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

-------