies or governmental agencies who seek the
regulatory flexibility afforded by XL projects. Within the eight XL projects evaluated for this
report, over half of the sponsors developed involvement processes that primarily sought to share
information with stakeholders, while a smaller number sought to promote dialogue or to build
consensus with stakeholders. In most cases, the differences in levels of involvement bear a
reasonable relationship to the context and preferences of the stakeholders for participation. But
the cases also show that the predilections of the sponsors to involve stakeholders, as well as the
ability of the sponsors to design and manage more complex forms of participation, also play an
important role in shaping the levels of participation.
As we will discuss in more detail below, given the broad criteria set forth in EPA policy,
sponsors design stakeholder involvement processes primarily to meet the sponsors' need to build
relationships of cooperation with their communities, public agencies, and EPA. The need to build
cooperative relationships therefore depends not only on the issues raised by the XL project and
the community's concerns with these issues, but also on the capacity of the sponsors to design
effective participation processes (in a situation where most sponsors have never designed a
community involvement process before), as well as the sponsor's assessment of the political need
for cooperation.
At the same time, the broad criteria embedded in EPA policy helps contribute to overly
high expectations on the part of some stakeholders as to their influence over project decisions.
No XL project sought the consensus of all stakeholders in developing the Final Project
Agreement. Most limit the core negotiations to the company, government agencies and possibly a
few key stakeholders. Only one was broadly inclusive in a process clearly designed to build
consensus. Yet, when a project involved stakeholders who believed that they had a large stake in
Findings - 23
-------
the outcome, it was not uncommon for these stakeholders to expect considerable influence over
the outcome.
These differences between sponsor and stakeholder expectations are by no means unique
to Project XL. Differences in interests often lead to differences in perception and expectations in
stakeholder involvement processes. Yet two aspects of this problem stand out. First, greater
attention to the design of the stakeholder process and to the development of clear goals for the
process will provide a more solid foundation for assessing the progress of the involvement
processes. Second, EPA is the only agency in a position to ensure that the basic goal of
stakeholder involvement is met, and in particular, the person best positioned to assess the
adequacy of the stakeholder involvement process is the regional EPA project coordinator assigned
to oversee the project.
1.4. Sponsors maintain a high degree of control over the selection of participants,
the design of the involvement process, the issues discussed and the outcomes of the
processes.
EPA policy encourages stakeholder involvement in the proposal development stage, but
does not require such engagement. Intel worked with the plant's existing Community Advisory
Panel before finalizing its project proposal. No other project significantly involved stakeholders in
the design of the facility's stakeholder involvement process or in the development of the Project
XL proposal to EPA.
In addition, in most projects the non-governmental stakeholders did not bring about
significant, identifiable change in the development of the Final Project Agreement. As discussed
below, most processes limit participation to either information exchange or a weak consultative
role. For projects that were not particularly controversial, stakeholders often accept this role and
approve of the project and the overall direction of the FPA once developed. However, in projects
with more controversy, stakeholders raised questions of trust and accountability that stem from
the sponsor's control over the involvement processes.
EPA guidance documents do not require specific forms of participation. In the context of
this flexibility, each of the stakeholder processes was consistent with EPA guidance documents
and requirements. Expectations for meaningful involvement increases with the level of
community concern and the expected impact of the project. Yet, when community concern is
high, these processes often did not meet the expectations of the stakeholder groups.
Currently, no systematic mechanism - in either the design or the implementation or XL
project involvement processes - exists to reconcile differences between sponsor's intentions and
stakeholder expectations.
Findings - 24
-------
1.5. EPA minimum standards for stakeholder involvement, particularly as
interpreted by the regional XL project coordinators, appear to be the most
important external impetus to the sponsor for designing more meaningful processes
of participation.
Often, EPA personnel felt that more full participation would have been desirable. These
personnel actively encouraged greater efforts to reach out to additional stakeholders, at times
suggesting specific types of stakeholders that could be included. From time to time, EPA
personnel also suggested when and why projects' sponsors should hold meetings, as well as the
format for those meetings. Project sponsors usually implemented EPA suggestions, at least in
part.
But while EPA project coordinators felt that they could encourage more extensive forms
of participation, the project sponsor remained solely responsible for the design and
implementation of the stakeholder involvement process. EPA personnel felt free to enforce
minimal standards of acceptability, but hesitant when it came to insisting on levels of participation
not clearly required in the guidance documents. Several reasons exist for this hesitancy.
! First, Project XL is a voluntary program, and as such the project proponent is
voluntarily accepting responsibility to design the project agreement and to initiate and
maintain the stakeholder involvement process.
! Second, the stakeholder processes may well be subject to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) if initiated and managed by EPA. FACA requirements would
be cumbersome and difficult to apply in the experimental projects that XL is designed
to attract.
! Third, Project XL coordinators are more concerned with developing strategies that
improve the environment while lowering costs of compliance than they are with
promoting stakeholder involvement in environmental decision making for its own sake.
Participation helps legitimize the projects and provides forums where concerns can be
raised. Beyond assuring that the process is open and transparent, then, EPA personnel
mostly seek to assure that XL projects do not generate high levels of opposition. In
the absence of controversy, EPA project coordinators are less likely to strongly
encourage more extensive forms of participation.
What can be done to balance these conflicting concerns within EPA? To begin with, EPA
has already made significant progress in clarifying the role of stakeholder processes in XL project
development, and in providing clearer guidelines for process design and implementation. In
September 1998, EPA released its first report of XL stakeholder involvement entitled Evaluation
of Project XL Stakeholder Processes. Based on this report and additional stakeholder input, in
1999 EPA released the Project XL Stakeholder Involvement: A Guide for Sponsors and
Stakeholders. These documents, as well as in the future this report, will help EPA personnel and
project sponsors clarify the goals and processes employed to promote stakeholder involvement.
In addition, together with the project sponsors and the regional EPA project coordinators,
more active EPA Headquarters review of the stakeholder process designs may help build
Findings - 25
-------
institutional capacity to promote more effective involvement. Currently, few project coordinators
manage more than one XL project. Consequently, the lessons learned by the coordinator are not
easily made available to future coordinators. Particularly around issues of stakeholder
involvement, such experience may be invaluable in setting reasonable expectations and in
designing appropriate processes.
2. Stakeholders' Expectations and Concerns
Project sponsors design most XL stakeholder involvement processes primarily to share
information and allow for public comment. A few seek to promote direct dialogue or build
consensus. For the most part, participants in the stakeholder involvement processes are satisfied
with the substantive outcomes of these processes. While most participants are also satisfied with
the involvement processes themselves, two concerns are often expressed. Some participants are
surprised at the amount of time needed to participate in these processes, while other participants
insist that more dialogue and consensus-building is needed.
The degree of community involvement is often related to the degree of community
concern and the potential impact of the project on the surrounding community. For example,
when community concern is low, information sharing processes are appropriate. On the other
hand, when community concern is high, more interactive forms of stakeholder involvement are
usually more appropriate.
In the cases studied, sponsors often, but not always, responded to increases in community
concern by designing processes that were more interactive.
2.1. Most XL stakeholder involvement processes are designed primarily to share
information and allow for public comments. While some processes also allow for
interactive consultation between sponsors and stakeholders, few processes seek or
need to build consensus amongst the stakeholders.
Stakeholder involvement processes are designed largely by the sponsors, and the resultant
processes are mostly geared at meeting the sponsor's needs. Sponsors that must negotiate with
stakeholders over potentially conflictual issues (e.g., ExxonMobil and Intel) or that are high
profile companies that seek to build good working relationships with their constituencies (e.g.,
Andersen, ExxonMobil, Intel) develop more sophisticated processes of involvement. These
processes are often interactive, involve specific individuals as representatives of stakeholders,
involve those individuals systematically through an on-going forum, and provide for at least a
consultative role for these individuals. Sponsors with more localized constituencies and with less
controversial projects (HADCO, CK Witco and Vandenberg AFB) involve non-agency
stakeholders later in the process and in more limited ways. Interaction amongst stakeholders is
limited, usually restricted to presentations within standard meeting and hearing forums or to
written communications.
Findings - 26
-------
The relationship between stakeholder concern, desire to participate,
participation and the goal of participation for each case is shown in Table 2 below.
format of
Table 2
Relationship Between Desire to Participate and Focus and Format of Participation
XL Project
Andersen Corporation
Atlantic Steel (Jacoby)
CK Witco (OSi
Specialties)
ExxonMobil
HADCO
Intel
New National
England Process
Universities
tories Local
Processes
Vandenberg AFB
Stakeholder
Desire to
Participate
moderate
very high
low to
moderate
moderate
very low
very high
high
low
low
Focus of
Involvement
Process
Information sharing
and consultation
Information
sharing, with some
ad hoc negotiations
with specific
stakeholders
Information sharing
Information
sharing, with some
focus on joint
problem solving
Government agency
negotiations
Consensus building
Joint problem
solving
Information sharing
Information sharing
Format for Participation
Direct dialogue within a 15 -person
Community Advisory Committee
composed mostly of citizens
Public meetings, with written and
oral comments; several interactive
workshops sponsored by
stakeholders other than the project
sponsor
Mailings, public meetings and an
XL project team that included two
citizens and a NRDC representative
Direct dialogue within a 25-person
stakeholder panel composed mostly
of citizens
Primarily direct negotiations
between project sponsor and
government agencies
Direct dialogue and consensus
building within a stakeholder
negotiation group that included four
citizen members
Problem solving workshops and an
email list server involving research
labs
Informal meetings with university
personnel and various forms of
public outreach to communities
located around the universities
Presentations to pre-existing
environmental citizen committees
Findings - 27
-------
Sponsors often envision the primary objective of the stakeholder process as building
legitimacy for the proposed project, rather than interactively working out problems that emerge
from the project. Negotiations occur rarely except between project sponsors and regulatory
agencies, or informally between sponsors and specific interest groups. The primary emphasis is
on transparency, with project sponsors (often based on EPA project staff advice) acting to
provide information to the community, and checking to make sure that no significant opposition
emerges from stakeholder groups.
When projects involve a wide range of stakeholder groups and complex issues (e.g.,
Atlantic Steel and New England Universities Laboratories), the stakeholder involvement
processes tend to segment into multiple pathways to participation. These alternative formats
afford various stakeholder differing levels of access to participation, with each format designed to
appeal to different constituencies. There is little sense of cohesive structure to the participation
process. Each participation format has its own rationale, and is organized and conducted largely
independent of the other participation formats. When stakeholder groups are largely independent
of each other (as are the lab, university and community stakeholders in the New England Lab
project), this poses few problems. However, when stakeholder groups are interdependent (as is
true of many of the stakeholders in the Atlantic Steel project), the result is often confusing to
participants, and potentially leads to marginalization of less powerful or well-connected
stakeholders.
2.2 A large proportion of participants in the stakeholder involvement processes
interviewed were satisfied with the general project as set out in the Final Project
Agreement (FPA). Most participants were also satisfied with their roles in the
processes, even though these roles were often limited to information exchange or
commentary. However, in XL projects where important differences in interests and
perspectives existed, stakeholders were less satisfied, often insisting that more
dialogue and consensus-based processes were needed. In these cases, expectations of
participants exceeded that of sponsors with regard to citizen involvement in
decision-making.
A number of XL projects generated little community concern. In these communities,
stakeholders believed that the actions proposed by project sponsors would either be beneficial or
would have little impact on the community. Stakeholders therefore made few demands for
participation. These projects include HADCO, the local participation process associated with
New England Universities Laboratories, CK Witco, and Vandenberg AFB. In these projects,
most interviewees indicated that while involvement largely focused on information sharing, this
was appropriate to the projects. These participation processes easily met expectations of
stakeholders. Dissatisfaction with the stakeholder process, where it existed, tended to come from
either EPA, who at times felt that more participation could have been achieved (in spite of a
general lack of interest on the part of stakeholders) or from other governmental agencies, who at
times spent considerable time in their role as stakeholders in these processes, and felt that the
processes should have been more efficient.
Findings - 28
-------
In two projects, Andersen and ExxonMobil, stakeholders identified important community
concerns with the XL project being proposed, but for the most part trusted the project sponsor to
resolve concerns that were raised. Both projects were located in small towns and rural
communities where a large percentage of residents worked in manufacturing industries. The
project sponsors initiated community advisory panels to focus community involvement on issues
raised about the projects. Although the panels were clearly advisory, they allowed for ongoing
information-sharing and dialogue between community representatives and the companies. Most
interviewees indicated that while they had originally expected a more consensus-oriented process,
the emphasis on information sharing and consultation were acceptable. However, a few
participants indicated that the advisory nature of their involvement discouraged participation on
their parts, or discouraged other stakeholders from actively participating, thereby muting
opposition to the project.
The most vocal concerns about the participation process were raised in the Atlantic Steel
and Intel processes. Both projects raised issues of significant concern to stakeholders and, in
response, stakeholders made large demands for participation. In neither case were the
expectations of stakeholders met. Interestingly, of the eight processes studied, the Intel process
was probably the most effectively designed process and the most oriented toward consensus
building. In this case, dissatisfaction seems to spring primarily from stakeholder concerns about
the degree to which their participation should affect the specifics of the project agreement, as well
as more general concerns about the appropriateness of affording regulatory flexibility to Intel,
rather than from concerns about the design and implementation of the participation process per se.
Atlantic Steel, on the other hand, generated considerable objections to the design and
implementation of the participation process because while it offered opportunities for information
sharing and comments, it did not meet the expectations of stakeholders for more meaningful
involvement.
Finally, in one process (the national New England Universities Laboratories process)
stakeholders came to a high level of consensus with the project sponsors. However, EPA
requested important revisions to the proposed agreement proposed by the sponsor. Participants in
the national process consisted largely of representatives of university and private research labs.
Interviewed participants were largely supportive of the involvement process, including the
interactive workshops and list serve email systems. However, a number of stakeholders expressed
dissatisfaction with the outcomes of the process and the resulting FPA. For the most part, these
participants felt that EPA had limited the project agreement by too narrowly restricting the
flexibility afforded to the project, thereby limiting the value of what the labs considered to be an
"experiment." In addition, the long negotiations between the project sponsors and EPA created
difficulties with managing the national participation process.
From these cases, we can conclude that satisfaction with the participatory process in these
projects depended primarily on three variables:
! the willingness of project sponsors to involve stakeholders at a level consistent with the
stakeholders' concerns and expectations,
! the consistency between the stakeholders' expectations as to their influence over
decision-making and the stakeholders' perception about their actual impact, and
Findings - 29
-------
! the level and efficiency of effort required to participate.
These variables are explored more fully in Table 3 below.
Table 3
Stakeholder Expectations for Participation and Satisfaction with Process and Outcomes
XL Project
Andersen
Corporation
Atlantic
Steel
(Jacoby)
CK Witco
(OSi
Specialties)
ExxonMobil
(Sharon
Steel)
HADCO
Intel
New England
Universities
Laboratories
(national
process)
New England
Universities
Laboratories
(local
processes)
Vandenberg
AFB
Stakeholder
Expectations
for
Participation
and Voice
3
•
(3
3
O
•
«
O(3
(3
Perceived Opportunity to
Participate
3
3
3
«
(3
«
«
(3
(3
Influence
Outcomes
(3
(3
(3
3
(3
3
3
(3
(3
Level of
Effort
Required
from
Participants
«
3
3
«
3
«
3
(3
(3
Perceived
Efficiency
of
Participa-
tion
«
3
3
«
(5
«
«
(3
3
Satisfaction
with
Participation
Process
3
(3
9
«
(3
O*»
3
(3
3
Satisfaction
with Content
and
Implemen-
tation of the
FPA
3
3
9
«
O*3
3
3
3
«
Scale: (~) very low (^ low (^ moderate ^fc high ^fc very high
Findings - 30
-------
2.3. The degree of community involvement is often, but not always, related to the
degree of community concern and the potential impact of the project on the
surrounding community.
As is shown in Tables 2 and 3 above, project sponsors rarely design interactive processes
of participation in communities unless demand for participation is moderately high. In
communities where desire to participate is low, sponsors have little incentive to actively engage
stakeholders. Even if they try, response is sporadic. Typically, XL projects in which stakeholder
interest in participating is low are located in rural communities or are dispersed across many
communities. These facilities are often physically isolated from neighbors, with relatively little
potential for negative impacts as a result of the XL project.
On the other hand, projects that elicit a high degree of community concern and that have
greater potential for negative impacts on stakeholders do not necessarily develop processes that
encourage greater participation. Stakeholder involvement is also linked to the local and regional
politics of the project. Sponsors of complex and potentially conflictual projects (such as Atlantic
Steel) may well design processes that bifurcate stakeholders in ways that allows for more direct
involvement of parties with the power to block the project, and less direct involvement of affected
stakeholders who lack that power. Project sponsors have incentives to bifurcate participation
processes because 1) the financial and time resources needed to design and implement a well-
integrated participation process increase with the number of stakeholder groups and the
complexity of the issues and 2) integrated processes may provide a forum that legitimizes
concerns of groups that may otherwise have little voice in the process.
From the cases examined, sponsors are most likely to design interactive, dialogue-based
forums for participation when:
! the proposed project affects a clearly recognizable community of stakeholders,
! those stakeholders are capable of organizing, and
! the stakeholders are important constituencies of the project sponsor.
2.4. In several projects, it was clear that neither the project sponsors nor EPA
personnel involved in the projects had specific training or experience in developing
stakeholder involvement processes. In these cases, project sponsors designed
involvement processes that lacked clear structure and objectives, were reactive
rather than proactive, and fostered stakeholder expectations that were inconsistent
with process design.
Challenges to the design and implementation of participation processes are many. XL
projects often involve specialized issues, technical knowledge and dispersed impacts. Stakeholder
groups can be varied and unfamiliar with each other. The project and timetable are often difficult
to predict and manage. The goals of processes also vary.
Findings - 31
-------
Yet, despite the variation of contexts and goals, XL participation processes need to exhibit
several characteristics if they are to promote acceptance of project agreements and satisfaction
with participation processes. These include:
! clear presentation of the intent of the sponsor as to the purpose of the process and its
impact on decision making,
! effective identification of participants who represent the range of stakeholders and
community interests, and
! design of a process that
/ remains open and transparent to stakeholders,
/ effectively resolves stakeholder concerns where possible,
/ provides for fair opportunities for participation, and
/ efficiently uses the time and resources of stakeholders, government agencies and
sponsors.
The design of participation processes form the base upon which involvement processes are
built. In particular, stakeholders need to be more effectively identified earlier in the processes, to
determine which stakeholders should be involved and to clarify the objectives and type of
stakeholder involvement process that should be used.
The capacity to design and organize participation processes varies considerably across
sponsors. The three largest corporations (Intel, ExxonMobil and Andersen) and an academic
community (New England Universities Laboratories) developed the four most sophisticated
participation processes (that afforded the greatest opportunity for dialogue). As is shown in
Table 4, each of these projects hired facilitators to help design and implement all or substantial
segments of the participation processes. While this did not necessarily reduce conflict, the
process design and management did provide for greater clarity of purpose and communication
when compared to processes that were not so managed.
Findings - 32
-------
Table 4
Design of the Participation Process
XL Project
Andersen
Corporation
Atlantic Steel
Site (Jacoby)
CKWitco(OSi
Specialties)
ExxonMobil
(Sharon Steel
Superfund Site)
HADCO
Intel
New England
Universities
Laboratories
(national process)
New England
Universities
Laboratories
(local processes)
Vandenberg
AFB
Stakeholders
systematically
identified?
«
o
3
•
O
*
*
3
3
Issues
systematically
identified?
3
3
3
«
3
•
•
3
3
Process goals
and steps
clearly
articulated?
3
O
3
«
O
*
3
O
3
Process
facilitated by
neutral?
«
(3
O
«
o
•
•
o
(3
scale: f^\ low (~^ moderately low (~^ moderate ^M high ^fc very high
Findings - 33
-------
The design and management of other XL participation processes is more difficult to
assess. Neutral third parties were periodically used in two of the remaining four projects. In
addition, the local components of the New England Universities Laboratories project were not
facilitated. In these cases, involvement was more limited. Often, stakeholders were less clear
about the intent of the processes, the opportunities for involvement, and the impact of their
involvement on decision-making. Outreach was less systematic and at times problematic. Many
of these concerns could be addressed through more effective process design and implementation.
At the same time, demand for participation appears to have been relatively low for most of
the participation processes that lacked a clear, transparent design. The only clear exception to
this statement was the Atlantic Steel project, where many stakeholders clearly desired a more
accessible and transparent process than was afforded to them. In the CK Witco, HADCO, local
New England Universities Laboratories, and Vandenberg projects, stakeholder groups did not
request more systematic participation.
In the eight XL projects examined, stakeholders never indicated that EPA publications and
guidance documents were used to help design the process. No participant discussed these
documents, although the Stakeholder Involvement Plans of later XL projects clearly draw from
the language of some of these documents.
At the same time, we should note that EPA now uses guidance resources more extensively
with newer XL projects. In addition, as noted above, EPA has significantly refined its guidance
documents for supporting involvement process design and implementation. These materials were
published at the same time as this evaluation project was conducted, and hence were not available
to the eight XL projects discussed in this report.
3. Barriers to Effective Stakeholder Involvement
In this final section of the Findings and Conclusions section, we examine specific
characteristics of the involvement processes that either contribute to or block more effective
involvement processes.
3.1. The most significant barriers to effective participation in consultative and
consensus building processes include time commitments required to participate in
what are often time-consuming processes and the capacity of stakeholders to
understand technical issues.
For processes that were consultative or sought to build consensus, stakeholders often
were concerned with the level of time commitments required to participate. These complaints
were heard not only from citizen stakeholders, but also from NGOs, agencies and even some
sponsors. Concerns about time commitments were highest amongst community stakeholders who
participated out of a general sense of voluntary civic responsibility, environmental stakeholders
who had hoped to have a greater impact on the project agreement and its implementation, and
Findings - 34
-------
state or local government agency representatives who felt that the processes could have been
more efficient.
Effective consultation or consensus building also was made more difficult by the
complexity of the technical issues at the heart of most XL Projects. When trust of the sponsor
was high, participants were accepting of explanations provided by sponsors and EPA. Conditions
of distrust or disagreement, however, led to much higher needs for technical information. Few
participants have the capacity to verify information provided. While some stakeholders were
aware that assistance grants were available, these stakeholders usually felt that these grants could
be better used during the implementation phase and so did not apply for these grants. Thus, few
supports existed within these processes to enable participants to more effectively manage
technical information.
3.2. The most significant barrier to effective participation in processes that
emphasize information exchange appears to be the absence of systematic approaches
for outreach and eliciting community responses.
Over half the XL projects examined for this study focused their participation processes
primarily on information exchange. These included HADCO, Atlantic Steel, the local outreach
efforts associated with New England Universities Laboratories, CK Witco, and Vandenberg.
Typically, these participation processes were designed and implemented by the sponsors of the
project without outside consultative help. Compared to XL projects that incorporated processes
of consultation or consensus building, the projects that focused on information exchange were less
effective at reaching out to a diverse population. The difficulty appears to spring from two
different sources. On the one hand, other than Atlantic Steel, community interest in these
"information exchange" projects was lower than found in projects with more active participation
processes. On the other hand, other than CK Witco and, to a more limited degree, Vandenberg,
"information exchange" participation processes were not systematic in their design or in their
implementation. It appears that low stakeholder interest is correlated with less organized
participatory processes, but which is cause and which is effect remains difficult to determine for
these limited number of cases.
3.3. Efforts to keep the XL project meetings focused exclusively on XL issues created
considerable frustration on the part of stakeholders when those stakeholders were
primarily concerned with community issues associated with, but not directly caused
by, the XL project.
At times, stakeholders, sponsors and EPA cannot easily distinguish between issues that are
under the prerogative of XL and those that are not. For example, conceptual models of urban
design were included in the analysis for the Atlantic Steel project, while specifics about urban
design were excluded for discussion because they were viewed as beyond the scope of the XL
process. At other times, Project XL participatory processes provide an opportunity for
stakeholders to raise concerns that are not directly related to the XL project. For example,
stakeholders from local communities in the New England Universities Laboratories project were
Findings - 35
-------
primarily concerned with university impacts on neighborhoods (such as student activity and noise)
rather than the management of hazardous wastes in the labs. Similarly, stakeholders in the
Andersen project voiced general concerns over the impact of Andersen on its neighbors. In each
of these cases, stakeholders were frustrated by the inability of the process to address issues of
concern.
By comparison, in the ExxonMobil case, the process allowed discussion of and worked to
address ancillary community concerns. This contributed to overall stakeholder satisfaction.
However, this approach raises its own concerns. A state agency representative, for example, felt
that the process should have been more focused on issues central to Project XL, in order to
reduce the amount of time taken up by the process.
3.4. Most processes did not actively involve national groups. Moreover, in those
projects where national groups were included, the interaction between the local and
national groups was very limited.
National stakeholder groups were explicitly concerned with five of the XL projects
explored in this report. National groups were primarily involved as commentors, providing written
and verbal comments directly to the project sponsor or EPA. While the comments made by
national groups were at times useful to local stakeholders in clarifying issues, national groups did
not participate directly in stakeholder meetings in Intel, Atlantic Steel, and New England
Universities Laboratories. Representatives of a national environmental group did participate more
directly in the Andersen and CK Witco projects, but these too involved very limited interaction
between national and local stakeholders.
In the Intel project, a national group requested more active participation as a participant
on the stakeholder negotiation team. Participation by the national stakeholders was allowed on a
limited basis. The national organization, however, refused to sign a confidentiality agreement
with Intel, a requirement for participation that was agreed to by all local stakeholders. This
effectively blocked participation by the national group.
In Atlantic Steel, the sponsor worked directly with larger environmental groups to
determine and address their concerns outside the local public meeting process. In the New
England Universities Laboratories project, the sponsor designed three distinct participation
processes, one for national stakeholders, one for university stakeholders, and a third for local
community stakeholders.
In Andersen and CK Witco, national environmental groups provided comments and
interacted to a limited degree with local stakeholders. In the Andersen project, a representative of
the Environmental Defense Fund visited the site and attended one local stakeholder meeting. In
Witco, a representative of the Natural Resources Defense Council participated in several
stakeholder conference calls, on which two local representatives also participated.
Findings - 36
-------
3.5. The management of meetings was rarely an issue in and of itself.
Meetings designed for information sharing were generally perceived as succeeding in
transmitting information, and meetings designed to promote dialogue or consensus building were
generally seen as well facilitated. While few were facilitated by a neutral party, this was often seen
as unnecessary.
At the same time, participants often felt that the agenda for meetings was set by the
project sponsors, which some stakeholders perceived negatively. While projects often allowed
additional items to be raised by participants, few actively involved participants in the setting of
issues to be considered.
3.6. Participation dropped significantly during the implementation phase.
During the implementation phase, participation typically is limited to review of progress
reports and occasional open meetings. The projects become very technical, and participants are
often at a loss as to the need for their participation, other than as watchdogs to ensure compliance
and to keep the community abreast of the project. Participation in the ExxonMobil project, a
Superfund site, remains high. Andersen, with a signed FPA but without a permit to proceed, also
continues to hold regular stakeholder meetings.
Findings - 37
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
38
-------
Strategic Opportunities for Improvement
1. Link goals, roles, expectations and resources through effective process design.
The stakeholder involvement process within Project XL requires considerable flexibility to
meet the diverse needs of different projects. At the same time, flexibility can contribute to a
significant gap between the language incorporated into EPA's guidance documents and the
standards applied in local processes. On the one hand, the guidance documents set a goal of
providing stakeholders with a choice as to how they wish to participate. On the other hand, the
program requirements allow project sponsors to delineate the range of options available to
stakeholders, as well as who has access to which options. As a result, expectations of
participation at times exceeds opportunities for participation.
To maintain flexibility while promoting more effective participation, greater care is needed
in the design and early implementation of the participation processes. Sponsors (and EPA) should
implement more systematic convening processes, in which the needs and concerns of the various
stakeholder groups are identified, potential representatives are selected, and the stakeholder
involvement process is appropriately designed.
A well designed process helps clarify the goals of the process and the roles of the various
parties and stakeholders. This in turn provides a more realistic basis for stakeholder expectations
and helps identify resources needed to implement the process. Effective convening is made even
more important by EPA's attempts to streamline the XL process. Streamlining increases the speed
at which timely involvement processes must be developed and implemented.. EPA's recent
provision of facilitation services for initial Project XL stakeholder meetings is a step in the right
direction, but a more systematic approach to convening, process design and early facilitation
services is needed.
2. Develop incentives for more meaningful participation.
Consider that XL projects are experiments, designed in part to help EPA and sponsors
understand the impacts of innovative environmental protection strategies. In this light, stakeholder
processes are meant to promote learning by holding decision making and outcomes open and
accountable. Yet, stakeholder processes will contribute to innovation and learning only if they are
designed to do so. In practice, this implies that processes should promote creativity and openness
to new ideas. Most participants in these processes, however, are less concerned about
experimentation than about specific outcomes in their community, and are reasonably risk averse
in the way that they relate to other parties to the process. In particular, many project sponsors see
little to gain from conducting innovative stakeholder involvement processes, or from developing
the expertise necessary to design and manage an innovative process well.
To date, EPA's efforts at improving stakeholder processes have focused on making it
easier for well-intentioned project sponsors to design better processes. This support has included
guidance documents that delineate best practices and funding for facilitation to help initiate
Strategic Opportunities - 39
-------
processes. While this support is valuable, in the absence of more clearly delineated incentives or
procedures, Project XL sponsors will often provide stakeholders with limited opportunities for
involvement within cautiously scripted processes.
3. Promote facilitative leadership within EPA.
One of the most important opportunities for improving stakeholder processes lies in
developing facilitative leadership within EPA. Facilitative leaders enable other parties to work
more effectively together to achieve goals shared with the facilitative leader. For XL projects,
EPA staff can facilitate effective innovation by clearly envisioning and guiding the design and
implementation of effective stakeholder processes. These skills are particularly important in
projects where highly diverse stakeholder groups express competing interests and concerns.
Often, project sponsors respond well to EPA when knowledgeable staff act to expedite new
working relationships between project sponsors and the communities of interest that surround
their projects. However, most EPA Project XL coordinators are not specifically trained in the
stakeholder process skills needed.
EPA staff currently receive limited training in team-building. More is needed. First, EPA
staff need the skills to build effective teams that can internally resolve issues between team
members, and then clearly and consistently communicate EPA goals and concerns to stakeholder
groups. Key EPA staff also need rudimentary process design and consensus building skills in
order to promote more proactive leadership on the part of EPA staff in the community. Attention
should also be paid to the clear communication of technical information to lay audiences in XL
projects.
On-the-job consultations are also needed. Project XL involves a wide range of projects
and project personnel. The personnel must draw on skills appropriate to the context and
conditions of the XL project in which they are working. Because XL processes are idiosyncratic,
personalized consultations are likely to prove highly useful to EPA staff. Project XL therefore
needs to maintain process-competent staff within EPA Headquarters and Regions who can
respond to the specific needs of EPA project coordinators and staff as XL stakeholder processes
unfold.
4. Improve mechanisms for involving national stakeholders, particularly in strategically
directed XL projects.
The Project XL program is increasingly identifying projects for consideration based on
strategic concerns with industrial and commercial sectors. Recently, for example, many XL
projects have clustered into sectors such as bio-reactor, paper and pulp, and POTW operations.
By combining the experience of several individual projects into an assessment of the sector as a
whole, EPA staff hopes to raise the potential for innovation.
At the same time, systematic participation will become more important as Project XL
increasingly works on strategic issues. Because sectoral issues involve efforts to generalize from
Strategic Opportunities - 40
-------
several specific XL projects to sector-wide issues, mechanisms for incorporating national
stakeholder groups into this process of evaluation and generalization should be developed. Such
efforts may also provide a more effective means of focusing the concerns of national stakeholder
groups onto issues of national importance.
5. Systematize and share the experience of past XL projects to improve future efforts.
EPA has worked hard to learn from past XL projects and to communicate that learning to
sponsors, EPA staff and stakeholders in newly developing and ongoing XL projects. These efforts
should continue. Specifically, evaluations of past XL stakeholder processes, including this one,
should be used to develop more concrete advice on how to manage different configurations of
projects, sponsors and communities. What are the essential differences between working in
communities with considerable shared experience compared to communities with highly diverse
stakeholders? How do Project XL coordinators build consensus within EPA itself? Efforts to
answer questions such as these should allow for flexibility, but sketch out possible answers in
sufficient detail so as to encourage project participants to explore alternatives.
6. Examine the impact of the Federal Advisory Committee Act on efforts to promote
stakeholder participation in innovative and experimental processes.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act seeks to promote well-considered relationships
between federal agencies and advisory groups. The requirements, however, often conflict with
goals of innovative and experimental processes such as Project XL. The practical result of such
requirements is that EPA does not initiate nor manage stakeholder processes within such
programs, but rather requires project sponsors to do so.
Yet, more direct EPA involvement in the design and management of stakeholder
involvement processes would go far in resolving some of the issues raised in this report. EPA
should examine the impact of FACA on the capacity of the agency to develop innovative
participatory processes. If appropriate, the agency should propose amendments that would
promote more effective stakeholder involvement in programs such as Project XL.
Strategic Opportunities - 41
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
42
-------
Case Studies
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
44
-------
Andersen Corporation
Project Background
Andersen Corporation, a window and door manufacturing company, is located in
Washington County, Minnesota. The manufacturing facility is located in the town of Bayport near
Stillwater, with 3,500 and 15,000 residents respectively. About half of the adults in this region
either currently work, have worked for, or have relatives that have worked for Andersen in some
capacity.
In early 1998, Andersen submitted an XL project proposal to EPA. The Final Project
Agreement (FPA) was signed on June 30, 1999. Under the agreement, Andersen will reduce their
air emissions of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions per standard unit of production.
This performance-based regulatory approach seeks to provide incentives for Andersen to improve
their environmental performance. Specifically, the agreement encourages Andersen to:
! manufacture more of its windows from wood fiber and vinyl to reduce its use of virgin
materials;
! substitute low-solvent waterborne processes for solvent-based coating and wood-
preservative processes to reduce air emissions; and
! develop greater production efficiencies and emission improvements.
Andersen is also experimenting with the recovery of window components by removing
paint, processing any lead in the paint for reuse, and using the recovered wood to produce new
windows.
This analysis focuses upon stakeholder satisfaction and the effectiveness of the stakeholder
involvement process used during the development of the FPA. Stakeholders interviewed for this
report are listed in Appendix A. Interviewees included participants representing the community,
Andersen Corporation, EPA, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Stakeholder Involvement Process
Andersen Corporation designed the stakeholder involvement plan in the fall of 1997.
Andersen sought to establish a process for informing and involving a variety of people and
organizations interested in the company's Project XL initiative. The plan included the
establishment of a Community Advisory Committee (CAC), open houses, a community
newsletter, a system for responding to community inquiries, and public relations activities.
In creating the CAC, Andersen developed a charter, member roles and responsibilities, and
operating guidelines for the group. Andersen identified categories of stakeholders for
representation on the committee. These categories included public health/academia, local
officials, county officials, local schools, chambers of commerce, local businesses, local citizens,
Andersen - 45
-------
environmental groups, resident employees, and residents who have criticized Andersen in the past.
Andersen then developed a list of potential candidates for each category. All candidates either
lived or worked in the local area.
Candidates were agreed upon internally, in consultation with the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and a public affairs consultant with experience in stakeholder groups. In October
1997, Andersen contacted the candidates (approximately 50 people) by phone. Andersen
described the project, explained what would be expected of stakeholder representatives, and sent
out information packets to candidates who were considering joining the CAC. The local
newspapers also received information on the CAC and meeting notices. Candidates representing
specific organizations, such as the Bayport City Council, were selected by that group.
While the CAC operating guidelines allowed for 15 members, the group began with 11
members and one commentor. By June 1999, the CAC consisted of 10 members.
The company also involved the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) as a commentor in its
stakeholder process. An EDF representative visited the facility and attended a stakeholder
meeting, in addition to reviewing documents.
Meetings
Between December 1997 and June 1999, the CAC met approximately once a month. All
of the meetings were open to the general public. No more than ten citizens, in addition to CAC
members, attended any given meeting. The first seven meetings were designed to inform the CAC
about the workings of XL projects, environmental aspects of the company, and specifics of the
Andersen proposal. A facilitator hired by Andersen ran these meetings. The CAC decided to
operate initially under the Charter, member roles and responsibilities, and operating guidelines that
Andersen developed before creating the CAC.
The facilitator set agendas for the meetings, in cooperation with Andersen. The facilitator
chaired meetings for approximately eight months until the CAC elected a chairperson. The
chairperson then became responsible for facilitating meetings. Agendas were based on issues
raised at previous meetings and current progress reports on the XL project. All previous meeting
minutes were compiled by the facilitator and Andersen and sent to CAC members for review and
approval at the start of the next meeting.
The majority of interviewees stated that the meetings provided good opportunity for
dialogue. The CAC members stated that they were given a chance to speak and that Andersen
took their comments seriously. As a way of encouraging dialogue, meetings incorporated an open
forum for raising issues not included in the agenda.
At the same time, one CAC member expressed concern with the whole CAC process. The
member felt that the CAC meetings did not provide a good opportunity for dialogue. That
member stated that the meeting seemed designed to provide the community with information
rather than as a forum for dialogue.
Andersen - 46
-------
Goals of the Stakeholder Process
Several CAC members originally believed that the stakeholder process, specifically the
CAC, was created to fulfill an XL requirement. Over time, however, they came to believe that the
stakeholder process was designed to share information between the company and community.
Some members also felt that because the CAC included members who had previously complained
about the company, the CAC provided a vehicle for working out some problems between the
community and the company. At the same time, some other members felt that Andersen was not
accountable to the CAC, and that the CAC needed more latitude to set the overall goals of the
stakeholder process, and to alter them as the project progressed.
Both the EPA and Andersen representatives stated that the CAC was very effective in
disseminating information about the project to the community. EPA stated that the goals of the
stakeholder process were primarily designed to share information with the community but with
the added intention of improving community relations with the company. Several CAC members,
Andersen and EPA all believe that the CAC would continue even if the XL project were
discontinued.
Issues Raised at Meetings
All interviewees stated that the majority of issues raised at the CAC meetings were
appropriate and adequately addressed. However, several issues raised were not related to the XL
project (odor from the plant, traffic, noise, etc). While Andersen addressed these issues, several
CAC members questioned the adequacy of their response. Some CAC members felt that the
above issues were important and Andersen could have better responded to the concerns.
Several CAC members also stated that EPA and Andersen seemed to be more concerned
with regulatory issues than with non-regulatory issues raised by the CAC. For example, CAC
members stated that EPA was primarily concerned with legal and technical issues while Andersen
was primarily concerned with the issues raised by EPA. These members believed that the CAC
role was limited to commenting on what EPA and Andersen had already worked out.
The majority of CAC members felt that the right people were involved to effectively
represent stakeholder interest. However, one CAC member stated that representatives of Bayport
merchants, the school district, and the St. Croix River Valley Boundary Commission were needed
if the CAC was to effectively represent a broad array of stakeholder interests. Andersen had
sought active school district participation, but the district representative participated as a
commentor rather than as an active member of the CAC.
Roles of the CAC in the Development of the Project XL Agreement
The CAC was not involved in development of the initial project proposal. The CAC did
review the proposal prior to its submittal to EPA. Opinions differed as to the impact of the CAC
Andersen - 47
-------
on the development of the FPA. Some members felt their role was significant, particularly in
resolving EPA issues with the proposal, while others believed that the CAC members did not
significantly affect the proposal..
According to EPA, Andersen originally established the CAC to review and comment on
the FPA, but that over time the CAC developed stronger roles for themselves. EPA felt that
comments made by CAC members were taken seriously. Both EPA and Andersen stated that
Andersen would not continue on any part of the XL agreement without support of the CAC.
Several CAC members stated that their role in the process was largely delineated by
Andersen. Most felt that they were afforded an opportunity for input on and helped change some
of the wording of the FPA, but that no substantive changes to the FPA were made as a result of
comments by the CAC. One CAC member also felt that the meeting agendas did not address all
the issues of concern to CAC members, and were too inflexible to allow for input on issues not
covered by the agendas. At the same time, one member felt that the CAC did have an impact on
some substantive issues, including whether the Andersen West site would be included in the XL
package, whether Andersen West would be managed under a separate subcap, and the design of
the four-tiered performance limit system that would be used to assure Andersen's performance.
Most CAC members had no clear expectations as to their role prior to their actual
participation on the panel. One CAC member thought that the CAC would have been more
involved with developing the FPA rather than being limited to review and comment.
Management of Technical Issues
Most CAC members felt that the technical issues were understandable and well explained
by Andersen and EPA. As stated above, the technical issues were addressed during the first six
months of CAC meetings.
One CAC member stated that CAC members only marginally understood and addressed
the technical issues, in part because CAC members lacked the technical background to confront
the issues directly. At the same time, the CAC included three representatives with expertise in
areas related to the XL project. These included an environmental attorney with the Minnesota
Center for Environmental Advocacy, a professor in toxicology from the University of Minnesota
School of Environmental and Occupational Health, and a scientist from a local bio-technology
firm. While lacking specific expertise in the engineering aspects of the project, the committee
members were well versed in many of the technical issues raised by the project.
Another member felt that CAC members were simply not interested in the technical issues.
The CAC and their constituents (the community) were more concerned with health impacts. The
CAC contemplated hiring a technical advisor with the technical assistance grant provided by
EPA. However, the CAC decided that a better use of the technical assistance might be to hire an
independent consultant to audit the XL project once Andersen is three to five years into the
project to determine if the project was meeting goals and obtaining the environmental
performance anticipated.
Andersen - 48
-------
Both EPA and Andersen stated that it was difficult to explain technical issues to the CAC.
Efforts by Andersen to clarify the issues over the first six months of meetings were helpful,
particularly for regular attendees, but absorbed considerable time and at times involved
"overwhelming" levels of technical information. Furthermore, this effort further focused meetings
on technical and regulatory concerns (i.e., the XL requirements, PM10 and air toxic modeling)
rather than non-regulatory community concerns (i.e., the overall impact of Andersen on the
community).
Differences in Interests and Perspectives between Stakeholders
All interviewees, except one, stated that there were no differences in interests or
perspectives between stakeholders. The one exception felt that there were no differences in
interests or perspectives between stakeholders because the CAC was comprised primarily of
Andersen supporters and not critics. This interviewee felt that there should have been more
Andersen critics on the CAC. Andersen believed that the CAC was suitably diverse.
Stakeholder Involvement after the Signing of the FPA
The CAC continued to meet after the FPA was signed. In the first half of 2000, several
new members were added to the CAC, including an attorney, and two people with chemistry
backgrounds.
Satisfaction with the Stakeholder Process and Suggestions for Improvement
Both EPA and Andersen were very satisfied with the stakeholder process. EPA was very
content with Andersen's efforts to include stakeholders and manage the CAC in the XL project.
Andersen had no suggestions for improving the process while EPA suggested including a
technical expert on the CAC. Andersen felt that the stakeholder process provided an excellent,
regular forum for discussion. They felt that this forum was beneficial to both the company and
community. EPA felt that the ability of Andersen to listen and react to community concerns was a
great benefit of the process.
All except one of the CAC members expressed a general satisfaction with the stakeholder
process. The majority of CAC members felt that Andersen did a fine job of publicizing and
garnering support for the XL project. They stated that the process allowed substantial
opportunity for input. All information on the project was also open and available to the public.
The process provided a way for the community to get to know Andersen on a personal basis and
help to resolve misgivings associated with the company. The CAC was seen as a dynamic group
that understood the key concerns and could provide input.
Most members stated that they had nothing to which to compare the process. Without a
context, they felt satisfied. Some members felt that they went into the process believing that the
CAC would hold decision-making power in developing the project. They later felt that, given the
Andersen - 49
-------
complexity of the project, these attitudes were unrealistic. Several members felt that the end
result of the stakeholder process (increased awareness of Andersen's activities, better rapport
with the company, and full disclosure of info) was very satisfying. The CAC members observed
that initially CAC and Andersen did not share a similar vision for the role the CAC would play in
the project. This lack of understanding initially created a reluctance on the part of some
individuals to participate as CAC members.
A few CAC members also expressed concerns about the management of technical issues.
Two CAC members felt that the CAC was not prepared to address technical issues and therefore
were not able to effectively comment on technical issues.
Also, one CAC member objected to the lack of Andersen critics on the CAC, and felt that
the CAC was formed simply to fulfill an XL requirement. The interviewee further felt that EPA
and Andersen had too much control over the decision-making process, and that while the CAC
was given an opportunity for input, the impact of that input was low. Despite this interviewee's
concern about the XL initiative, the CAC member was somewhat satisfied with the
accomplishments made. The member felt that full access to information afforded to the CAC was
very important and helped build some confidence in the process.
CAC members and the state agency representative felt that the project did not progress
efficiently, and that this hampered the stakeholder process. They felt that EPA slowed down the
process immensely. Most CAC members did not understand the reasons for these delays. The
state agency representative identified problems associated with EPA review process that led to
commenting from multiple EPA staff, as well as the distance between EPA's regional and
headquarter offices that led to confusion about who was responsible for decisions at EPA. CAC
members felt that EPA should have kept the CAC abreast of what was holding up the process.
Few CAC members made suggestions for improvement. Three members expressed
substantive concerns. Two noted that Andersen should have targeted a wider variety of citizens
for participation on the stakeholder panel. This CAC member felt that the ads were designed to
attract a specific target group (business and government representatives) and not diverse
members. Another member (who was well-versed in regulatory issues) felt that the level of
technical detail was overwhelming, and that this resulted not only because of the technical detail in
the application, but also because of the manner in which EPA interacted with the CAC. EPA's
use of jargon (statements such as "EPA has a problem with 40 CFR Part 52.21(r)(4)" during a
presentation to the CAC) obfuscates the environmental concerns that they are meant to address.
EPA staff must interact with the group in a more meaningful manner and to communicate more
clearly if EPA seeks to achieve more meaningful stakeholder involvement.
Both the company and EPA were concerned with the long-term stamina of the CAC. The
level of technical expertise on the CAC was also of concern to EPA. While several members had
technical backgrounds (a lawyer, a toxicologist and two non-management Andersen employees),
EPA suggested that the CAC could have been helped by a technical expert with skills in the
process and production issues under negotiation.
Andersen - 50
-------
Atlantic Steel
Project Background
In 1998, Jacoby Development, Inc. proposed redevelopment of an 138-acre brownfield
owned by Atlantic Steel. Although many years of steel manufacturing left the site contaminated,
the site is highly desirable for urban redevelopment because of its proximity to Atlanta's central
and midtown business districts. The developer's proposal includes a high-density mix of
residential and business uses.
While well-situated, the project site suffers from poor accessibility. The site adjoins
Interstate 75/85 and the Midtown district of Atlanta, but is directly accessible from neither.
Furthermore, 1-75/85 blocks the site from the existing MARTA (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority) rapid rail transit system. The project plan therefore includes a multi-modal
bridge that would cross 1-75/85 at 17th Street (17th Street bridge). The bridge is designed to
connect the site to Midtown and a nearby MARTA mass transit station, as well as to provide
access to the interstate. Jacoby will undertake redevelopment of the site only if the bridge is
constructed. In addition, the City of Atlanta conditioned its rezoning on construction of the 17th
Street bridge.
The bridge is a major transportation project, requiring federal funds to complete. Atlanta,
however, is currently not in conformance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, and cannot
use federal funds for new construction until it develops a plan to bring the region into
conformance. The proposed redevelopment of the brownfield site, however, is seen as
environmentally beneficial both because it would result in the clean-up of the existing
contamination, and because its plan and location promise reductions in air pollution relative to
alternative projects that it is likely to displace.
Project XL provides a vehicle for enabling federal transportation funds to be used in the
project. Jacoby has worked with representatives of EPA, the State of Georgia, local authorities,
and public stakeholders to develop a site-specific Project XL Agreement that will allow
construction of the bridge.
Due to the complexity of the project and the numerous processes and analyses necessary
to implement it, EPA and Jacoby adopted a two-phased approach to the Project XL Agreement.
The Phase 1 Agreement between EPA and Jacoby set out the intentions of Jacoby and EPA
related to development and implementation of this project. Signed on April 13, 1999, the Phase 1
Agreement detailed the project and the intentions of each party, and described areas where further
details or additional discussions between EPA, Jacoby and stakeholders were needed.
The Phase 2 Project Agreement, which also served as the Final Project Agreement (FPA)
between EPA and Jacoby, addressed these concerns. The agreement was signed on September
7th, 1999.
Atlantic Steel- 51
-------
Although the Atlantic Steel XL project is currently in implementation, this analysis
focused upon the initiation and early dynamics of the stakeholder process used in project
development.
Stakeholders interviewed for this report are listed in Appendix A. Interviewees included
participants representing the community, environmental groups, CRB Realty (Jacoby), EPA, the
City of Atlanta, and the public meeting facilitator.
Stakeholder Involvement Process
Assessment of the stakeholder involvement for the Atlantic Steel XL project posed some
unique difficulties. As described above, the project is a high-density urban redevelopment of a
138-acre brownfields site in central Atlanta. Redevelopment of the site requires a wide range of
approvals from various local, state and federal agencies, and will require years to complete. The
Project XL process was therefore but one piece of a much larger public decision making process,
each of which contains its own requirements for citizen involvement. Stakeholders in this project
made few distinctions between the various decision-making processes. Instead, they sought to
shape and influence the project as a whole within each decision-making process to which they had
access.
In particular, the XL project proposed exempted the bridge from Clean Air Act
restrictions because EPA's analysis suggested that the project would improve air quality in the
region. While the project would clearly generate traffic (and therefore increase air pollution),
EPA sought to determine whether the project would induce a smaller increase in air pollution in
this location than if the same amount of development was spread around the metropolitan region.
EPA's models looked for improvement based on two conditions. First, the location of the site in
central Atlanta and its accessibility to public transit would generate fewer and shorter car trips
when compared to similar development located on the periphery of the region. Second, the
design of the project, with its mix of residential and commercial uses and its emphasis on a
pedestrian-friendly environment, would encourage intra-project pedestrian trips, thereby further
reducing the number of auto trips. Thus, the environmental benefit is based not only on the
proposed design and construction of the bridge, but also on the proposed design of the
redevelopment project. Thus the XL project opened up questions of urban design not normally
addressed by EPA.
Most local stakeholders were primarily interested in design aspects of the project. For
these stakeholders, the XL stakeholder process provided an important opportunity to influence
the street and building configuration, the project's transition to neighboring districts, and other
aspects of design associated with pedestrianization and urbanism. Other stakeholders were also
concerned with the design and configuration of the bridge, its accommodation of alternatives to
auto transport and its congruence with the urban design plans of Midtown. Design was thus a
politically volatile local issues, inextricably linked with the XL process. Yet the XL stakeholder
process tended to focus on the overall impact of the project on air pollution, and did little to
address specifics of design. As such, issues of primary concern to many local stakeholders were
excluded from the process.
Atlantic Steel - 52
-------
At the same time, it is also important to note that the project was widely supported locally.
Even residents of adjoining neighborhoods, who are likely to be most directly impacted by the
project, offered conditional support for the project. The focus of concern was primarily on the
scale, interconnectivity and design of the project, rather than on the appropriateness of the project
itself.
Stakeholder involvement was an important part of the concept and rezoning
considerations since the project began in early 1997. Multiple public meetings, discussion groups,
individual contacts, and a full public notice and review process were held during the rezoning of
this property. The City of Atlanta Planning Department, Georgia Department of Transportation,
Atlanta Regional Commission, nine neighborhood organizations, and several other groups such as
the Midtown Alliance and Georgia Tech all participated in this process. These groups
collaborated on the concept, design, and conditions put in place in the rezoning document, which
replaced the existing industrially zoned land use classification with a mixed-use classification that
allowed for residential, retail, office, and hospitality uses. After the public input and review, the
rezoning was approved by all of the involved neighborhoods, the City of Atlanta Zoning Review
Board 9-0, recommended to the City Council by the Zoning Committee 5-0, and passed by the
Atlanta City Council 15-0.
The Stakeholder Involvement Plan was intended to supplement previous activities and
described the basic methods by which additional input would be solicited and received particularly
as it related to Project XL.
Goals of the Stakeholder Process
The goals of the early stakeholder input and the Stakeholder Involvement Plan were to
ensure that interested stakeholders were afforded the opportunity to participate in the
development of this project and to provide the stakeholders with the information they needed to
participate in decisions on the future of the Atlantic Steel Redevelopment.
The following were objectives of the plan as stated by Jacoby:
! identify stakeholders and their role in this project,
! describe methods of communication between the project sponsor and the stakeholders,
! ensure all stakeholders have an opportunity to participate in the project,
! promote stakeholder involvement in the development of the FPA, and
! assure all previously involved stakeholders that discussions, agreements, and contracts,
particularly relating to zoning conditions, remain fully intact.
Atlantic Steel - 53
-------
Roles of Stakeholders Involved in the Process
Stakeholders included individuals, government agencies, neighborhood organizations,
academic centers, and companies with an interest in the progress of the Atlantic Steel
Redevelopment Project. Invitations to participate were sent to individuals involved in other
environmental projects with the Atlantic Steel Redevelopment, others with related interests, and
to the general public.
Stakeholders in the XL program typically fell into three categories:
! direct participants (EPA, Jacoby Development, Law Engineering, Moreland Altobelli,
Idf Associates),
! commentors (Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Federal Highway
Administration, Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit Authority, City of Atlanta,
Georgia Department of Transportation, Midtown Alliance, Home Park Neighborhood
Association, Ansley Park Neighborhood Association, The Georgia Conservancy,
Atlanta Regional Commission, Sierra Club, Southface Energy Institute, Environmental
Defense Fund, Georgians for Transportation Alternatives, etc.), and
! the general public.
The Atlantic Steel Redevelopment team and EPA worked intensively with "direct
participants" to design and develop the project. As can be seen from the bulleted list above, all
direct participants were consultants to the project.
The original stakeholder involvement plan called for creation of an advisory committee.
Advisory committee members were to consist of direct participants and representatives from local
government offices, educational institutions, special interest groups, and interested members of
the public. The Plan, however, only vaguely referred to this committee, and a formal Project XL
advisory committee was never established. The project proceeded on a very rapid schedule, and
stakeholder involvement was conducted through informal negotiations between Jacoby and
groups with specific concerns, through formal, written comments, and through meetings open to
the general public.
Informal meetings. A number of community organizations were afforded opportunities for
more direct participation around a limited set of issues. Specific issues raised by these groups
were handled through direct meetings between Jacoby and these groups. Most significantly, a
series of concerns about the location and design of the bridge's egress into Midtown were handled
through a committee organized by the City of Atlanta's Commissioner for Planning, Development
and Neighborhood Conservation. This informal group consisted of representatives from Jacoby,
the City, the Midtown Alliance, community residents from the Ansley Park neighborhood, and
Midtown property owners. This process of negotiations ran parallel to the formal public
participation process conducted for the general public.
Formal comments. Most national and regional stakeholder groups participated primarily
through written communications. These groups focused their attention on aspects of the project
Atlantic Steel - 54
-------
that were of specific concern to their organizations. Local groups were also afforded
opportunities to submit written and verbal comments.
Public meetings. Members of the general public were afforded opportunities for
participation through four formal public meetings called by Jacoby (two at the start of the Project
XL process and one each before the public comment period for the Phase 1 and Final Project
Agreements), an urban design workshop conducted by EPA, and another workshop sponsored by
the Georgia Conservancy to help residents of the most affected neighborhood (Home Park) clarify
their own goals and desired outcomes in regards to this project.
Community and environmental stakeholders had no direct role in the development of the
FPA.
Aside from public agencies, most other interviewees felt that their roles were never clearly
defined. The community groups and non-profits stated that EPA or Jacoby should have better
explained the roles of the stakeholders at the beginning of the project. The state and city
agencies, on the other hand, were more confident in applying their traditional regulatory roles to
the XL process.
Many interviewees stated that EPA's role in the process was never well defined. They
would have liked to have been better informed on the allocation of responsibility between EPA
and Jacoby. For example, some stakeholders stated that while there were not enough public
meetings, they did not know whether to blame EPA or Jacoby.
Outreach to Stakeholders
The stakeholder involvement plan developed by Jacoby called for contacting potential
stakeholders prior to and during development of the FPA and to set up an advisory committee of
direct participants. Jacoby never established such a committee. Jacoby did establish a project
mailing list to inform interested stakeholders of opportunities to comment or participate during
project development and implementation.
The plan proposed using the following methods to contact and inform additional potential
stakeholders.
Local Newspapers: The stakeholder plan called for display and legal ads in the major local
newspapers to inform the general public of public meetings and comment periods. Ads appear to
have been completely ineffective at reaching public participants. More effective were newspaper
articles in local newspapers, written by reporters. As of June, 1999, approximately 12 articles
were published. These articles focused primarily on transportation and economic development
issues. One article briefly discussed the EPA urban design workshop. None of the articles
referenced or informed citizens of the public meetings.
Cable Television: The stakeholder plan called for notices of public meetings and comment
periods to be sent to the community access cable station, and to tape and broadcast the public
meetings on the community access station. However, this part of the plan was not implemented.
Atlantic Steel - 55
-------
Newsletters /Fact Sheets: The plan also called for publishing fact sheets and mailing these
newsletters to everyone on the project mailing list. The plan suggested that newsletters would
provide status reports, timelines, mileposts, contacts, and future meeting times and locations.
This plan was partly implemented. A project mailing list of 60 people was developed. At EPA's
request, a few project updates were sent out to people on the mailing list. The mailing list
included state agencies, developers, non-profits and environmental groups. Very few community
members were on the list.
These project updates asked recipients to address comments on the mailed materials to
EPA. The EPA stated that they received very few comments. Comments that were received
came primarily from national and local environmental groups. These comments focused on
transportation concerns, bridge design, stormwater runoff, impacts on city water and sewer
system, and contaminated site runoff. An EPA representative spoke individually with those who
expressed concerns about the project. The project sponsor also met with concerned parties.
Internet: The plan called for establishing a public web site to provide access to
announcements, project background and documents, meeting minutes, project developments and
implementation status, and provide an Internet address for comment submittal. EPA's Internet site
provided access to documents. Jacoby developed a general information site as well. The Internet
was not used to broadcast announcements nor to obtain comments. Few stakeholders, including
those who directly participated in most of the community meetings, were aware of the existence
of the Internet sites.
Information Repository: An information repository for the project was established at the
local branch of the Fulton County Public Library System. Most interviewees were not aware of
this repository, and no interviewee used this or heard of anyone who used it.
Public Meetings: The plan called for facilitated public meetings during development and
implementation of the FPA based on public interest or as decided by the direct participants.
Jacoby looked to EPA to indicate when meetings were necessary and what items should be
included on the agenda. Jacoby did not call Project XL meetings except as requested by EPA.
As mentioned above, Jacoby sponsored four formal public meetings. In addition, Jacoby met with
individual or small groups of stakeholders to work out specific problems (such as the location of
the bridge). Community workshops were also sponsored by EPA and the Georgia Conservancy.
These meetings are described in more detail below.
Meetings
General Public Meetings
Through June of 1999, Jacoby sponsored four formal public meetings. These meetings
were primarily designed to share information with the public. Between 40 and 80 people attended
each meeting. Jacoby set the agendas based almost entirely on advice from EPA, and ran the
meetings. Each meeting provided an opportunity for public questions and answers. The first two
public meetings were held in September and November. These meetings introduced the public to
the project and to the XL process. A planning consultant hired by Jacoby facilitated these first
Atlantic Steel - 56
-------
two meetings. Additional meetings were held in February and June, to present Draft Phase 1 and
Draft Final Project Agreements for public comment. A facilitator was not present at these two
meetings.
Jacoby placed meeting announcements in the legal section of the local newspaper a week
or two before they were held, and mailed notices to persons who had indicated an interest in the
project. However, local community stakeholders often did not receive these mailings, and
therefore called other community members to keep informed.
Participants at these meetings included residents of adjacent neighborhoods, the Federal
Flighway Administration (FHWA), Georgia Department of Transportation (GA DOT), Jacoby
Development, Atlantic Steel, EPA Region IV and Headquarters, the Georgia Conservancy, the
developer's consulting firms, the surrounding neighborhoods, other special interest stakeholders
and the general public.
Typically, each of the general meetings included a number of presentations, primarily by
the developer and EPA, with time for questions and comments. For example, at the first meeting,
presentations were made by the project sponsor (opening remarks and a detailed presentation of
the Atlantic Steel project), EPA Region IV's Air Quality Division (a brief overview of EPA's
Project XL), the Georgia Conservancy (an overview of air quality problems in the Atlanta Region
and the Conservancy's Smart Growth Initiative), the EPA Region IV Atlantic Steel XL Project
Coordinator (a summary of EPA's Project XL program and criteria), and EPA Headquarters
(explanation of the air quality performance methodology that will be used). The meeting
concluded with a question and answer session. After close of the meeting, Atlantic Steel and
EPA project information remained on display, with additional questions answered one-on-one.
The public meetings held in February and June 1999 took place upon completion of the
draft Phase 1 Agreement and the draft Final Project Agreement. The meetings were designed to
inform the public of what was involved in the draft agreements, to solicit comments on the
agreements and to inform attendees of their right to comment during the public notice period.
Once again, the meetings were primarily organized around formal presentations. A court
stenographer was employed to record the proceedings.
Home Park Charrette
In November 1998, the Georgia Conservancy sponsored a community development
workshop in Home Park, the residential neighborhood adjacent to the Atlantic Steel project.
Urban design faculty and students of Georgia Tech and the Inter-professional Community Design
Collaborative facilitated the workshop. This charrette was not directly related to the XL project.
However, a large part of the workshop focused on how to integrate the XL project
redevelopment with neighborhood plans. Prior to the workshop, most Home Park residents did
not want to incorporate the development into their plans for the neighborhood. They preferred to
isolate the neighborhood from the project. However, as a result of the workshop, the Home Park
Civic Improvement Association (HPCIA) concluded that Atlantic Steel needed to be a part of the
neighborhood. Several community goals regarding the Atlantic Steel project came out of the
workshop. They included:
Atlantic Steel - 57
-------
! Protect and develop neighborhood edges, particularly along the Atlantic Steel
boundary with residential uses that carefully provide transition from existing lower to
proposed higher densities.
! Protect and infill residential blocks along the Atlantic Steel boundary and extend the
urban block scale and street connections into the residential portions of the Atlantic
Steel development.
! Combine convenience retail elements of the Atlantic Steel proposal with unmet retail
demand in the existing neighborhood to create a single center that would help bridge
the gap between existing and future residents.
! Locate proposed Atlantic Steel open spaces adjacent to existing neighborhood
residents to facilitate physical connections between the existing and proposed
residential community.
! Locate the proposed west side "light rail" transit line and stops to maximize pedestrian
accessibility to residents of both the existing and proposed neighborhoods and to serve
the proposed neighborhood center and major open spaces.
These goals were submitted to EPA for their consideration in recommending revisions to
the proposed Atlantic Steel Plan. At the time of the writing of this report, the impact of these
recommendations remained unclear.
EPA Urban Design Workshop
In December 1998, EPA brought in Andre Duany, a renowned 'New Urbanist,' to
facilitate a workshop on the Atlantic Steel project. The workshop was held over a two-day
period. The workshop was designed to gather views from various stakeholders in the project and
subsequently develop recommendations for development of the site. The workshop incorporated
perspectives provided by the client, consulting professionals, municipal authorities, business
owners, and the public. Duany made a series of recommendations in the last meeting of the
charrette, and provided a report to EPA.
As of June 1999, this report was not publicly available, but the recommendations as
presented in the meeting focused on creating a more integrated, finer scale and less auto-
dependent community. Design suggestions included the redesign of the project to better integrate
the existing Home Park and the proposed residential communities with the commercial aspects of
the project, reduce block size, and improve pedestrian, transit and bicycle access. As of June
1999, the developer has not directly responded to these design suggestions, in part because many
of the suggestions require consideration of more details than are afforded by the developer's
conceptual designs.
Goals of the Stakeholder Process
Atlantic Steel - 58
-------
All interviewees stated that the primary purpose of the stakeholder involvement process
was to exchange information amongst the stakeholders. Jacoby also felt that the process evolved
into a forum to address stakeholder concerns. No other interviewee shared this view. Most
interviewees felt that the objectives of the stakeholder process (information sharing) were
appropriate given the size and scope of the project.
All interviewees stated that substantial issues were raised throughout the process. Most
interviewees felt that every possible issue was raised. However, the majority of interviewees
stated that these issues were not adequately addressed due to the size of the project. EPA and the
developer stated that the issues often raised at public meetings were not specific to the XL project
and therefore were not addressed. The community groups, non-profits, and state and city
representatives stated that determining which issues pertained to the project and which did not
was very difficult. These groups felt that EPA and Jacoby should have done a better job clarifying
pertinent issues.
All interviewees stated that the right people were involved in the process to effectively
represent stakeholder interests. All interviewees stated that the number and diversity of
stakeholders as well as the inter-agency communication were outstanding. No groups had ever
seen such effective inter-agency coordination prior to this project.
Overall, the community groups and citizens living closest to the development site felt that
they should have had more input into the process. Community residents interviewed felt that the
stakeholder process did not meet their expectations. Community residents interviewed who
attended the public meetings stated that the meetings provided no forum for input. They felt that
the meetings were informational at best, and that EPA had decided prior to any public meetings
that the project would be approved regardless of any concerns raised by citizens. Most
community concerns focused on the impact of the project on the community and the integration of
the project into the community (rather than on the design and impact of the bridge).
Environmental and other non-residential interviewees generally felt that the formal public
meetings, which tended to focus on providing project updates, offered limited opportunity for
effective feedback. In general, the larger groups (Environmental Defense Fund, the Georgia
Conservancy, the Sierra Club, Midtown Alliance) did not attend the public meetings. Instead,
they provided their feedback through more informal meetings or through written communications.
In this context, these groups felt that the developer met with their groups and provided other
avenues for feedback. From their perspective, the developer sought to incorporate their feedback
into the design of the project, and that the conceptual designs for the project evolved as a result of
community input. However, since the design remains at a conceptual level of detail, the impact of
these design changes on the project will depend heavily on future design choices.
EPA staff felt that the stakeholder process effectively shared information with all
concerned parties. EPA and state agencies were also very satisfied with the amount and level of
communication and dedication between state and federal agencies. The City of Atlanta noted that
while the process was designed solely to share information, the project was too large and
complicated to create a more interactive forum for problem solving with stakeholders.
Atlantic Steel - 59
-------
At the same time, the community groups and non-profits stated that their level of
involvement was not adequate to make any impact on the project. They reiterated that it
appeared that the project would go forward regardless of any of their concerns. They felt that the
level of coordination between all regulatory agencies involved was evidence that the outcome of
the project was pre-determined.
Differences in Interests and Perspectives Between Stakeholders
All interviewees stated that there were great differences in interests between stakeholders.
However, both EPA and the developer felt that the majority of interests and issues were not
directly pertinent to the XL project. EPA directly addressed problems or questions that were
directly relevant to the project by responding directly to each commentor. All interviewees who
had expressed concerns about the specifics of the XL project (the bridge) felt that EPA
adequately addressed those concerns.
Management of Technical Issues
Interviewees stated that technical information presented at public meetings was
understandable. Most technical concerns were addressed outside of meetings, through individual
discussions and written communication. Individuals with concerns about the technical aspects of
the project tended to be trained professionals, with a background in transportation and
environment. Community groups who lacked technical skills tended to focus on more general
concerns about design and implementation.
Most technical issues focused on air quality, site cleanup, bridge location, and the
transportation control measures. Environmental groups generally presented their technical
concerns directly to EPA. These groups generally felt that EPA and the developer incorporated
specific suggestions for improvements into the FPA where possible, or sought to negotiate out
concerns over particular issues where this was not possible. These negotiations and discussions
tended to occur either with the particular party raising the concern (e.g., transportation control
measures) or with small groups of stakeholders sharing a concern (e.g., bridge location).
Satisfaction with the Stakeholder Process and Suggestions for Improvement
All interviewees stated that they were satisfied with the overall outcome of the XL project
and generally supported the purpose of the project.
Jacoby and EPA interviewees were satisfied with the community stakeholder process.
They stated that the stakeholder process successfully involved many different interest groups and
agencies and enhanced their ability to work together towards a common goal and in an
expeditious manner. Neither had previously seen a project where so many different agencies have
worked together in such a productive fashion. The developer stated that EPA involvement was
crucial in focusing all the stakeholders on the goals of the project and helped get quick decisions
Atlantic Steel - 60
-------
from other agencies. At the same time, EPA stated that the process would have been improved
through additional public meetings and more direct public involvement. EPA felt that more public
meetings earlier in the project would have been particularly helpful.
National and regional environmental groups were also generally satisfied with the
stakeholder process. These groups focused their involvement through review, comment and
direct discussions with EPA or Jacoby. This level of involvement was relatively efficient, and they
did not seek more direct participation.
Other interviewees were not satisfied with the stakeholder involvement process. They felt
that the stakeholder process was unclear from the beginning, did not provide a sufficient forum
for input, and was managed as a formality. The stakeholders were especially concerned about the
organization of the stakeholder participation process. The non-profit groups, state agencies and
City of Atlanta, and community residents felt that the stakeholder participation process had few
advantages. While they felt that the Atlantic Steel XL project should be developed, the
stakeholder participation process had added little and was not effective. The state and city
agencies felt that the process had not adequately identified or reached out to community
stakeholders. Interviewees recognized that the complexity and scope of the project inhibited
efforts for substantial stakeholder participation, but felt that Jacoby did not sufficiently recognize
the need for meaningful participation, nor did the company act effectively to improve the process
in response to community concerns.
At the same time, many of these stakeholders felt that the developer was generally
approachable and concerned about public opinion.
Almost all interviewees stated that there were too many people, agencies, and issues
involved in this project. Several people stated that it was difficult to stay focused on XL related
issues. Many interviewees also stated that it was almost impossible to determine which issues
were XL related and which were not. Many interviewees felt that EPA should have clarified these
ambiguities.
The non-profits and community residents felt that the short notice of public meetings and
lack of timely information from Jacoby and EPA were major weaknesses of the project. They
stated that it was often difficult to tell what phase the project was in at any given time. They felt
that either EPA or Jacoby should have better informed them of the project status. They also felt
that more continuity between meetings was needed if the issues were to be addressed seriously.
Suggestions for improving the process varied. Many interviewees focused on the need for
considerably more public notice for the meetings. The community groups felt that they had the
largest stake in the project due to their proximity to the development yet were not sufficiently
included. Aside from Jacoby, all interviewees stated that the process should have been better
organized from the beginning. These interviewees stated that there should have been more initial
clarity and explanations concerning the developer and EPA roles in the project.
Atlantic Steel - 61
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
62
-------
CK Witco
Project Background
CK Witco (renamed Crompton Corporation following completion of this evaluation and
formerly called Witco and OSi Specialties Inc. during the events chronicled in this evaluation) is a
specialty chemical manufacturer. The XL project focuses on CK Witco's 1,300-acre West
Virginia chemical manufacturing plant. The plant produces a broad range of silicone and silane
products.
CK Witco's plant is located six miles south of Sistersville. Five other towns are located in
the vicinity of the plant, including Ben's Run, Friendly, Middlebourne, Paden City, and St Marys.
The population of these communities totals approximately 8,000 people. Both Tyler County
(location of the plant) and Pleasants County (the down-river county) are predominantly rural, with
populations totaling 10,000 and 7,500 respectively.
Since the arrival of Union Carbide in the 1950's, these communities have relied on the
manufacturing industry, including CK Witco, for employment. Over 50% of Tyler and Pleasants
county citizens are employed in the manufacturing sector. CK Witco's Sistersville plant employs
six hundred persons from these two and other nearby West Virginia and Ohio counties.
Through its XL project, CK Witco's chemical plant is testing alternative methods of
pollution prevention, waste minimization and air emission reductions. CK Witco will reuse,
recycle or thermally treat some 500,000 pounds of methanol per year rather than treat in a
wastewater treatment unit and installed an incinerator that will destroy 98 percent of the air
emissions from a process unit. CK Witco also conducted a study to identify additional waste
reduction opportunities and is implementing many of the study's recommendations. In exchange,
EPA and West Virginia are deferring hazardous waste air emission standards for CK Witco's two
hazardous waste surface impoundments.
This analysis focused upon the stakeholder involvement process leading up to the signing
of the Final Project Agreement (FPA) and during its implementation. At the time of these
interviews, the facility was managed by CK Witco's corporate predecessor: OSi Specialties, Inc.
(OSi). Consequently, this report hereafter refers to the corporation as OSi.
The initial project proposal was submitted to EPA in September 1995. OSi first met with
and solicited support from community leaders and newspapers in November 1995. OSi's
proposal was selected for FPA development by EPA in May 1996. Two months later, OSi held a
kickoff meeting with community and union leaders. The draft FPA was published for public
comment in June 1997. The FPA was published in the Federal Register in June of 1997 and
signed in October. The project received a final federal site-specific rule in September 1998, and is
now in implementation.
Stakeholders interviewed for this report are listed in Appendix A. Interviewees included
participants representing the community, OSi, the OSi union, EPA, and the West Virginia
Division of Environmental Protection (WVDEP).
CK Witco - 63
-------
Stakeholder Involvement Process Before Signing the FPA
OSi did not involve stakeholders in developing the initial project proposal submitted in
September, 1995. Community members became involved in the OSi project beginning in
November, 1995. An organizational dinner was held by OSi to inform community leaders of the
XL project. OSi invited approximately 25 community leaders to the dinner through a series of
mailings. However, attendance at the dinner was minimal.
In July 1996, OSi sent personal mailings to approximately 30 community members inviting
them to attend a kick-off meeting at the OSi plant. The mailings were sent to local residents who
had previously expressed interest to OSi about company activities. A newspaper article and a
public notice were published in the local newspaper describing the XL project and inviting
interested community members to attend the kick-off meeting. OSi also held an interview on
public radio describing the XL project. All interviewees commended OSi's efforts at promoting
community participation and informing the community of the project.
The kick-off meeting was held in July 1996. Very few community members
(approximately 15) attended the meeting. Two citizens agreed to represent their communities
(Tyler and Pleasants Counties) in OSi's XL project. Their roles were defined as informational,
with each serving as liaisons between the community and OSi. Each was also asked to participate
in the OSi's Project XL meetings and conference calls. They became actively involved with the
project beginning in October of 1996, and continued to be actively involved in the project through
publication of the FPA and beyond.
A representative of the Natural Resource Defense Council also participated on a number
of conference calls.
The company tried to spark community interest in the XL project through their yearly
door-to-door alarm and evacuation procedure update. In 1996, OSi representatives visited all
homes in the communities directly surrounding the Sistersville plant to explain emergency
evacuation procedures. Approximately 100 households were contacted. To spark interest in the
XL project, OSi included a brief description of the project as a part of the materials distributed.
Goals of the Stakeholder Process
The stakeholder process was designed to provide a forum for community input and
suggestions. Interviewees all agreed that the stakeholder process focused on the sharing of
information between the company and the community. They noted the abundance of information
made available for the public (repository at local library, public meetings, mailings, and radio and
newspaper announcements).
The stakeholder process was not designed to resolve problems between the company and
the community. During the development of the FPA, only one citizen expressed concern about
the project. After meeting with EPA and OSi and reviewing the project, the citizen was satisfied
with the OSi response.
CK Witco - 64
-------
Overall, the interviewees felt that the stakeholder involvement process was effective. The
community representatives stated that the rapport between the community and OSi has always
been good, but that EPA had more difficulty working within the industrial culture of the
community. The community representatives believe that EPA should try and understand the local
culture before attempting to require citizen participation. In an "industrial culture," such as the
one surrounding OSi's chemical facility, the community and the company are intertwined. A
majority of the community is employed by the company and therefore trusts the company to make
important decisions.
Role of the Stakeholders in the Development of the Project XL Agreement
The community representatives felt that their primary role was to provide information and
reaction for OSi consideration. This role was agreeable to all parties involved, including OSi,
EPA, WVDEP, and the citizens themselves. Two union employees of the plant were also involved
in drafting the FPA. Because these employees also lived in the surrounding communities, they felt
that they represented the community in the development of the FPA.
OSi invited both the Natural Resource Defense Council and the Ohio Valley
Environmental Coalition (OVEC) to participate in developing the FPA. OVEC lacked the staff to
participate, and therefore declined the offer. NRDC national staff actively participated in early
FPA development, most especially in designing the waste minimization and pollution prevention
study. Several key elements suggested by NRDC were incorporated into the study.
EPA representatives believed that stakeholders should be involved earlier in the process.
However, company representatives and the two community representatives from Tyler and
Pleasants counties felt that stakeholders did not have the specialized knowledge necessary to
become involved in proposal development.
EPA and OSi Roles in the Stakeholder Process
The company designed the stakeholder involvement plan and was responsible for the
mailings, the news and radio ads, the library repository, the door-to-door alarm update, and all
public meetings.
EPA provided overall guidance to the project. EPA attended all meetings and provided
support. EPA had no direct role in the stakeholder process other than verifying that OSi met the
stakeholder requirements for an XL project. One community representative felt that EPA and
OSi worked in unison to create opportunities for community involvement. All interviewees felt
that both the company and EPA were effective in their roles despite the lack of public
participation.
CK Witco - 65
-------
Management of Technical Issues
Interviewees stated that the technical issues were clear and understandable to all involved.
The technical issues focused on air emissions and health concerns. The community did not raise
any specific technical concerns. Several interviewees believed that potential concerns were
addressed through an informational interview held by OSi on public radio. The community
representatives believed residents knew they could contact OSi and obtain answers to technical
questions if they so desired.
OSi scheduled and advertised in newspaper and radio, a public information and training
session. The session was designed to assist the public in understanding the regulatory and
technical issues. However, no one attended. The community representatives believed that
residents trusted OSi, and that the lack of concern with these issues was a result of that trust.
Differences in Interests or Perspectives between Stakeholders
All interviewees agreed that no substantial differences existed amongst the interests and
perspectives of the stakeholders. EPA stated that the project was very clear-cut. All interviewees
stated that OSi was very receptive to any stakeholder questions that were raised.
Stakeholder Meetings
Several meetings were held throughout the project. The December 1995 informational
dinner and the July 9th, 1996, kick-off meeting were designed to establish public support and
participation in the project. The dinner was open to invited public officials and community
leaders, while the kick-off meeting was open to the public. In addition, between July 1996 and
publication of the FPA for public comment in June 1997, direct participants in the development of
the FPA (the company and government agencies) held seven workgroup meetings (in Sistersville
and Charleston, West Virginia, and Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and thirty
workgroup conference calls.
All meetings and conference calls were open to the community representatives. These
individuals participated in the public kick-off meeting and one XL workgroup meeting. The two
community representatives decided not to directly participate in most of the meetings and
conference calls. They were however sent the minutes to all meetings and conference calls and
could make comments and suggestions if they so desired. Their comments were then distributed
to all other workgroup members and evaluated.
Stakeholder Involvement After the Signing of the FPA
Since the signing of the FPA, the two community representatives continue to be involved
in the project. They receive mailings sent by OSi describing implementation and performance test
modifications. One of the reps has been involved in a follow-up meeting. The other
CK Witco - 66
-------
representative, however, has not been involved since the signing of the FPA and is quite relieved
by this. The interviewee stated that the community was more concerned with the outcomes of the
project (such as environmental impacts and job stability) than with the design (initial proposal
creation and the development of the FPA) or technical implementation of the project.
Satisfaction with the Stakeholder Process and Suggestions for Improvement
All interviewees were satisfied with the process, but felt that the process was too long
(two years between submittal of the first proposal and the signing of the FPA). The community
representatives felt that EPA was too stringent in their requirements, and that improvements in
EPA's efficiency would save time and money for everyone involved.
The community representatives were very satisfied with the stakeholder process, but were
disappointed with the lack of community involvement. They noted that the OSi XL project was
not a priority for the community. They were not sure if the lack of involvement was a form of
apathy or if community residents simply trusted OSi and were satisfied with what they were told.
The community representatives were particularly appreciative of OSi's willingness to
maintain an open forum, the attempts made by OSi to involve the community, the simplicity of
technical information, and the company's ability to explain things in terms of outcomes and plain
language. One of the community representatives wished for more companies like OSi and
projects of this type. Although the two representatives did not give specific suggestions for
improving community participation, their concerns focused on increasing community involvement.
They both believed that OSi did everything possible to involve the community. They would
however like to see EPA become involved with local leaders prior to initiating a project. They
believed that local leaders understand the public concerns better than EPA. One representative
stated that the key to participation comes from understanding the local culture.
The company representatives, while satisfied with the project, were dismayed by the lack
of community involvement. They felt that the company did as much as it could to involve the
community. After the project was being implemented, a suggestion arose to place public notices
in local churches. Company representatives felt in retrospect that this might have been helpful.
The company representatives also felt that this project was a good way for both EPA and
OSi to learn how to work with each other. One union representative felt that EPA benefitted
greatly by seeing how a company can gain the trust of a community through effective
communication.
The EPA and WVDEP were impressed with OSi's initiative and respect in the community.
They stated that OSi's relationship with the community serves as a model for other companies.
They felt that OSi did everything it could to involve the community. However, they felt that the
representation of two communities out of six possible communities provided for insufficient
community participation. They suggested that Project XL should require a minimum level of
community participation (such as one person per community).
CK Witco - 67
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
68
-------
ExxonMobil
Project Background
The Sharon Steel Corporation - Fairmont Coke Works Superfund Site is located in
Fairmont, West Virginia. Fairmont sits along the 1-79 industrial corridor. Fairmont is a town of
15,000 located in a county of 58,000. Approximately 1,000 residents live within a one-mile
radius of the Superfund site.
Domestic Coke Corporation (Domestic Coke) purchased the original 44.6 acres of the
current site in 1918. Domestic Coke was a wholly owned subsidiary of Standard Oil of New
Jersey, the corporate predecessor to ExxonMobil Corporation. Domestic Coke conveyed the
land to the U.S. Department of War, who built the Fairmont Coke Works in 1918. The land with
improvements was reconveyed to Domestic Coke in 1920. Domestic Coke made additional land
purchases to bring the total acreage of the coke plant to approximately 103 acres. All process
units were located within an approximately 50-acre parcel at the center of the site. The rest of the
site consists of a wooded hillside that descends to the Monongahela River. The site is one of the
few large areas of flat, developable industrial land along 1-79 in West Virginia.
In 1948, Sharon Steel Corporation purchased the business and operated the coke plant.
The coke plant was closed in 1979 following Sharon Steel's reported failure to comply with Clean
Air Act and Clean Water Act regulations. In 1991, Sharon Steel was liquidated under jurisdiction
of bankruptcy court, with the land transferred to FAC, Inc., a subsidiary of Sharon Steel. In June
1998, Green Bluff Development, Inc. (a subsidiary of Exxon) bought the site.
On November 30, 1999 Exxon merged with Mobil to become ExxonMobil Corporation.
Since this report focuses on activities conducted before this date, the report refers to the
corporate entity as the Exxon Corporation.
EPA began evaluating the site for inclusion on the National Priority List (NPL) in 1987.
The site was listed on the NPL on December 23, 1996. Because of Sharon Steel's bankruptcy and
Exxon's prior ownership, Exxon signed a Comprehensive Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC) with EPA in September, 1997. The AOC sets out procedures to conduct a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and Risk Assessment for the site. In 1998, Exxon was
the only potentially responsible party with an AOC for this site.
Exxon submitted its XL proposal on September 1998. The proposal described an
alternative strategy for investigation, risk assessment, remedy selection and remediation of the
site. Using an administratively streamlined process, Exxon hoped to clean up the contaminated
site in half the time of traditional cleanups and at less cost. Additionally, Exxon planned to work
with other stakeholders to locate businesses interested in redeveloping the site. The Final Project
Agreement (FPA) was signed on May 24, 1999.
Although the Exxon XL project is currently in implementation, this analysis focuses upon
the stakeholder process used in development of the FPA. Stakeholders interviewed for this report
ExxonMobil - 69
-------
are listed in Appendix A. Interviewees included participants representing the community, Exxon
Corporation, EPA, and the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (WVDEP).
Stakeholder Involvement Process
In late 1997, Exxon hired a West Virginia consulting firm to develop and facilitate the
stakeholder involvement process for the project. In January 1998 the consulting firm began
interviewing community leaders and neighbors with the intent of identifying stakeholders for the
project. Telephone interviews were conducted with 15 to 20 community and city leaders
identified by the facilitator and Exxon. The objective of these interviews was to gather opinions
about who would best represent community interest on the stakeholder panel. The results of
these interviews provided a list of 60 people who the facilitator and Exxon felt would best
represent community interests. These people were then contacted and interviewed by phone or
mail.
The questions asked in these interviews focused on the issues and concerns surrounding
the project and the long term commitment and responsibilities that would be required as a
stakeholder. The interviews yielded a list of 20 potential members of a stakeholder panel. EPA
then reviewed this list. EPA wanted the panel to include members selected from people who
nominated themselves rather than relying on members invited to participate. Because the project
was a Superfund site, EPA wanted Exxon to hold a public meeting to describe the project to any
interested citizen. EPA also suggested that Exxon advertise in the local paper describing the XL
project and inviting interested citizens to attend the meeting. Three ads put into the local paper
and five news (television) releases described the project and invited attendance.
In mid-June 1998, Exxon held the meeting in Fairmont. Roughly 60 citizens and local
media attended. The facilitator managed the public session. The session was designed as an open
forum for discussion about the project and as a way to identify additional stakeholders. All
session attendees were given a questionnaire to fill out. The questionnaire contained questions
pertaining to individual interest in the project, availability and commitment as a stakeholder, and
interest in being on the stakeholder panel. The consultant, Exxon, and EPA reviewed the
questionnaires. As a result of the public session, five additional members were added to the
stakeholder panel. The final stakeholder panel consisted of 25 citizens.
Meetings
The first stakeholder meeting was held on June 30, 1998 at a local union hall. This and all
subsequent meetings were facilitated by the facilitator. Meetings were held monthly until the
signing of the Final Project Agreement (FPA), and are scheduled to continue more or less on that
basis. All meetings were open to the public with approximately 15 minutes set aside for citizen
input. The local news media (TV and/or newspapers) were present at every meeting and often
ran short informational pieces on the nightly news about the project. The first two meetings were
designed to inform the stakeholder panel about XL projects and the specifics of the Exxon XL
ExxonMobil - 70
-------
project. Ground rules were established by panel members during the first few meetings. The
ground rules were as follows:
! Start and end on time. (Keep meetings to two hours. End at 7:30 p.m.)
! Send minutes, agendas, updates a week in advance of meeting.
! Provide breaks.
! Speak up!
! Always provide opportunity for input from guests.
! Publicize all meetings one week ahead.
! Give ample lead-time for public input.
! Strive to reach consensus input and recommendations through full discussion.
The meeting agendas were originally drawn up by the facilitator in conjunction with EPA,
WVDEP and Exxon representatives. After the first meeting, the agendas were set by panel
members, including the community, EPA, WVDEP and Exxon representatives who sat on the
panel.
Outreach
At the end of 1998, several panel members gave presentations about the Exxon XL
project to various community groups in the area (Kiwanis Club, PTA, etc.). These presentations
were designed and run solely by panel members. They felt responsible for sharing information
with the community. Presentations provided the best means for accomplishing that objective.
In early 1999, several community outreach efforts were conducted to gather input on the
project. A one-half page advertisement was placed in the local paper describing and asking for
input on and concerns about the project. The ad included an 800-telephone number and an e-mail
and mail address where comments could be sent.
A tri-fold pamphlet was also sent out to all residents living within one mile of the site.
Eight hundred pamphlets were mailed. The pamphlets were designed to gather feedback from the
community about the future use project's site and any community concerns that may have been
overlooked by the panel. The pamphlet contained the following questions:
! How should the property be used in the future to meet the needs of the citizens of
Fairmont?
! What suggestions do you have for making information about the site more accessible
to the general public (e.g., direct mail, newspaper articles, TV, radio announcements,
etc.)?
ExxonMobil - 71
-------
! Exxon wants the input and support of people who have a specific interest in the
environmental impact of the cleanup. If you have a specific interest, how would you
like to be informed of the project?
! How would you prefer to provide input (e.g., mail, phone, e-mail, public mailings,
etc.)?
! Every effort will be made to complete the cleanup as soon as possible, with minimum
impact on the public. Would you consider a five-year time frame (instead of the typical
ten years) for cleanup of the site to be timely? If not, what would you consider to be a
reasonable time frame?
! Exxon will demolish the buildings on the site to prepare for a future use. What, if any,
concerns do you have about demolition activities at the site?
i
What other concerns or questions do you have about the cleanup process?
Responses from the newspaper ad and pamphlet were sent to the facilitator. The
consultant reviewed all comments and then passed them on to Exxon. The consultant firm called
all respondents in an effort to adequately address concerns raised. Any person commenting on the
project was sent a thank you letter by the consultant and subsequently sent periodic project
updates.
Response from the newspaper ad and tri-fold pamphlet was minimal. Ten people
responded: one by e-mail, two by 800-number, two by writing, and five via the pamphlet response
card. While the outreach efforts focused on what would be done with the property after the
cleanup, one respondent also raised concerns about the run-off from the site. This respondent
participated as a guest at some future stakeholder meetings.
Goals of the Stakeholder Process
Both EPA and Exxon representatives stated that the process was designed to share
information about the project with the community. They felt that the process enabled the
community, EPA, WVDEP and Exxon to be 'on the same plane' with regards to the project. The
process also provided a forum for Exxon to address concerns about why the site was not cleaned
up earlier and how long it would take to clean it up, and thereby helped develop a good working
relationship between the community and Exxon.
Both EPA and Exxon stated that the stakeholder process has accomplished its objectives
to date. They felt that the right issues were raised and adequately addressed. Exxon also felt that
the stakeholder panel effectively had the power to decide who should 'be at the table' and that the
community interests were properly represented.
The state agency representative raised concerns about the extent of citizen involvement.
The representative felt that citizens initially believed that they would have more power to affect
the decision-making process than they did, and were unhappy with the limit of their input. The
ExxonMobil - 72
-------
representative felt that the process should have been more clearly a process devoted to presenting
information.
The community interviewees felt that they served primarily as liaisons between the
community and Exxon. Exxon would present progress reports at the meetings and the
stakeholders would make comments based on what they perceived to be in the community's best
interests. Panel members felt that it was their responsibility to keep the community informed of
project progress.
Panel members also felt that the process afforded them the opportunity to work out
community concerns about the site. These primarily related to the time frame of the cleanup and
past alleged wrong-doings by Sharon Steel (who operated the facility from 1948 to 1979, when it
closed for failure to comply with the Clear Air and Clean Water Acts). All comments were noted
by the facilitator and passed on to Exxon. Exxon would then address concerns at the following
meetings. However, some members felt that there was no way to verify the accuracy of responses
by Exxon to concerns raised by the panel, since all the information and analysis was generated by
the company.
While some interviewees felt that the panel provided the greatest benefit to Exxon, and
was used as a public relations tool, all panel members who were interviewed also felt that the
process was effective at providing information and clarifying community concerns. All
interviewees stated that the right issues were raised and adequately addressed throughout the
process. Most panel members felt that the right people were in the process to effectively
represent stakeholder interests. The panel members stated that the panel was a good cross-
representation of the community (citizens, business owners, and government officials). One
stakeholder would have liked more county government representation, but noted that the
opportunity to join the panel was made available and apparently county officials were not
interested. Another member would have liked more neighborhood representation.
Roles Of Stakeholders in Development of Project Agreement
The stakeholders had no role in the development of the initial XL proposal. Stakeholders
also had a relatively small role in the development of the FPA (timeline, goals, wording of FPA).
According to the interviewees, suggestions made by the panel did not lead to substantive changes
in the FPA, although panel members also felt that Exxon was generally responsive to community
concerns.
Exxon originally established stakeholder roles, with panel members primarily acting as
liaisons between the community and Exxon. The roles were designed to allow community
concerns to be heard and addressed by Exxon. All stakeholders felt that this was accomplished.
The majority of stakeholders initially believed that they would have more input into the
drafting of the final FPA than they were afforded. They felt the emphasis of the panel on
information sharing, the time involved, and the members' lack of technical expertise did not
permit more active involvement. EPA stated that the panel gave as much input as they could,
given their limited technical knowledge.
ExxonMobil - 73
-------
All stakeholders stated that EPA acted to support and guide the XL project process.
Stakeholders were satisfied with EPA's role in the project. They felt that EPA representative
provided the panel with necessary information and adequately addressed any concerns or
questions raised by the panel.
Management of Technical Issues
All panel members felt that Exxon and EPA adequately presented technical information
and that it was made understandable. Either EPA or Exxon experts presented technical
information to the panel at meetings. Panel members heard the technical presentations and then
were allowed an opportunity for questions and clarification of confusing issues. This information
was technically 'scaled down' for consumption by the panel. Exxon or EPA would then address
the concerns immediately or at the following meeting.
All panel members felt that their technical concerns were addressed sufficiently yet one
panel member added that the technical information could never be made completely
understandable to lay people. However, the interviewee felt this would not be a problem as long
as residents could trust either Exxon or EPA with technical explanations. Initially, some panel
members had difficulty understanding the information, and consequently asked the facilitator to
slow down the session. The panel members felt that EPA and Exxon listened to and reacted well
to concerns raised. The issue of using EPA technical assistance grants (TAG) to hire a technical
expert for the panel was raised several times by stakeholders at different points in the process.
However, the panel eventually voted not to include a technical expert on the panel. The
stakeholders concluded that the technical information was understandable enough for their
purposes. The stakeholders stated that technical issues were generally not of prime importance.
Their concerns focused primarily on the use of the property after the cleanup.
Differences in Interests or Perspectives between Stakeholders
Interviewees noted that important differences in interests between stakeholders existed,
specifically between citizens living close to the site and city leaders. The differences focused
primarily on individual interests in the cleanup. The citizens living close to the site were more
concerned with Exxon's clean-up actions (timelines, plan of action, health risks, and soot) while
the city leaders were more concerned about the future use of the land. Exxon addressed these
differences on an individual basis and at stakeholder meetings. If there were concerns, Exxon
would contact the individuals and address their concerns. However, some panel members felt that
there was no way to verify what Exxon had said or done concerning the issues raised.
Interviewees felt the panel provided a beneficial forum for discussing differences in
interests between panel members. One panel member stated that without the panel there would be
no way to effectively address the differing interests.
ExxonMobil - 74
-------
Stakeholder Roles after Signing of the FPA
Since signing the FPA, the panel has continued to meet regularly. Panel meetings allow
members to share information about the cleanup and to provide input and feedback throughout
the life of the project.
Satisfaction with the Stakeholder Process and Suggestions for Improvement
Exxon expressed great satisfaction with the stakeholder process. This interviewee stated
that the panel provided an excellent means of gathering and disseminating information about the
project to and from the community. The interviewee also stated that the stakeholder process
opened a direct line of communication between the company and the community, something not
attempted prior to the project. The interviewee had no suggestions for improving the process.
EPA was also very satisfied with the stakeholder process. EPA felt that Exxon was very
open to panel suggestions and committed to working with the community. To improve the
process, EPA suggested conducting more initial public meetings to identify stakeholders and
including technical experts on the panel. EPA felt that one public meeting was not adequate for
identifying stakeholders. EPA also felt that most community members did not have the necessary
background to make substantive comments concerning technical issues.
The state regulatory agency representative felt the stakeholder involvement process was
over-designed, allowing for too much involvement by too many people. Monthly meetings
allowed special interest groups to maintain their momentum between meetings and thereby tie up
regulatory time. Quarterly meetings would have been more efficient.
All stakeholder panel members expressed satisfaction with the stakeholder process. Most
panel members stated that the process was a very positive experience. These interviewees stated
the stakeholder process afforded them the opportunity to establish direct links between the
community and Exxon. The stakeholder process gave the community confidence in Exxon. The
panel members now feel that if they have concerns about anything that Exxon is doing, they have
contacts at Exxon who will adequately address those concerns. They can now put faces to the
names. Exxon has effectively been 'humanized' by their efforts in the stakeholder process. They
are no longer viewed by the community as a faceless corporation.
Almost all the interviewed stakeholders were very satisfied with the outcome of the
process. They felt that the process afforded them the opportunity to gather, analyze, and
disseminate information to the community. The also stated that this process was an effective way
to create a good working relationship and open line of communication between the community
and Exxon.
Some of the strengths specifically noted by the panel members included:
! Meetings provided an open forum for public participation in the project.
ExxonMobil - 75
-------
! Active membership on the panel helped to keep public interest in the project high.
! Face to face interaction with Exxon and EPA helped to dispel myths about uncaring
business and government agencies.
! The stakeholder panel gave community members an opportunity to speak their minds.
Stakeholders noted the following concerns with the process:
! Certain issues that were brought up (health concerns and soot on neighbors houses)
should have been dealt with more directly by Exxon and EPA (who viewed these
issues as ancillary to the XL project and the Superfund cleanup). Some stakeholders
felt that Exxon and EPA needed to be more responsive to these community issues. To
these interviewees, Exxon and EPA seemed reluctant to give up control of the process
to the stakeholders. At the same time, other panel members felt that issues not
pertinent to XL project were repeatedly raised and more structure was therefore
needed at the meetings.
! To at least some panel members, technical information was sometimes presented too
quickly and needed to be explained more adequately. Some stakeholders suggested
that stakeholder roles should be clarified before stakeholders decide to participate in
the process. They felt that more stakeholder involvement in the development of the
FPA was needed.
! Stakeholder time commitments were too burdensome for some members of the
community.
Stakeholder suggested few other improvements for the process. Several stakeholders
stated that it was too early in the project to make substantial suggestions.
Exxon felt there were no weaknesses in the stakeholder process.
ExxonMobil - 76
-------
HADCO
Project Background
HADCO Corporation is a leading manufacturer of printed wiring boards (PWB) and
electronic interconnection products. The company is headquartered in Salem, New Hampshire
but has additional operations in the United States and Malaysia. The original sites involved in the
HADCO XL project were the Salem, Hudson, and Deny sites in New Hampshire, the Owego site
in New York, and a site in California. HADCO dropped the California site because of the
difficulties in applying the proposed regulation to that state. The Salem site was eventually
dropped because HADCO was in the process of moving its headquarters and the facility was
having difficulty maintaining sludge constituent levels that were necessary for delisting. The
project involved HADCO, EPA Regions I and II, EPA Headquarters, and representatives from
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES).
As a PWB manufacturer, HADCO generates wastes that are classified as hazardous waste
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Since the wastewater sludge
produced by HADCO's operations is classified as hazardous under RCRA, it must be shipped to a
third-party processor before it can be sent to a smelter for reclamation of the valuable copper
contained within.
Since the 1970's, HADCO has made changes in its manufacturing processes and believes
that the sludge created as a by-product of its operations is now less toxic and no longer needs to
be regulated as a hazardous waste. The HADCO project sought to reduce the regulatory burden
of RCRA while promoting waste recycling throughout the PWB industry. HADCO, through
Project XL, sought a conditional delisting of the sludge that would allow them to bypass the
third-party processor and ship the wastes directly to an approved smelter. This action would save
costs and decrease the risks associated with shipment of the wastes over long distances. It was
determined through the course of the project that the sludge could be eligible for a conditional
delisting in New Hampshire and for a solid waste variance in New York.
The initial project proposal was submitted to EPA in July 1995 and was accepted March
1996. The draft Final Project Agreement (FPA) was submitted to EPA in November 1996. The
FPA was reviewed and revised and the final FPA was published in the Federal Register on
October 2, 1997.
Since the FPA was approved, HADCO has been sampling their sludge according to the
FPA and communicating with EPA and the state agencies regarding the samples. HADCO has
decided to go with a solid waste variance in New York. To complete the delisting petition for
New Hampshire, EPA must have details of contracts with smelters who will receive the waste.
As of May, 1999, HADCO had not yet submitted them. Representatives from HADCO noted
that they are waiting for details from the smelters that were needed to complete the contracts.
HADCO - 77
-------
This analysis focused on the stakeholder involvement process used during the
implementation of the FPA, but also includes references to the stakeholder process leading up to
the FPA signing. It is an addendum to the description of HADCO's project presented in the
RESOLVE, Inc. report "Evaluation of Project XL Stakeholder Processes" (September 1998).
Stakeholders interviewed for this report are listed in Appendix A. Interviewees included
participants representing the HADCO, EPA, other corporate interests, and environmental
agencies in New York and New Hampshire.
Role of Stakeholders Before the Signing of the FPA
Nearly all participants felt that there was little stakeholder involvement despite HADCO's
apparently substantial efforts to get stakeholders involved in both New York and New Hampshire.
Participation was limited to the company, government officials and representatives from the
company that had been processing HADCO's sludge. This dearth of participation extended back
to before the signing of the FPA. Representatives from other PWB companies were present at
some meetings and sometimes took part in the discussion.
Some community participants, such as local officials and citizens in New York and the
Audubon Society and the Merrimack River Watershed Council in New Hampshire, attended early
meetings but did not take an active role in the process. HADCO's mailing list included
approximately 40 invited parties, all of whom received meeting minutes and documents leading up
to and following the FPA.
Respondents generally believed that most community and environmental groups had
neither the time nor the money to attend such events and that EPA should make funds available
for such groups that would like to participate. Respondents also agreed that this particular
project did not lend itself well to outside stakeholder involvement because of the apparent benign
community impacts. One participant commented that those involved had little sense of what the
stakeholder role would look like until after project initiation. HADCO was required by EPA to
make a second round of efforts to get stakeholders involved after initial efforts yielded only a few
interested citizens and groups, but even then, there was little involvement from the communities.
The government agency and HADCO participants who were interviewed felt that the
meetings provided an opportunity for input and most felt that they had an impact on the FPA.
Some participants felt that the differences in EPA Regions I and II and EPA Headquarters caused
communication problems that were detrimental to the process. The state agencies felt that they
did not have access to EPA Headquarters, and therefore, did not have a clear idea of how this
project would be managed and what EPA expected the results to be. Agencies believed that
decision-making authority should have rested with the EPA Regions, but a number of participants
said that EPA Headquarters came in "at the 11th hour" and made major changes to the FPA. This
caused the process to be delayed for several months. These interviewees felt that better access to
EPA Headquarters would have helped.
Most participants felt that their level of involvement was appropriate, but that the time
frame was much too long. Again, most felt that this problem grew out of the administrative
HADCO - 78
-------
structure to the project. With two states, two EPA regions, and EPA Headquarters involved,
clear and complete interaction between all parties was not always achieved. One participant
observed that since this was the first XL project to involve multiple jurisdictions, it would have
been prudent to plan the structure in more detail before it actually started.
Most participants said that their individual roles played out as expected, but generally
required more time and attention from them than they had anticipated. With the exception of
having insufficient involvement from community stakeholders, respondents generally believed that
the right people were at the table. HADCO invited participation by the smelters who were
scheduled to receive the delisted sludge, but these companies chose not to participate. HADCO
representatives felt that their presence would have been helpful. The presence of attorneys who
represented a hazardous waste processor tended to focus attention onto the specifics of
regulatory requirements and therefore had an important impact on the FPA. Most said they did
not envision the time it would take to work out the details and the wording of the FPA.
Role of the Stakeholders Since the Signing of the FPA
As noted above, to complete the delisting petition for New Hampshire, EPA must have
details of contracts with smelters who will receive the waste. As of May, 1999, HADCO had not
yet submitted them.
Since the FPA was signed, all participants have been involved in reviewing and
commenting on sample data to ensure that a conditional delisting or a solid waste variance can be
supported. No stakeholder meetings or other stakeholder communication were conducted
between the signing of the FPA and May 1999. Most participants said that there has been no need
for additional stakeholder involvement until the sample data are approved and HADCO has more
information to share.
Differences in Interests and Perspectives between Stakeholders
No real differences in interests have emerged among the participants since the FPA, but
several came up during the negotiation and near the end of the process. Some disagreements
existed between Region II and New York on requiring toxicity testing of the sludge before
allowing a delisting. New York felt that the toxicity tests should be done before making a
determination on the allowance of a delisting, but HADCO officials felt that all necessary
information regarding toxicity was in the comprehensive report incorporated into the FPA.
Until near the signing of the FPA, the New York agencies were unaware of EPA's
requirement for HADCO to reinvest all savings into its pollution prevention and recycling
programs. This requirement was seen as excessive and unnecessary, although HADCO accepted
the condition since so much time and effort had been spent in reaching the FPA.
At times HADCO designated certain information as proprietary, but some participants felt
this was inappropriate given that XL is supposed to be a transparent process.
HADCO - 79
-------
The third-party processor felt that some of the wording contained within the FPA
effectively precluded their company from competition among potential waste recipients and was
discriminatory to companies in similar positions. This provision was changed after company
representatives met with EPA Headquarters.
Outcomes
All participants interviewed felt that they had an impact on the FPA. However,
participants felt that the impact of the project was not yet clear since implementation is dependent
upon contracts between HADCO and the smelters. Two participants felt that they had
instrumental roles in keeping the project going when other participants felt that it was no longer
viable. A state agency representative felt particularly helpful in providing detailed information on
solid waste programs to EPA attorneys, who had little background in this area.
The levels of satisfaction with the FPA and its implementation vary, but no one reported
dissatisfaction with the document. The implementation has taken longer than expected due to
errors in the first data analysis and HADCO's inability to get the necessary contracts from the
smelters. Some participants noted that this project did not necessarily need an XL classification,
in one instance because of the ambiguity in differentiating between traditional and conditional
delistings, and in another because the stakeholder believed that if the project had been screened
more completely, it would not have qualified as an XL project. This stakeholder believed that the
requested deviation from regulation was not legal and said that this would have been made clear
in a more rigorous screening process.
HADCO representatives reported being most satisfied with being able to reach out to
stakeholder groups with whom they had had no prior contact. They were satisfied with the
timeframe from acceptance as an XL project to the draft EPA stage (6 months), but were
dissatisfied that the project met so many delays from that point. They were also displeased with
the amount of time it was taking to get to implementation. Almost all participants cited the length
of time as dissatisfying, and some said the length of time involved in XL projects was detrimental
to the entire program. Some participants cited the inaccessibility to officials at EPA Headquarters
and poor coordination between the regions and Headquarters as major problems. Respondents
cited as accomplishments the good job of writing the FPA and its specificity that allows EPA to
review the data and determine if the project is performing as desired.
Satisfaction with the Stakeholder Process and Suggestions for Improvement
Most participants reported moderate levels of satisfaction with the stakeholder process.
Since the active stakeholder group was primarily limited to the states, EPA, the company, and the
third-party processor, it was difficult for the participants to speculate how the process would have
evolved if environmental groups and citizen stakeholders had been more involved. Respondents
believed that stakeholder involvement would have been more important if the issues had been
controversial.
HADCO - 80
-------
Interviewees appreciated EPA's commitment to this project and to the program, as well as
the technical competence with RCRA exhibited by representatives of the states and HADCO.
One participant felt that the stakeholder participation helped keep the process "honest." Another
said that the idea of offering flexibility through innovation and finding new ways of doing business
was worthwhile.
On the other hand, respondents thought that the time commitments needed to participate
were excessive. Several interviewees also indicated that stakeholders with a narrow view or
special interests should not be fully involved in decision-making, particularly if they have financial
interests in the decision. These respondents viewed special interests as causing unnecessary
delays in the process.
Participants felt the process addressed almost all issues that should have been addressed.
HADCO representatives questioned why the issue of toxicity testing was not mentioned until after
the FPA was drafted. They felt it would have been more constructive to discuss it earlier in the
process. The definition of "conditional delisting" was discussed, but not to the satisfaction of
some parties.
Some participants felt that more effort should be made to secure stakeholder involvement,
and it was suggested that teleconferencing be available to help attain that end. Another suggested
that since most companies were not experienced in eliciting stakeholder participation, a better way
to identify potential stakeholders was needed. At the same time, it was suggested that all involved
should be able to add something to the process instead of inviting participants simply for the sake
of having people at the meetings. Stakeholders should be knowledgeable of the project goals and
the means available for reaching the goals, and should have some technical knowledge of the
issues.
HADCO-81
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
82
-------
Intel
Project Background
Intel, a large semiconductor manufacturer, produces Pentium microprocessors and other
state-of-the-art computer chips. Located in Chandler, Arizona, in the Phoenix metropolitan area,
the FAB-12 facility uses the company's 0.35-micron manufacturing process to produce 8" silicon
wafers. The facility covers 1,500,000 square feet of building area, occupies 720 acres of land,
and initially employed over 2,000 high-skill, high-wage workers. At the time of construction, the
facility was the largest private construction project in the state with an estimated capital cost of
$1.3 billion.
The initial project proposal was submitted to the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (AZ DEQ) and EPA on June 30, 1995. Meetings for developing the Final Project
Agreement (FPA) were held between January 24, 1996 and July 23, 1996. The stakeholder
involvement process was based on consensus building amongst stakeholders. The FPA was
signed on November 19, 1996, and the project has been in implementation since that time.
The FPA provides for a facility-wide cap on various air pollutants. The facility-wide cap
replaces individual permit limits for different air emissions sources. The FPA also limits water use
and waste generation. The FPA sets standards that would exceed or, at a minimum, fully comply
with applicable emissions standards. Although the initial proposal was developed solely for the
FAB-12 facility, Intel envisioned expanding the contract to cover other Intel operations in the
Chandler area. These proposals would be contingent upon demonstrating the feasibility and the
utility of the new system.
The Maricopa County Bureau of Air Pollution Control is responsible for oversight of most
aspects of the agreement. The Bureau uses FPA criteria to review specific changes proposed by
Intel. The engineers and field compliance people go over proposed changes and collect
supplemental data. Interviewees report that procedures have basically been implemented
according to the FPA.
This report focuses on the Intel XL Project's stakeholder involvement since the signing of
the FPA on November 19, 1996, but includes references to the stakeholder process leading up to
the FPA. The report is an addendum to the description of Intel's project presented in the
RESOLVE, Inc. report "Evaluation of Project XL Stakeholder Processes" (September 1998).
Stakeholders interviewed for this report are listed in Appendix A. Interviewees included
participants representing the community, Intel, EPA, the City of Chandler and county of
Maricopa, and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
Intel - 83
-------
Stakeholder Involvement Before Signing the FPA
Intel organized a Stakeholder Team to draft the FPA within a consensus building process.
The Team served as a multi-interest executive committee (plenary group) with working groups
organized to explore more specific issues. The Team consisted of four community representatives
(drawn from a pre-existing Community Advisory Panel organized by Intel), local agency officials,
state and federal officials, and Intel employees. Public meetings were also held.
Most stakeholders felt that the stakeholder process was well designed and well facilitated
by an outside facilitator. Intel was credited for involving a broad-based group of public and
agency representatives at the city, county, and state levels. The citizen stakeholders felt that the
environmental contingent would have been stronger if more citizens with an environmental focus
had been part of the group.
All stakeholders felt that they personally were afforded a good opportunity for input.
Everyone felt free to voice his or her opinions. However, one member questioned the breadth of
the citizen participation, believing that many interested citizens chose not to participate because
they believed that they would have no real impact on the outcome. Another member commented
that Intel knew before beginning the process what outcomes they wanted, and little room for
negotiation existed on many points. Opinions were mixed as to whether Intel was responsive to
the concerns expressed, and whether significant changes were made to the FPA as a result of
group requests.
Most stakeholders felt that they had been required to spend too much time on this project.
Some noted that the intense six-month timeframe was unreasonable. Meetings were reported to
have lasted for three to six hours and were held every two weeks, with greater frequency near the
end of the process. This was particularly an issue for the citizen stakeholders, most of whom
work regular jobs and were not compensated for their time (the regulatory and industry
stakeholders, on the other hand, participated on work time). Still, they felt it was a valuable and
worthwhile community service.
Most members felt that the process presented no barriers to participation, while others
raised concerns regarding involvement of national environmental groups in the process. The
stakeholder team was originally composed of representatives of local environmental and
community interests and governmental agencies. After discussing the merits of allowing national
groups full participation, the stakeholder team agreed to allow a national group to participate at a
lower level. The national group's representative, however, refused to sign a confidentiality
agreement with Intel. Intel required this of all stakeholders and would not allow the
representative into the plant without the signed agreement. This effectively ended the group's
participation. The question of participation by national environmental groups remained
problematic throughout the process.
Interviewees also cited difficulties with understanding the technical information as a
barrier to full participation by some members.
One citizen stakeholder commented that at the start of the process, Intel worked with
citizens under a consensus model of decision-making, but shifted the process to a consultative
Intel - 84
-------
model as the process progressed. At the same time, Intel was credited with promoting
participation through techniques such as by making telephone lines available for anyone who
could not be present at the meetings but wished to participate. All team members were
signatories to the FPA.
Stakeholder Involvement Since Signing of the FPA
Intel remains responsible for managing the participation process since the FPA was signed.
Intel schedules and sponsors the stakeholder and public meetings, distributes the quarterly report,
and maintains a web page with up-to-date information. EPA provides information and obtains
data when needed and is involved in reviewing the reports.
As required by the FPA, Intel holds quarterly stakeholder meetings and semi-annual public
meetings. The company also produces quarterly reports regarding emissions and air and water
quality as affected by its operations. The stakeholder team reviews and discusses the quarterly
reports before they are made public to ensure that the reports are comprehensible to the public.
The team also reviews the reports to ensure that Intel is meeting the superior environmental
performance as directed by Project XL.
The stakeholders use the quarterly meetings to discuss potential revisions to the FPA. An
example is the team's decision to revise the company's goal of "100% water reuse" to "95%
water reuse" because of the technical difficulties with meeting the original goal. This decision
was reached by a unanimous agreement among stakeholders. Another issue addressed by the
stakeholder team regards the amount of notice that should be given to the stakeholders before
Intel makes a process change.
Since the FPA was signed, some stakeholders have felt that their involvement has been
limited. As an example, they cite Intel's decision to change from using arsenic to arsene gas in
one of its processes. This decision was made without consultation. Several interviewees felt that
the issue should have been discussed with the stakeholders before the decision was made,
although most felt that the issue itself was not a great threat to public safety. Most interviewees
also noted that Intel made great efforts to alleviate stakeholder concerns regarding the change.
Because Intel has been granted regulatory flexibility, other area industries have requested
the same flexibility but without going through the process. Many stakeholders strongly object to
the potential for state and local regulators to consider this allowance.
Most interviewees feel that their role in the process was consistent with what they had
expected, but that the time commitment was unanticipated. The citizen stakeholder who
commented on Intel's decision to move from consensus decision making to advisory roles for
citizens had expected a more active role than the interviewee felt was achieved. Most
stakeholders felt that the right people were involved in the process, but many commented on the
need for more citizen participation. However, those who had been involved with similar
processes noted that it is always difficult to get citizens involved.
Intel - 85
-------
The Stakeholder Team has discussed the possibility of transferring elements of this project
to other industries in the Phoenix area, but concluded that this would be difficult because of the
uniqueness of each XL project.
Differences in Interests and Perspectives between Stakeholders
Since signing the FPA, differences in interests amongst the stakeholders is most apparent
around decisions that require a change in manufacturing processes or the FPA. Interviewees most
often cited Intel's decision to shift to arsene gas, as an example. While Intel made this decision on
its own, respondents noted that this change was agreeable to all participants after sufficient
information was provided to the stakeholders. One member observed that when the arsene gas
issue was raised, the member realized that Intel would most likely do whatever it deems necessary
for the company, regardless of stakeholder objections. This stakeholder was somewhat surprised
by this realization, feeling that Intel had previously advocated the stakeholders' role in the
decision-making process.
Meeting Management Since the FPA
A facilitator who was hired by Intel managed the meetings. The stakeholders set the
agenda, and items could be added. One representative noted that sometimes Intel was somewhat
resistant to this but generally allowed new items. One meeting involved a discussion among the
stakeholders about the positive and negative points of the process and what changes could have
been made to improve the process. The meetings involved discussion of the quarterly reports
before they were released to the public.
Groundrules for the process were initially agreed upon verbally when the stakeholder team
was first initiated. This caused disagreements as the process continued, particularly concerning
the definition of what constituted "consensus" approval of the draft FPA. Despite this problem,
all participants agreed that the meetings provided a good opportunity for dialogue (both before
and after the signing of the FPA). Participants noted that the regular public meetings allowed an
opportunity for all interested parties to be involved.
Outcomes
Most participants felt that they or their agency had an impact on the FPA and its
implementation. Several participants again noted that Intel appeared to have determined the
direction and desired outcome of the process before it started. Most participants were satisfied
with the FPA and its implementation, but some noted changes that they felt should have been
made. Examples include investigating water consumption instead of water recycling and waste
minimization instead of waste reduction.
Participants were satisfied with the manner in which Intel has worked to make local
citizens aware of their processes and to invite citizen involvement in project XL. The company
Intel - 86
-------
made substantial efforts to get citizens involved through newspaper and television advertisements
as well as using door hangers to let people know when meetings were scheduled. The quarterly
reports and the web page were both cited as being extremely valuable information sources for the
community. Local agencies were somewhat concerned about other local companies requesting
the flexibility that has been granted to Intel. Some companies have indicated that they are not
being treated fairly in having more stringent regulatory requirements than Intel.
Satisfaction with the Stakeholder Process and Suggestions for Improvement
The participants were all at least fairly satisfied with the stakeholder process, but one
stakeholder was dissatisfied with the structure and the difficulty of completing a large task in a
short amount of time. Some dissatisfaction also existed over the inability of more citizens and
environmental representatives to be involved in the process. Respondents noted that the time
requirements were an important barrier to potential participants, as well as a source of difficulty
for their own participation. Insufficient resources were also cited as a barrier. One participant
noted that a smaller company could not participate in a process as complex as this. The time
involvement was a source of dissatisfaction for a number of participants, and an agency
representative noted that their agency would not be able to commit such tremendous resources to
all permitting processes.
Stakeholders praised Intel's efforts to make the process viable, including the provision for
conference calls in lieu of meetings. The company was commended for its endeavor to make the
community aware of the process and in using the Internet to do so. The dialogue and information
sharing that resulted from the process was seen as a major strength, particularly in the current
dialogue regarding worker health and safety. Another strength was the decision to use the
Arizona Ambient Air Quality Standards to set an absolute maximum amount of exposure to
volatile organic compounds, particulates, nitrogen oxide concentrations, etc.
Stakeholders expressed concern that all parties at the table were not equals, even though
equality was a premise of the original process. Most stakeholders felt that more citizen
participation would have improved the process. Some issues emerged from the lack of clarity
around groundrules, and most participants said that groundrules should be written instead of
being based on a verbal agreement.
All participants felt that all issues that should have been addressed were discussed.
Suggestions for improving the process generally centered around finding ways to get more
citizens involved and obtaining funds for educating participants on technical issues. Groundrules
and deadlines should be established up front, with full understanding of the rules by all
participants. Scoping should be revisited at some point during the process to make sure that
important issues are being addressed.
Intel - 87
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
88
-------
New England Universities Laboratories
Project Background
The Laboratory Consortium for Environmental Excellence (LCEE) is an umbrella
organization for university-based environmental and safety officers. Eight New England
universities participate in LCEE, including the Amherst and Boston campuses of the University of
Massachusetts, Boston College, Harvard University, Northeastern University, Trinity College,
Tufts University, and the University of Vermont.
In September 1997, LCEE submitted an XL proposal to EPA to develop flexible
performance-based standards for managing university laboratory hazardous waste. The Final
Project Agreement (FPA) was approved on September 28, 1999.
The project is designed to develop and implement an integrated Environmental
Management Plan (EMP) for managing hazardous lab waste at three universities. These
laboratories typically use small quantities of many different chemicals. A management plan to
control their use and disposal offered environmental advantages relative to the traditional
regulatory requirements set forth in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
RCRA process involves a substantial amount of paperwork, sometimes for a small amount of
infrequently generated waste. Under the EMP, environmental professionals will seek
opportunities for reusing materials within the university. The universities will not be required to
make a RCRA hazardous waste determination until the laboratory wastes reaches a central on-site
location. The FPA requires reductions in waste generation and material reuse as a result of
providing regulatory flexibility.
While the FPA is now signed and the project is being implemented, this analysis focuses
upon the initiation and early dynamics of the stakeholder process used in project development.
Stakeholders interviewed for this report are listed in Appendix A. Interviewees included
participants representing the communities, environmental groups, the university sponsors, other
universities, EPA, and state environmental agencies.
Overview of the Stakeholder Involvement Processes
The stakeholder process developed for the New England Universities Laboratories project
differed from that of other XL projects. This project involved several parallel stakeholder
processes: one focused on national constituencies, and a series of processes designed to address
the concerns of local stakeholders more locally concerned with each of the university campuses.
These processes aimed to involve three distinct constituencies:
! national constituencies with an interest in the environmental management of university
laboratories,
New England Labs - 89
-------
! internal local constituencies (university administrators, faculty, staff and students) with
an interest in safety and environmental protection on the campuses of universities
participating in the XL project, and
! external local constituencies (residents and communities adjoining these universities)
with an interest in potential off-site impacts.
The remainder of this report on the Universities Laboratories XL Project is divided into
two sections. The first section describes the national stakeholder involvement process. The
second section describes both the internal and the external local community processes. In each
section, we review the process of involvement, the roles of the participants, the management of
the process, outcomes and stakeholder satisfaction.
National Stakeholder Involvement Process
Overview of the National Process
The national process consisted of two multi-day meetings. Participants included
environment, health and safety coordinators of university and non-university labs, as well as lab
managers. Most participants represented institutions that would benefit from regulatory
flexibility. In addition to these meeting, participants communicated through the use of an e-mail
"listserve."
A national meeting was held in Boston, Massachusetts in the fall of 1997. This meeting
focused on RCRA and the regulation of lab wastes. The meeting was formatted similar to a
university mini-conference, with presentations primarily by representatives from colleges labs
from around the country. The meeting was described as an informational session that sought to
delineate the scope of the lab waste problem.
A second national meeting, facilitated by ML Strategies and The Santa Fe Council, was a
three-day session held in the Florida Everglades in March 1998. Formatted as a working group,
the meeting brought together people from the Boston meeting with other interested parties.
Participants were primarily from university-based labs, but included representatives from private
labs as well. A few environmentalists and state agencies also participated. ML Strategies and the
Laboratory Consortium for Environmental Excellence (LCEE) solicited the participants.
The meeting encouraged interactive problem identification and problem solving.
Participants discussed concerns and issues and created an agreement as to what the XL project
FPA should cover. Participants sought to identify more flexible approaches to manage wastes
from university and research laboratories. Representatives of various labs spent time discussing
how the proposal would affect their facilities. Some members noted that the process was not
structured to deal with bigger issues that were raised (such as environmental management more
generally), but most felt that the meeting was appropriately focused on how best to achieve a
common goal (flexible approaches to waste management).
New England Labs - 90
-------
In addition, a number of smaller meetings between LCEE schools were held in New
England to develop the FPA. ML Strategies served as facilitator and project coordinator
throughout this process.
Stakeholders have continued to be involved at different levels. Although the scope of the
project initially appeared to be broad in its applicability, schools in some states realized that
implementation would be difficult due to particular nuances in their schools or in their state
regulations. Participants also believed that the various EPA regional offices managed issues of
laboratory waste differently, with some regions applying specific standards more stringently than
others. Thus, some participants determined that the issues identified by the New England schools
were less problematic for their universities.
The project was eventually narrowed to include three schools in New England: The
University of Vermont, (UVM) Boston College (BC), and the University of MA-Boston(UMass-
Boston). These three schools and the LCEE worked with EPA and state agencies, and other
stakeholders, to develop the FPA.
Involvement in the Process
Interviewees felt that the stakeholder process was well designed and implemented.
Respondents felt that participants felt free to speak and contribute to the discussion. At the same
time, most respondents felt that the participants were operating under too many constraints. A
number of participants at the meetings sought to shift the focus of the XL project from regulation
of specific wastes to comprehensive environmental management plans for the labs. Lab-based
interviewees believed that EPA was too cautious, preferring to adapt existing regulatory language
as little as possible. Many respondents believed EPA's conditions precluded creativity and
innovation. Interviewees questioned why EPA placed these restrictions on a pilot project that
could be stopped at any time if it did not yield the desired results. Many lab-based stakeholders
believed that minor issues became major points of contention and that this was contrary to the
purpose of Project XL.
Most stakeholders felt that their level of involvement was appropriate, given that many of
them participated only in the Florida meeting and through the listserve. Interviewees were
generally frustrated, however, with the length of time that passed between the end of the national
meetings (March 1998) and the signing of the FPA (September 1999). One interviewee observed
that more groundwork could have been done between EPA and LCEE before holding the Florida
meeting in order to coordinate efforts more effectively.
Most interviewees felt that there were no barriers to participation, but representatives
from some schools would have participated more fully had they been closer to Boston, which was
the location of a number of smaller meetings (predominantly between the LCEE institutions).
Environmental groups noted that they lacked both the funds and the time to participate in a longer
process.
Most interviewees believed that the right people were at the table, but some felt that
environmental groups, representatives from EPA Headquarters, and smaller universities should
have been better represented. An EPA representative noted that participation by environmental
New England Labs - 91
-------
groups was insufficient, and that the project sponsors and EPA needed to work more effectively
at promoting such participation. Another interviewee suggested that EPA should fund
involvement by non-profit organizations, since such organizations do not have the resources to
participate otherwise.
Most interviewees felt that the right issues were raised during the meetings, but were not
sure that all had been adequately addressed. Most said that they would have to wait and see what
happens with implementation in order to determine if the issues were addressed appropriately.
Some stakeholders said it would be useful to have routine updates on project development
or a stakeholder follow-up meeting organized in a structure similar to the Florida meeting.
Roles
With the help of a $59,000 EPA start-up grant, LCEE hired ML Strategies, an
environmental consulting group, to develop the proposal and coordinate the development of the
FPA. Most interviewees viewed ML Strategies and LCEE as having the lead throughout the XL
process. A few interviewees regarded EPA as having the lead role since regulatory flexibility
required EPA approval. Interviewees saw their own role as assisting LCEE develop best
management practices that would be applicable to colleges around the country. A representative
from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) believed that the
state agency became too involved, given that EPA would ultimately regulate the project.
Most interviewees believed that while EPA supported the XL process, agency staff were
not in favor of a high level of regulatory flexibility for the labs. Some interviewees felt that EPA
staff were supportive but needed to be more proactive at reducing constraints, while others
perceived that the problem lay with differences of viewpoint between EPA Region I and
Headquarters on this issue.
Management of Technical Issues and Differences in Interests and Perspectives between
Stakeholders
Most interviewees who participated in the national process believed that the technical
information was understandable to all participants, since all were already involved in regulating
environmental programs at their respective schools.
Interviewees noted that various schools had concerns that were particular to their
individual situations, but no one cited this as problematic to the proposal. Concerns of smaller
schools differed from those of larger schools, because the smaller schools generate far less waste
and therefore opposed new regulations or procedures that might increase the reporting that they
were required to do. The environmental representatives wanted to ensure that any increase in
regulatory flexibility did not pose additional environmental risks. Representatives of universities
and private companies differed as to what the regulations should do and whether a single set of
regulations could apply to both university and private labs. Private labs were concerned that
procedures and regulations developed by EPA and the universities might ultimately be required of
them as well.
New England Labs - 92
-------
Meeting Management
ML Strategies and the LCEE schools developed the agenda for the Florida meeting. At
the same time, interviewees said that the process allowed for additional issues to be raised.
Members had little to say about groundrules; some said none were developed, while others said
groundrules existed but were not of major concern. Most viewed ML Strategies as the primary
facilitator, responsible for not only keeping the meeting running smoothly but also for building
agreement amongst the various labs as to an appropriate direction. One interviewee viewed the
EPA representative as the primary facilitator. All agreed that ML Strategies kept the process
moving and kept participants encouraged and focused on the goal. It appears that everyone was
comfortable in speaking about issues they viewed as relevant.
Satisfaction with the Stakeholder Process and Suggestions for Improvement
Most interviewees were satisfied with the stakeholder process, but some were dissatisfied
with what they perceived to be EPA's unwillingness to innovate much beyond the traditional
regulatory model. These interviewees reasoned that as a pilot project, Project XL should allow
for more experimentation.
Most interviewees approved of bringing interested parties together and believed that
participants were all able to contribute effectively. No one reported dissatisfaction with his or her
participation in the stakeholder process. One member wondered if, given the breadth of the
issues, the diversity of the stakeholders involved was too narrow.
Several interviewees noted that EPA had little sense of deadlines, and that the numerous
rewritings of the project agreement was inefficient. Interviewees also noted that EPA seemed too
concerned with worst-case scenarios.
Interviewees applauded the process for attempting to give labs a more efficient way to
manage waste, for encouraging group membership that was largely appropriate for the issues, for
focusing on long-term goals, and for including the input of lab directors and environmental
managers from across the nation. Interviewees viewed the meetings as constructive engagements
with people sharing viewpoints, and felt these meetings were meaningful and important
experiences. Some interviewees said that the project accomplished what labs have been trying to
achieve since 1984: establishing performance-based standards for university labs.
Interviewees believed that most issues had been addressed. Exceptions included EPA's
position on the types of allowable treatment within labs and storage areas, the definition of what
constituted a "lab unit", and issues associated with on-site storage and the "arbitrary" 90-day limit
for storing waste.
Local Stakeholder Involvement Processes
Overview of Local Community Processes
The XL project applied to three New England academic institutions, including Boston
College (BC), University of Massachusetts - Boston (UMass-Boston), and the University of
New England Labs - 93
-------
Vermont (UVM). BC is located in Newton Massachusetts, an affluent residential community
adjacent to Boston. BC has two campuses (law and main) with a total enrollment of 14,000
students. The population of the surrounding community is roughly 200,000. UMass-Boston is
located in the heart of the city, adjacent to Boston Harbor. Approximately 12,000 students, all of
whom commute to campus, are enrolled in the university. Because of its location, the campus has
few close residential neighbors. UVM is located in Burlington, Vermont. The population of the
surrounding community is approximately 40,000, including 10,000 students enrolled at the
university.
Each of the three "pilot program" schools designed local community participation
processes. These processes varied amongst the three schools, but each school developed a
process to involve on-campus administrators, faculty, staff and students (internal process) and
citizens and public officials from the surrounding community (external process). Thus, the
University Laboratories local involvement efforts led to the design and implementation of six local
stakeholder involvement processes.
Overall, members of the communities surrounding the colleges showed little interest in
participating. Participation by faculty, staff and students on the individual campuses was also
generally low.
Stakeholder Involvement Plan
Each university was responsible for developing and implementing its own stakeholder
participation processes. University project leads were established to coordinate these local
community stakeholder processes. BC began their external process in late 1997 and their formal
internal stakeholder process in January 1999. UVM began their internal stakeholder process in
early 1998 and their external process in the fall of 1998. UMass at Boston began both their
internal and external stakeholder process in January 1998.
Internal to Boston College
The project lead met individually with the internal stakeholders to explain the XL project
and gather support. The lead identified fifteen internal stakeholders (various administrators and
faculty) to participate on the panel. The first formal meeting of the internal stakeholders was held
in January 1999. All 15 stakeholders were present. The next meeting was scheduled for mid-
June, 1999. Meetings were facilitated by the project lead. These meetings were informational
and focused on the goals and current status of the XL project. The project lead stated that there
were no concerns raised by the stakeholders. In addition to the formal meetings, several informal
individualized meetings were held between the project lead and various stakeholders. These
informal meetings were scheduled primarily to provide project updates.
Internal to UMass-Boston
In January of 1998 the project lead approached a number of internal groups on campus.
These included representatives of university staff responsible for environment, health and safely;
administration; faculty; and graduate students. The project lead described the XL project and
New England Labs - 94
-------
solicited interest in participating in the stakeholder involvement process. Twelve faculty,
administrators and staff volunteered to be on the stakeholder panel.
An initial meeting was held in February 1998. This meeting was primarily informational
and focused on explaining XL projects in general as well as specifics related to the project at
UMass. Stakeholders were also asked what roles they would like to take as participants in the
project. The group decided on a commentary role. No subsequent meetings have been held.
The twelve stakeholders are periodically sent e-mails as project updates occur. They are
encouraged to review the documents and send their comments to the university's project lead.
The project lead also made two presentations describing the project to an environmental
compliance group on campus. The group was asked for their input on the project. No comments
were received from either group.
The project lead feels that the stakeholder panel is comprised of a solid cross-section of
faculty, staff, and administrators, but remains concerned that the project is attracting little
community interest. The interviewee feels that the stakeholders will become more involved once
the project is being implemented.
Internal to UVM
UVM has not held any formal internal stakeholder meetings. The project lead contacted
and met with several groups and individuals on campus. The project lead sent updates to each of
these internal groups and asked for comments. Interviewees stated that the campus stakeholder
process was designed to share information, and that the right groups were involved in the process.
All participants in this processes were technically proficient.
The project lead at UVM was also responsible for formulating and maintaining an e-mail
list server. The list server was designed to keep national and local stakeholders informed and to
obtain input from those stakeholders. The list server was established in October 1998 and as of
May 1999 had 150 members. The list server membership includes national and campus-specific
stakeholders, as well as people not affiliated with the project but who were interested in
regulatory issues. Project progress reports were e-mailed monthly to members. The UVM
project lead responded to concerns that came in through the list server.
E-mail comments on the progress reports have been minimal. According to the managers
of the list server, more comments were received at professional conferences than through the list
server. The majority of comments focused on health and safety management in a laboratory
setting. Commentors often expressed concerns that the difficulty of organizing a centralized
Environmental Management Plan may prove to be more difficult than complying with RCRA on
college and university campuses. Aside from this question, however, most commentary on the
project has been supportive.
External to Boston College
In late 1997, EC's project lead identified 10 external stakeholders. The stakeholders were
asked to participate based on their community involvement, their technical skills, and their interest
New England Labs - 95
-------
in the project. Prospective stakeholders were sent personal letters inviting them to participate. All
ten agreed to participate.
As of May, 1999, the project sponsored two formal external stakeholder meetings. The
first met on January 13, 1998. Seven people were in attendance. The meeting was arranged and
facilitated by the project lead. Topics covered in the meeting included a review of XL projects in
general as well as specifics related to the BC pilot project.
The second meeting was held on September 22, 1998. Again seven people attended,
including a regional representative from EPA. The project lead also arranged and facilitated this
meeting. Topics covered included a review of the performance standards proposed in the XL
project as well as a general project status update. The EPA representative clarified issues
surrounding the XL project.
The project lead stated that there have been no concerns or comments expressed by the
external stakeholder panel either at the meetings or afterwards.
External to UMass-Boston
UMass-Boston has had little involvement of citizens or off-campus organizations. The
project lead submitted three articles to a local publication (The University Reporter) describing
the XL project and asking for citizen to participate. The articles generated no response. The
project lead also talked with various business leaders in the surrounding community. One
organization initially expressed interest in the project. The project lead attended two of the
organizations bi-monthly meetings, and at each presented an overview of the XL project.
Members of the organization did not express any concerns and were not interested in further
participating in the stakeholder process. Project progress reports are sent to the organization,
with requests for feedback. As of May 1999, no responses were received.
External to UVM
In October 1998, UVM's project lead met with the local voting ward board to discuss the
XL project. The board consists of community leaders from the city council, board of health,
county waste district, and other agencies. The board suggested contacting the local neighborhood
planning unit (NPU). The campus's Environmental Council coordinator attended a NPU meeting
to describe the project and ask for input. Concerns raised at the meeting focused on issues not
related to the XL project (campus noise, radiation on campus, college parties, etc). The NPU
leadership declined further involvement in the project. Meeting attendees were also asked to
contact a representative on campus with any additional comments or concerns. No comments
have been received as of May 1999. Efforts to increase the community's interest in the project
continue.
Goals of Internal and External Stakeholder Processes
All interviewees stated that the objective of the local stakeholder processes was to share
information between the project coordinators, internal stakeholders, and the community. Most
interviewees felt that the process accomplished that objective. However, each university's project
lead felt that the specifics of the XL project were too complicated for the external stakeholders to
New England Labs - 96
-------
understand and this caused the external groups to become disinterested. Several external
stakeholders reiterated this point.
The internal processes were designed to increase awareness amongst laboratory personnel.
All interviewees felt that this goal was reached. Interviewees also agreed that all interests were
effectively represented on the internal panels.
The external processes were designed to reach out to and educate the surrounding
communities. However, community interest in the specifics of the XL project was low. Several
interviewees felt a greater effort made to include other parties in the external process was needed.
The project leads all stated that community residents were primarily interested in issues
neighborhood impacts such as noise, traffic, and student housing, issues that were not related to
the XL project.
Stakeholder Roles
Local community stakeholders did not assist in developing either the initial proposal or the
FPA. The internal and external group roles were advisory. All interviewees stated that the
stakeholders were free to develop more active roles in the projects. However, all stakeholder
groups decided to keep their roles as advisory.
EPA played very small roles in the stakeholder process at the university and community
level. One EPA official did participate in an external stakeholder meeting at Boston College.
Management of Technical Issues
All interviewees stated that technical issues were adequately addressed. The majority of
internal stakeholders were familiar with the technical language and content of the project prior to
their involvement.
External stakeholders stated that they were not concerned with the technical content of
the project. They focused more generally on the potential impacts of the project, and trusted the
universities' experts to appropriately interpret the technical background for them.
Satisfaction with the Stakeholder Process and Suggestions for Improvement
No concerns were expressed regarding the internal stakeholder process. However, most
interviewees expressed concerns about the external stakeholder process. Interviewees felt that
additional efforts should be made to educate and involve the outside community in the project.
Several stakeholders felt that greater involvement by the media might have raised community
interest. Interviewees also felt that the difficulty of the technical information contributed to the
lack of interest on the part of everyday citizens. Finally, one project lead expressed concern that
the stakeholder processes were too focused on meeting the formal requirements of Project XL
and not enough on meeting the needs of the project sponsors or in addressing the stakeholders
concerns (which largely focused on non-XL issues).
No suggestions for improvement were stated.
New England Labs - 97
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
98
-------
Vandenberg Air Force Base
Project Background
The Vandenberg Air Force Base conducts and supports missile launches, operates the
Western Test Range and responds to worldwide military contingencies. The base covers more
than 98,000 acres and is the Air Force's third largest military installation. Vandenberg Air Force
Base (AFB) is located in Santa Barbara County, 15 miles from the nearest municipality, Lompoc
(population 35,000). The base is within 55 miles of Santa Maria and Santa Barbara and 150 miles
northwest of Los Angeles.
Under Title V of the Clean Air Act and the California permitting process, Vandenberg
AFB would be designated as a major source of ozone precursor emissions. Because of the
Metropolitan Region's air quality problems, the designation would require the base to obtain new
permits for up to 300 previously unregulated emission sources. Through both the ENVVEST2
and Project XL programs, the base sought to substantially reduce ozone precursor emissions,
sufficient to be redesignated as a minor source. This would result in a substantial reduction in
compliance costs. Vandenberg AFB sought to fund these emission reduction projects using
money that would otherwise be spent complying with administrative requirements of Title V, such
as permitting, record keeping, monitoring, and training.
The initial project proposal was submitted to the Department of Defense and EPA in
December 1995. The Draft Project Agreement was developed and submitted to EPA in March
1996. The Final Project Agreement (FPA) was signed and published in the Federal Register in
November 1997. The project is now in the implementation phase.
This analysis focused upon the stakeholder involvement process leading up to the signing
of the FPA and during the implementation of the FPA.
Stakeholders interviewed for this report are listed in Appendix A. Interviewees included
participants representing the community, Vandenberg Air Force Base and EPA.
2 As part of the Administration's reinvention initiatives, EPA and the Department of Defense
(DoD) signed a Memorandum of Agreement in 1995 that established how the two agencies would
interact during implementation of DoD's Environmental Investment (ENVVEST) program. The
ENVVEST program emphasizes regulatory compliance through pollution prevention and
provides an alternative to prescriptive regulatory requirements through a performance-based
environmental management system designed to attain superior environmental results.
Vandenberg - 99
-------
Stakeholder Involvement Process
The Stakeholder Involvement Plan was developed in July 1996 by a legal consultant hired
by Vandenberg AFB. The plan was part of the draft FPA. Stakeholders were not involved in the
development of the plan nor were they involved in the development of the draft FPA.
The Stakeholder Involvement Plan identified mechanisms already existing for conducting
public participation in the project. Three existing environmental advisory boards were asked to
consider the ENWEST/XL project at their regularly scheduled meetings. These boards include:
! The Vandenberg Citizens Advisory Board (CAB): formed as a forum for education
and consultation around environmental restoration projects, the board's mission was
later expanded to deal with a wider range of environmental issues. CAB members
were chosen by the base community in 1994 through a non-military community-based
process and meet quarterly.
! The Community Advisory Council (CAC) appointed by the Santa Barbara County Air
Pollution Control District board members. And
! The Santa Barbara County Community Toxic Advisory Committee, which provided
advice to the Santa Barbara County Fire Department.
These existing community boards are briefed at their quarterly meetings and are asked to
provide feedback in the formulation and implementation of the ENVVEST/XL project. Copies of
the draft FPA were sent to these boards for review and suggestions.
In August 1997, prior to publication of the final FPA, Vandenberg sponsored a public
workshop at the base. The workshop was designed to share information and allay public concerns
pertaining to activities at Vandenberg AFB, including the ENVVEST/XL project. Invitations to
the workshop were sent to 40 public interest groups and individuals that had previously expressed
concerns with activities at Vandenberg AFB. Notice of the workshop was also published in the
local press and media. Concerned citizens were invited to attend.
Approximately 60 community members, including CAC and CAB members, attended the
workshop. At the workshop, Vandenberg personnel explained the project and asked for public
comment and concerns. Interviewees who attended the workshop felt that Vandenberg personnel
effectively allayed any concerns of the community.
One environmental group, the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), expressed concerns
about the ENVVEST/XL project in June 1997. EDC was specifically concerned about the
proposed Title V waiver. A representative from the group attended the initial workshop and
expressed the concerns of the group. Vandenberg personnel explained the project and answered
any questions that were raised by EDC. EDC was satisfied with Vandenberg's response and
decided not to participate further in the project.
Vandenberg - 100
-------
The next public meeting was held in October 1997. Public notices were again published in
the local press and media. However, invitations were not sent out to the previously concerned
citizens. No community members attended this meeting. All interviewees felt that Vandenberg
personnel had effectively explained the project in the first meeting and that no questions remained
unanswered.
The FPA was signed in November 1997 and the project is now in the implementation
phase. Stakeholder participation in the implementation phase consists of quarterly CAB briefings
by Vandenberg personnel. Few comments or concerns are generated by these briefings.
Goals of the Stakeholder Process
All interviewees stated that the goal of the stakeholder process was to share information
about the project with the community. While the process was not designed to resolve issues
between the base and the community, very few issues were raised. The only concerns expressed
were those of an environmental group and they were allayed through direct discussions with
Vandenberg staff. All interviewees felt that the ENVVEST/XL project would benefit the
surrounding communities.
Role of the Stakeholders
The CAB and CAC members serve as community representatives on standing committees.
They saw their roles as providing information to the community and feedback to the AFB. These
roles were not created through the ENVVEST/XL project but were extensions of their duties on
their respective committees. As such, the specifics of the ENVVEST/XL project were only a
small part of their overall responsibilities.
Vandenberg and EPA roles in the Stakeholder Process
As stated previously, Vandenberg hired a legal consultant to develop the stakeholder
involvement plan. Vandenberg personnel were responsible for the invitations to the workshop,
the media and newspaper spots, and both of the public meetings. EPA advised Vandenberg on
Project XL requirements, assisted Vandenberg in the development of their project, attended all
meetings, and provided support. Vandenberg personnel continue to brief the CAB and CAC
boards quarterly on the status of the project.
Management of Technical Issues
CAC interviewees were already familiar with the technical language surrounding the
project, since their council work frequently pertained to environmental and technical issues. Two
CAB members stated that even though they were not familiar with the language used in the
Vandenberg - 101
-------
project, they felt that Vandenberg personnel explained everything in a comprehensible manner.
EPA also stated that the Vandenberg staff presented technical issues effectively.
Differences in Interests and Perspectives Between Stakeholders
All interviewees stated that, other than the concerns raised by EDC, stakeholders did not
express any substantial differences in interests or perspectives.
Satisfaction with the Stakeholder Process and Suggestions for Improvement
All interviewees were relatively satisfied with the process, and few suggestions emerged
from the interviews.
The EPA representative was very satisfied with the process. The representative felt that
the environmental benefits and the base's rapport with the community were strengths of the
process. At the same time, EPA indicated that the stakeholder plan relied too much on existing
boards to represent stakeholders, thereby potentially limiting involvement by individuals not
affiliated with the base or County agencies.
The Vandenberg representatives were also very satisfied with the process, and viewed the
public stakeholder process to be most beneficial immediately before the signing of the FPA, to
allay citizen concerns and possible lawsuits. The interviewees suggested that the principal
stakeholders and project sponsors needed to be in agreement before going public with a plan, and
that efforts to publicize the FPA drafts too early in the process could have been detrimental to the
project's success. In the absence of agreement between the principal parties, the public could
perceive problems surrounding the project and consequently deem it unworthy of support.
Vandenberg personnel also felt that involving stakeholders by working with existing
community boards was particularly useful. While they also expressed concerns about using a
board of appointed officials (CAC) as community representatives, they doubted that individual
stakeholders would have much reason to participate, given the distance between the AFB and the
nearest community.
The CAB and CAC board members interviewed also felt the stakeholder process was a
success. Board members identified a need for more opportunities for citizen involvement,
although they did not think this would have changed the outcome. Overall, they felt that the
issues were reasonably straightforward and that the project as a whole did not require intense
review. In addition, these interviewees felt that the base's reputation in the community helped
alleviate any concerns that may have emerged otherwise. As such, the CAC and CAB boards did
not focus extensively on the ENVVEST/XL project.
Vandenberg - 102
-------
Appendices
-------
Appendix A
List of Interviewees by Project
Andersen
Abrahamson, Wally
Barwick, Brian
Birnbaum, Nancy
Hogberg, Kirk
Kellison, Jim
Klein, Bill
Ronchak, Andrew
Van Zee, Ron
Weissner, Carol
Community Advisory Committee
EPA Region V
EPA Headquarters
Andersen Project Lead
Community Advisory Committee
Community Advisory Committee
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Community Advisory Committee
Community Advisory Committee
Atlantic Steel
Brandon, Mike
Cohen, Dan
Cooper, Connie
Glenn, Michelle
Hagar, Brian
Leary, Brian
Powell, Shannon
Roark, Randy
Replogle, Mike
Smith, Bernadette
State, Tim
Torma, Tim
Chairman, Home Park Community Improvement Association
City of Atlanta, Principal Planner, Current Planning
Facilitator (Cooper / Ross Consulting)
EPA Region IV
Sierra Club
Project Lead, CRB Realty (Jacoby)
Midtown Alliance
Urban designer and manager of the Home Park Charrette
(Georgia Tech)
Federal Transportation Director, Environmental Defense Fund
Home Park Community Improvement Association
Home Park Community Improvement Association
EPA Headquarters
CKWitco
Barnhart, Jesse
Birnbaum, Nancy
McKnight, Jim
CK Witco employee and union leader
EPA Headquarters
Pleasants County Resident
List of Interviewees - 104
-------
Peters, Eric
Pontiveros, Lucy
Termini, Beth
Tucker, Okey
Tyler County Resident
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection
EPA Region III
former CK Witco Project Lead
ExxonMobil
Bass, Thomas
Bledsoe, Barry
Cain, Steve
Fantasia, Nick
Fowlkes, Roberta
Gribben, Karen
Hannig, John
McDaniel, Bruce
Swope, Ron
Yarmechuk, Marcella
Watson, Norma
Pennington, Melissa
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection
Community Liaison Panel
Community Liaison Panel
Stakeholder
Facilitator
Community Liaison Panel
ExxonMobil Project Lead
Community Liaison Panel
Community Liaison Panel
Community Liaison Panel
Community Liaison Panel
EPA Region III
HADCO
Blanchette, Ron
Gotschall, Will
Maroukian, Mark
Marschner, Ken
Nadler, Larry
Sullivan, Jim
Wilmot, Lee
HADCO
World Resources Corporation
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
EPA Region II
HADCO
Intel
Crumb aker, Jo
Knox, Barbara
Larsen, Jim
Lemmon, Jim
Maricopa County Bureau of Air Pollution Control
Community Advisory Panel
Intel
Community Advisory Panel
List of Interviewees - 105
-------
Matusow, Dave
McKaughan, Colleen
Sampson, Pat
Workman, Gregg
Community Advisory Panel
EPA Region 9
City of Chandler
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
New England Universities Laboratories
Balf, Tom
Brannegan, Dan
Deady, Karen
DelaHunt, John
Frantz, George
Hawkins, George
Howard, Suzanne
Butler, Kathleen
Kelly, Anne
Miller, Jim
Shoener, Ed
Stuart, Ralph
Thomann, Wayne
Thompson, Fay
Walker, Sherri
Zehra Schneider Graham
Nexus Environmental Partners (formerly ML Strategies)
Pfizer, Inc.
Director, Environment, Health and Safety, University of
Massachusetts, Boston
The Colorado College
EPA Region I
Stony Brook Watershed Association
Project Lead, Boston College
Community resident, University of Vermont
EPA Region I
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Ecologia
Project Lead, University of Vermont
Duke University
University of Minnesota
EPA Headquarters
University Project Lead, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Vandenberg
Dougherty, Jack
Higgins, Mike
McVay, Monty
Satillo, Mark
Segal, Sarah
Santa Barbara, CA resident
Waste Water Authority, Santa Barbara County
Vandenberg Project Lead
Environmental Defense Center
EPA Region IX
List of Interviewees - 106
-------
Appendix B
Research Method
For each case, principal parties to the stakeholder process were interviewed using a semi-
structured interview protocol. The interviews were designed to clarify the actors and events of
each case, and to explain not only what conditions existed, but how and why they emerged.
Interviews were conducted with participants in the stakeholder involvement process, including
citizen representatives, environmentalists, project sponsors, local and state officials, and EPA
officials. A list of interviewees is presented in Appendix A.
In each interview, the research team explored the interviewee's:
! perceptions as to the organization of the process,.
! involvement in the process, including their decision to participate, how they were
invited to participate, and any involvement in their community or with the facility
before this process began;
! perceptions as to whether the stakeholder participation process was well designed and
implemented, including whether it afforded the stakeholder a real opportunity for
input, whether the level of involvement and the timeframe of involvement were
appropriate, and whether there were any barriers to effective participation;
! perspectives as to what the stakeholder process was trying to accomplish, including
whether the process goals were appropriate and successfully accomplished, and
whether the process focused on the right issues, addressed those issues adequately, and
brought together the right people in the process to effectively represent stakeholder
interests;
! roles of the stakeholders, and that of the company and EPA, in the development of the
Project XL agreement, including whether the roles were developed by the company
alone or in conjunction with other stakeholders, the stage in the decision making
process at which stakeholders became involved, whether the roles were consistent with
what the stakeholders envisioned when they decided to participate, and the
effectiveness of these roles; and
! overall satisfaction of stakeholders with the stakeholder involvement process, including
their perceptions about the major strengths and weaknesses of the stakeholder
involvement process and suggestions for improving the process.
The interviews also explored the interviewee's perspectives concerning
! how technical issues were addressed in the stakeholder process and if this enabled
technical information to be understandable to all participants;
Research Method - 107
-------
! the degree to which differences in interests or perspectives existed between
stakeholders and how any differences that did exist were addressed;
! how meetings (if held) were managed, including issues of setting the agenda and
groundrules, the use of a facilitator and that person's effectiveness, and whether these
meetings provided a good opportunity for dialogue;
! the outcomes of the process, and whether the stakeholder felt that they had an impact
on the outcome, how satisfied they were with the FPA, and what outcomes were most
and least satisfying to them and their constituency; and
! if the XL project was in the implementation phase, what had been accomplished since
the signing of the FPA, how the stakeholders had continued to be involved, and the
effectiveness of that involvement
Michael Elliott conducted the evaluation, with the assistance of Tony Giarrusso and
Alison Nichols. Michael Elliott is Principal of the Southeast Negotiation Network, an Associate
Professor of City Planning and Environmental Policy at Georgia Tech, and Co-Director for
Research with the Consortium on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution. Tony Giarrusso and
Alison Nichols are research assistants with the Georgia Institute of Technology's City and
Regional Planning Program.
Research Method - 108
-------
Appendix C
Glossary
Brownfield: Abandoned, idled or under-used industrial and commercial facilities or sites where
expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.
Clean Air Act: The Clean Air Act is the comprehensive Federal law that regulates air emissions
from area, stationary, and mobile sources. This law authorizes EPA to establish National Ambient
Air Quality Standards to protect public health and the environment.
Clean Water Act: The Clean Water Act sets the basic structure for regulating discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States. The law gives EPA the authority to set technology-
based effluent standards on an industry basis and continues the requirements to set water quality
standards for all contaminants in surface water.
Conditional Delisting: Use of the petition process to have a facility's toxic designation
rescinded.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA):
CERCLA is the legislative authority for the Superfund program which funds and carries out
EPA's solid waste emergency and long-term removal and remedial activities. These activities
include establishing of the National Priorities List (NPL), investigating sites for inclusion on the
list, determining their priority, and conducting and/or supervising cleanup and other remedial
actions.
Comprehensive Operating Permit (COP): A COP replaces existing permit systems with a
single operating and regulatory permit for a facility that encompasses Federal, State and local
permitting requirements.
F006 Listing: A hazardous waste that is wastewater treatment sludge produced from nonspecific
electroplating processes and operations.
Final Project Agreement (FPA): The FPA outlines the details of the project and each party's
commitments. The project's sponsors, EPA, State agencies, Tribal governments, other
regulators, and direct participant stakeholders negotiate the FPA.
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Air pollutants that are not covered by the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards but that may have an adverse effect on human health or the environment.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society that can pose a substantial or potential hazard to
human health or the environment when improperly managed. Hazardous waste possesses at least
one of four characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appears on special
EPA lists.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Standards established by EPA under the
Clean Air Act applicable to outdoor air quality throughout the country.
Glossary - 109
-------
National Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under Superfund.
Nitrogren Oxide (NOX): An air pollutant that is the result of photochemical reactions of nitric
oxide in ambient air. Typically, it is a product of combustion from transportation and stationary
sources. It is a major contributor to the formation of tropospheric ozone, petrochemical smog,
and acid deposition.
Non-attainment Area: A designated geographic area considered to have poorer air quality than
the national ambient air quality standards as defined by the Clean Air Act. An area may be a non-
attainment area for one pollutant, and an attainment area for others.
Particulates: Fine liquid or solid particles such as dust, smoke, mist, fumes, or smog, found in air
or emissions.
Point Source: A stationary location or fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged.
Pollution Prevention: Identifying, altering, or eliminating areas, processes, and activities that
create excessive waste products or pollutants.
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP): A PRP is the owner or operator of a contaminated site, or
the person or persons whose actions or negligence may have caused the release of pollutants and
contaminants into the environment, requiring a remedial action response under CERCLA or
SARA. The PRP is potentially liable for the cleanup costs in order to compensate the government
for its remediation expenditures.
Printed Wiring Boards (PWB): A device that provides electronic interconnections and a surface
for mounting electronic components.
Production Unit Factor (PUF): A production-based performance measure.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): RCRA authorizes EPA to control
hazardous waste from "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment,
storage and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also sets forth a framework for the management
of nonhazardous wastes and for environmental problems that could result from underground tanks
storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. RCRA focuses only on active and future
facilities and does not address abandoned sites.
Sludge: A semi-solid residue from any of a number of air or water treatment processes.
Superfund: The program operated under the legislative authority of CERCLA and SARA that
funds and carries out EPA's solid waste emergency and long-term removal and remedial activities.
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI): Database of toxic releases in the United States compiled from
SARA Title II Section 313 reports.
Transportation Control Measure (TCM): TCM encompasses elements of both "transportation
system management" (TSM) and "transportation demand management" (TDM). TSM generally
Glossary - 110
-------
refers to the use of low capital intensive transportation improvements to increase the efficiency of
transportation facilities and services. These can include carpool and vanpool programs, parking
management, traffic flow improvements, high occupancy vehicle lanes, and park-and-ride lots.
TDM generally refers to policies, programs, and actions that are directed towards decreasing the
use of single occupant vehicles. TDM also can include activities to encourage shifting or
spreading peak travel periods.
Variance: Government permission for a delay or exception in the application of a given law,
ordinance, or regulation.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC): Any organic compound that easily evaporates and
participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions, except those designated by EPA as having
negligible photochemical reactivity.
Glossary -111
------- |