United States Office of Policy, EPA-233-B-03-001
Environmental Protection Economics, and May 2003
Agency Innovation (1807T) http://www.epa.gov/publi
c
involvement/Policy2003/
response.pdf
EPA's
Response to Comments
on the
2000 Draft
Public Involvement Policy
y 2003
"a
Involvement brings the pieces together
-------
Graphics on the Covers
"Involvement brings the pieces together" artwork is the creation of Erica
Ann Turner who contributed the work to EPA through an agreement
between the Art Institute of Washington and the Agency.
Graphics on the Covers
"Involvement brings the pieces together" artwork is the creation of Erica
Ann Turner who contributed the work to EPA through an agreement
between the Art Institute of Washington and the Agency.
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the
2000 Draft
Public Involvement Policy
May 2003
-------
This page left intentionally blank.
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. DEFINITIONS 3
3. PURPOSES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 7
4. APPLICATION OF THE POLICY 18
5. FUNCTION (NOW STEP) 1. PLAN AND BUDGET FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
ACTIVITIES 25
6. FUNCTION (NOW STEP) 2. IDENTIFY THE INTERESTED AND AFFECTED
PUBLIC 28
7. FUNCTION (NOW STEP) 3. CONSIDER PROVIDING TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE TO THE PUBLIC TO FACILITATE INVOLVEMENT 35
8. FUNCTION (NOW STEP) 4. PROVIDE INFORMATION AND OUTREACH TO THE
PUBLIC 46
9. FUNCTION (NOW STEP) 5. CONDUCT PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND
INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES 93
10. FUNCTION (NOW STEP) 6. REVIEW AND USE INPUT, (ASSIMILATE
INFORMATION) AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO THE PUBLIC 125
11. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY 136
12. COMMENTS RECOMMENDING EDITORIAL CHANGES TO THE POLICY 145
13. GENERAL COMMENTS
149
14. RECOMMENDED BEST PRACTICES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 157
15. GENERAL COMMENTS ON PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESSES 162
16. ISSUES NOT RELATED TO THE POLICY 184
17. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING STATE OR DELEGATED GOVERNMENTS . . .185
18. PUBLIC COMMENTS RELATED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
-------
.206
19. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING TRIBAL ISSUES 212
20. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PUBLIC COMMENTS 226
iii
This page left intentionally blank.
iv
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
1. INTRODUCTION - Public Involvement at EPA
In February 1979, EPA promulgated regulations at 40 CFR Part 25 governing
public participation for activities under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In the same year, EPA began developing the
Agency's first Public Participation Policy, which was issued on January 19, 1981. A draft
of the Policy was published for comment in the Federal Register in April 1980.
In July 1999, the EPA Innovations Task Force issued "Aiming for Excellence:
Actions to Encourage Stewardship and Accelerate Environmental Progress" (EPA 100-R-
99-006). In the report, at the suggestion of a FACA advisory committee, EPA stated that it
would evaluate its public participation policies and regulations in light of current practices,
relevant statutes, regulations and Executive Orders. During October 1999, EPA convened
a cross-agency workgroup to evaluate existing public participation requirements and
practices, and to make recommendations to the Administrator.
On November 30, 1999, EPA republished the 1981 Policy in the Federal Register
and asked for suggestions on changes to the Policy, on the processes that work well or
need improvement, and on how the Agency should involve the public in revising the Policy.
Based on public comments and internal review, in its report to the Administrator,
"Engaging the American People" (EPA 240-R-00-005), the workgroup recommended:
updating the 1981 Policy to accommodate new statutes and regulations, changing and
expanding techniques for engaging the public, changing relationships with state, local and
tribal governments, and improved public access to information.
In the year 2000, members of the workgroup drafted a revised Public Participation
Policy, now called the Public Involvement Policy. On December 28, 2000, the Associate
Administrator for Policy, Economics and Innovation was published the draft Policy in the
Federal Register and invited the public to submit comments through July 31, 2001. The
central feature of the draft Policy was a description of the basic steps for conducting
effective public involvement (revised in the final Policy to include a seventh step):
1. Plan and budget for public involvement activities
2. Identify the interested and affected public
3. Consider providing technical or financial assistance to the public to facilitate involvement
4. Provide information and outreach to the public
5. Conduct public consultation and involvement activities
6. Review and use input, provide feedback to the public
7. Evaluate public involvement activities
Coinciding with the release of the draft Policy, EPA charged a new cross-agency
workgroup with developing recommendations to implement the new Policy and improve the
1
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
overall quality of EPA public involvement activities for release with the new Policy.
In July 2000 EPA held a two-week, Internet-based "Dialogue on Public Involvement in
EPA Decisions" to learn from the public and practitioners how the Agency could improve its
practices. Over 1,100 people from all 50 states, several tribes, two territories and six other
countries registered for the event. The Dialogue informed development of what became the
Framework document. The Framework was released as a draft Implementation Plan for a 60-
day review public comment period in January 2001. The Framework focuses on the areas of:
Developing or making available public involvement training
Sharing public involvement information and practices
Creating mechanisms for tracking, measuring and evaluating the effectiveness of
EPA's public involvement efforts
EPA received 202 public comments on the draft Public Involvement Policy by the end of
the public comment period. Sources included 26 state agencies, 12 local governments, 17
environmental organizations, 82 citizens, five industrial associations and five agricultural
interests. Many of the comments raised implementation concerns and recommended
improvements in how EPA plans and conducts public meetings, holds staff and managers
accountable for public involvement, ensures that public input influences EPA's decisions, uses
electronic communication methods, and provides feedback to participants or commenters. EPA
analyzed the public comments and developed this Response to Comments document.
To protect individual's privacy, through this document comments are attributed to
organizations. Unaffiliated individuals who commented are listed as "citizens #1 to Citizen #90".
The Cross-Agency Public Involvement Work Group completed its internal review of the
Policy and Framework in November 2002. A Final Agency Review, which required
endorsement from regional and headquarters senior officials was held in January 2003. The
Administrator issued the Policy and released the Framework and Response to Comments
document in May, 2003. (http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement "Recent Additions" to view the
three documents.)
Staff who reviewed the comments grouped those comments into categories and
developed substantive responses. Many are individual responses; some are single responses
to a series of very similar comments. Whenever possible, language in the Policy is referenced.
All citations from the Policy are in italicized type. Words that are new or changed are italicized
and bolded.
Those who read this document and the Policy will easily see that the Agency seriously
considered and used the public's comments to revise and reorganize the Policy.
2
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
2. DEFINITIONS
Define Certain Terms
Washington Department of Ecology. Nuclear Waste Program:
After reviewing the Draft Policy, we would like to suggest that you clarify certain terms used
frequently throughout the document. These terms include "earliest practicable times;" "early
public involvement;" "timely" distribution of information, etc. While we commend the intent to
involve stakeholders early in the process, we suggest that you define what is meant by "early"
and "timely."
Response: Please see new language in the "Definitions" section of the Policy (new language in
bold italics): 'Early public involvement' is no longer in the final Policy language. However the
previous and current language has been used to describe and encourage opportunities for the
public to contribute their input as early in the decision-making process as practicable. Timely
distribution of information' or the definition of "Timely information" means distributing
information sufficiently far in advance so that the interested public have enough time to
review relevant material, decide whether to become involved, and make plans for that
involvement Timely applies to the availability of background information on particular
issues, as well as notification of public meetings, public comment periods or other
critical involvement activities.
Modify Policy's Definition of "Public"
OMB Watch:
The term "public" has many different meanings. The public includes: the regulated industry; state
and local governments; school boards and planning commissions; community, social justice,
and environmental groups; emergency responders (such as police and firefighters); news
reporters; investors; and many other interested parties. The general public includes those who
actively use information from the government (e.g., preparing a report), and those who only
passively use such information (e.g., watching the news).
The public can also be divided along competency with using government information.
Information "sophisticates," who include but are not limited to researchers, academics, and
advocates, know where information they need is located and how to find new information. They
often have personal relationships with people in agencies who can direct them to sets of
information, provide access to hard-to-find documents, and provide advice and guidance on
overcoming hurdles in the way of open public access. Others, mostly the "John Q. Publics," do
not have special relationships with individuals in agencies or do not realize that individuals in
agencies can be helpful in finding timely, relevant information.
Clean Air Council:
The US EPA needs to acknowledge in its broad definition of public that not all members of the
public are equal in the resources they bring to public policy discussions. While industry must
indeed be a stakeholder that US EPA listens to—they often bring with them great financial
resources, technical know-how and political influence. Most community members and local
3
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
community organizations cannot match any of these resources. EPA needs to acknowledge
these discrepancies and modify its public involvement policies to address these inequities. In
order to allow these constituencies to participate meaningfully the US EPA must focus most of
its public involvement resources towards these constituencies.
Response for above two comments: EPA agrees that the term "public" is very broad, but
does not agree that the definitions in the Policy should be revised. The Policy intentionally uses
the term "public" because it is such a broad term. EPA recognizes that some members of the
public have more resources than others; however, this is not a definitional issue. The Policy
seeks to address resource limitations in other ways, such as in the Policy's step 3: "Consider
providing technical and financial assistance to the public to facilitate involvement."
Consultants in Toxicology. Risk Assessment and Product Safety:
EPA needs to decide whether the external scientific community is part of the "public" and what
role the external scientific community should play in developing science-based regulations and
policies.
Response: Scientific and research organizations are listed in the Policy's definition of "public."
The role that the external scientific community should play in developing EPA's science-based
regulations and policies is outside the scope of the Public Involvement Policy.
Clarify State Role in "Definitions" Section (additional comments and responses related
to states, tribes and local governments can be found in Section XX of this document)
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators:
The proposed policy uses the broadest possible definition for the term "public" and outlines an
extensive list of organizational and representational structures to be considered "stakeholders."
The draft neither acknowledges nor makes provision for the unique role of states in the
regulatory decision-making process. State government is only one of a long list of entities
considered to be part of the term "public" and is characterized as an equal stakeholder along
with private citizens, consumer, environmental, and advocacy groups.
ASDWA recommends that the proposed policy expand on the definition of "public" to reflect the
unique role of state governments and to correct the misperception that state input into the
regulatory decision-making process carries no greater weight or value than other interested
parties.
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials:
Similarly, we found the role of States and other government entities as co-regulators
understated. We will not speak for other government entities, but in our experience States are
not stakeholders in the general sense addressed here, because they are sovereign
governments whose views must be addressed and incorporated into decision making. In many
cases, State waste programs have parallel regulatory authorities which will be used to carry out
their professional environmental decisions. Those State decisions will be developed with full
consideration of public participation, but will not necessarily incorporate all those public
recommendations. In many cases, States and other governments must put in place
implementing steps which will make federal decisions possible (e.g., institutional controls). In
short, there is a discrete requirement for early, continuous federal consultation with State
governments in order to develop the parameters of environmental decisions. We are not
suggesting that the Agency attempt to define the State-EPA relationship in this policy document,
4
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
but to acknowledge that it exists and is different from the public policy described herein. We do
not agree with the characterization at the top of page 82337 that State regulatory agencies can
be "stakeholders who provide input into EPA's decisions", because it oversimplifies and
confuses this very complex relationship.
Response to above two comments: See new material on the roles of states in the Policy's
section on "What are the Roles of States, Tribes and Local Government" (new language in bold
italics):
"State agencies, tribes and some local governments have unique roles regarding EPA's
programs and decisions:
1. State agencies, tribes and some local governments may be co-regulators with
EPA. In some cases, they implement authorized, approved or delegated Federal
programs. In other cases, they run independent, but closely related programs. In
both cases they work closely with EPA as regulatory partners. In addition, they
may have expertise that can be valuable to EPA in designing public involvement
activities.
2. State agencies, tribes and local governments also may be regulated parties
when they undertake activities that are subject to Federal laws and regulations.
As regulated parties, they are also members of the community of regulated
stakeholders.
3. Whether they are partners helping EPA implement a program or members of
the regulated community affected by EPA regulations, state agencies, tribes and
local governments often play an active role in making recommendations on
policy, rules, plans and recommendations under development, and providing
input on EPA's decisions."
Revise Policy's Definition of "Stakeholder"
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Water Resource Management:
We are concerned with the use of the term "stakeholder" in the policy. This term is used in the
web site for receiving comments on the draft public policy (http://www.epa.govshared with). EPA
defines the term "stakeholder" as: "Any organization, governmental entity, or individual that has a
stake in or may be impacted by a given approach to environmental regulation, pollution
prevention, energy conservation, etc." (see EPA Environmental Terms at
http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms). Much of the public-at-large either has no knowledge of the
term, or believes the term to be biased towards those with an economic interest and the ability to
make themselves heard directly by the agencies. In other words, "stakeholder" imparts a
perception of specific entities and not the general public. This term also may isolate some of the
public by its use. Your policy is much more encompassing and provides opportunity for
involvement for anyone in the public. We believe the terms "stakeholders" and "public policy"
may contrast with one another, and suggest the term "stakeholders" only be used when
discussing particular projects with effects limited to a specific sector of the public. Alternatively,
you could more clearly explain that the term "stakeholder" as used in your policy is applicable to
the general public.
Response: EPA agrees that some members of the public may misconstrue the term
"stakeholder;" however, the Policy clearly applies much more broadly to the public as a whole.
EPA believes that the distinction between stakeholders and the public is clearly set out in the
5
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Policy's "Definitions" section the following (new language in bold italics): "Stakeholders" are
representatives from organizations or interest groups who have a strong interest in the
Agency's work and policies.
"Affected parties," are stakeholders who are or may be impacted by EPA decisions.
Remove Tribes from Definition of "Stakeholder"
Oregon Hanford Waste Board and the Oregon Office of Energy:
Revise the draft Policy to list the Tribes independently so they are not put in the same category
as stakeholders.
Doctoral Student. University of Washington. Geography Department:
I notice throughout the policy that the term stakeholder is considered to include Tribes. Given the
government to government relationship accorded to Tribes they should be called out explicitly.
Response to above two comments: See new material in the Policy's "Definition" section and
the section on "What are the Roles of States, Tribes and Local Government" about the unique
relationship and responsibilities between EPA and tribes (new language in bold italics):
"The role of Tribes is unique in another way. Each federally-recognized tribal
government is a sovereign entity that has an individual government-to-government
relationship with the federal government. Therefore, it is appropriate for EPA to engage
in consultation activities with such tribes in addition to activities that the Agency would
undertake for the public. EPA should coordinate and consult meaningfully with Tribes to
the greatest extent practicable for agency actions that may affect the tribes. This Policy
complements EPA's efforts to consult with Tribes. (See Executive Order 13175,
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (Nov.6, 2000.))
Consultation should be a meaningful and timely two-way exchange with Tribal officials
that provides for the open sharing of information, the full expression of Tribal and EPA
views, a commitment to consider Tribal views in decision making, and respect of Tribal
self-government and sovereignty. The Agency should allow comment from Tribes early
in the planning process and prior to making a decision. However, consultation does not
imply that the Tribes or any other non-EPA entities that are consulted can stop an
Agency action by withholding consent."
Citv of Phoenix. Arizona. Office of Environmental Programs:
My discussions with EPA staff have indicated a bias on EPA's part that local governments may
not reflect their citizenry and may not be "genuine stakeholders." If that perceived bias is true
across the agency, EPA needs to reexamine what is meant by a "genuine stakeholder." Criteria
for the decision of who has a "genuine stake in the local community" needs to be defined (P
82340), and local governments need to be included in that definition.
Response: Under the Policy, local governments are considered stakeholders whenever they
have an interest in an EPA action. EPA agrees that the term "genuine stake" can be interpreted
in many ways, and has deleted the word "genuine" from that section. See new material in the
Policy's "What are the Roles of States, Tribes and Local Government" section(new language in
bold italics):
"State agencies, tribes and some local governments have unique roles regarding EPA's
6
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
programs and decisions:
1. State agencies, tribes and some local governments may be co-regulators with
EPA. In some cases, they implement authorized, approved or delegated Federal
programs. In other cases, they run independent, but closely related programs. In
both cases they work closely with EPA as regulatory partners. In addition, they
may have expertise that can be valuable to EPA in designing public involvement
activities.
2. State agencies, tribes and local governments also may be regulated parties
when they undertake activities that are subject to Federal laws and regulations.
As regulated parties, they are also members of the community of regulated
stakeholders.
3. Whether they are partners helping EPA implement a program or members of
the regulated community affected by EPA regulations, state agencies, tribes and
local governments often play an active role in making recommendations on
policy, rules, plans and recommendations under development, and providing
input on EPA's decisions."
Include Definition of "Underserved"
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
The draft Policy should include a definition of what constitutes an underserved population and, if
necessary, a methodology for determining an underserved community.
Response: EPA's Office of Environmental Justice currently pursues the issue of who is
"underserved" on a case-by-case basis, and chooses to use the criteria of other state, federal
and tribal governments.
3. PURPOSES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
General Purposes, Goals and Objectives
Citizen #1:
It appears that there are too many goals, for some are repetitive. Specific goals should flow out
of specific purposes. Otherwise it's hard to follow the logic.
Response: EPA appreciates the concern regarding the clarity of the goals. The Policy's listing
of Purposes and Goals may seem to be repetitive; however, it is meant to be inclusive.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management:
The draft Policy states that its fundamental premise is that "EPA should provide for meaningful
public involvement" in all of its programs. We believe that the statutory and regulatory bases of
each environmental program set explicit public participation requirements and procedures,
which do provide the public with opportunities for meaningful involvement. The draft Policy
attempts to ensure not that the public is given an opportunity for involvement, but rather, states
that it should be used to "determine the appropriate nature and extent of public involvement
above the basic requirements." The Public Involvement Policy needs to explicitly recognize that
7
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
decisions are predicated on regulatory requirements. Therefore, decisions are often not based
on stakeholder consensus. EPA should not utilize this Policy as a means of steering public
participation in regulatory or permitting programs in any particular direction.
Response: EPA agrees that the Policy should not be used to steer public participation in any
particular direction and nothing in the Policy requires stakeholder consensus as a basis for
decision making. The intent of the Policy is to ensure early and meaningful public involvement
so that all members of the public can be heard.
Purposes of the Draft Policy
Reaffirm EPA's commitment to early and meaningful public involvement
Citizens #2. 13-15. 17-29. 31. 34. 36. 38-44. 46-51. 53-55. 57 (same comment provided by 37
citizens via e-mail)
I want a public involvement policy that will encourage early and meaningful public participation in
all aspects of environmental decision making.
Response: EPA agrees that the Policy should encourage early and meaningful public
participation in the Agency's decision-making processes. This comment is reflected in the
Policy's section on "Purposes, goals and objectives."
Ensure that environmental decisions are made with an understanding of the interests
and concerns of affected people and entities-Commenters in disagreement with
purpose
Alabama Department of Environmental Management:
The vast majority of comments received by ADEM on permitting actions concern issues outside
of the scope of the Department's responsibilities (e.g. zoning, land use planning, property
values, nuisance, etc.). A stated purpose of the Policy is to "ensure that environmental
decisions are made with an understanding of the interests and concerns of affected persons..."
Given that most concerns of the public seem to be outside of the scope of the environmental
regulatory process, implementation of the Policy would not appease their concerns.
Response: EPA agrees that the Policy may not resolve all concerns for all interested parties.
However, EPA believes it is important for the public to have the opportunity to express its
concerns. For EPA decisions, however, only those interests and concerns that relate to a
specific EPA decision would be considered. The Policy addresses this issue by stating that
outreach materials should "Provide informational materials that clearly identify the role of
the public in the specific decisions to be made." Further, in the Consultation section, the
Policy calls for EPA to "... clearly identify the issues for discussion, negotiation or decision
prior to and during a public involvement process, so that participants understand on
which issues they should comment EPA officials should describe clearly the type of
public involvement process planned, the schedule, EPA's expectations for the outcomes
of the process and the timing and type of feedback that EPA will provide. A goal of the
Outreach portion of the Policy is 'To assist the public in understanding the reasons for
Agency action, the legal framework for decision making and the significance of the
related technical data so that the public can provide meaningful comments."
8
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Goals of the Draft Policy:
To ensure that the Agency provides the public with information at a time and in a form
that it needs to participate in a meaningful way
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Water Supply Section:
"Goal: To ensure that the Agency provides the public with information at a time and in a form that
it needs to participate in a meaningful way." EPA must realize that promulgation of several rules
and guidances in a short period of time can, and usually will, result in a less thorough review by
the States and other stakeholders, simply due to the sheer volume of documents to be reviewed.
Staff resources at the State level are already limited, so the reviews of draft material become
cursory, if done at all. This has happened over the past two years with the SDWA program, with
several rules currently in the proposed stage. At one point last spring, there were over 1000
pages of rules and guidance to be reviewed at a single point in time in the SDWA program alone.
Response: EPA agrees that there may be many rules, policies and other issues
simultaneously open for comment, sometimes driven by statutory deadlines. This comment
was provided to the EPA Office of Regulatory Management and the Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water.
To ensure that the public understands official programs and the implications of potential
alternative courses of action
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Water Supply Section:
Goal: "To ensure that the public understands official programs and the implications of potential
alternative courses of action." To assist with this effort in understanding new rules, it would be
most helpful if the implementation guidance was put out in draft form with the proposed rule, and
then in the final form very shortly after the final rule is published. Often, the implementation
guidance is out several months, if not years, after the final rule is published, by which time the
States have already notified their public of the upcoming rule, and have already developed their
rules and implementation plans. Technical guidances should also be issued as soon as
possible, and at least concurrently with the final rule.
Response: This comment was provided to the EPA Office of Regulatory Management.
To learn from the public the information it is uniquely able to provide
Citizens #13-15. 17-18. 20-22. 28. 31. 33. 36-38. 40-43. 46. 48-50. 53-54. 57 (same comment
provided by 25 citizens)
I want a public involvement policy that will recognize and respect public's knowledge, ideas and
proposed solutions.
Citizen #63:
I would like public involvement in all aspects of environmental decision making. We the people
9
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
are very diverse. We have different educational back grounds and have much to offer. Many
have a technical grasp of environmental science concerns. I personally am an auditor.
Because of my unique position as an auditor. When I work, I see the whole picture. I do not
know all the technical aspects of everything I audit, but I have a sufficient grasp on them that
allows me to suggest innovative solutions to problems discovered. I say all of this because the
public has knowledge and ideas to offer, and legitimate concerns to be discussed. The public
can also evaluate proposals from a myriad of angles in order to help formulate the best
solutions-that are a win-win situations for all parties concerned. Please, allow the public to be
involved in the decision making process.
Response to above 26 comments: EPA appreciates this comment. The Policy supports the
idea of recognizing and respecting the knowledge, ideas and proposed solutions that the public
can provide. These issues are reflected in several of the items in the Policy's "Purposes, goals
and objectives" section.
To achieve the purposes and goals, while also recognizing resource constraints,
Agency officials will strive to provide for, encourage, and assist public involvement in
the following ways:
Beginning public involvement early in the decision-making process and continuing it
throughout the process as necessary to provide the best information possible-
Comments that support this statement
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
Page 6, "Begin public involvement early in the decision making process..."
We concur with this statement, however in the Hazardous Waste Program the mandated time
when public involvement begins is often not early enough in the process. Many times technical
staff have been working on a site for some time before the public involvement starts. This often
leads to mistrust by the public because they feel they were left out of the early stages of the
project. The public involvement staff should be brought into the site activities sooner.
Response: This comment was provided to the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response.
Striving to identify, communicate with and listen to all affected sectors of the public. The
role of Agency officials is to plan and conduct public involvement activities that provide
equal opportunity for all individuals and groups to be heard. Where appropriate,
implementation of this Draft Policy will require Agency officials to give extra
encouragement and consider providing assistance to some sectors, such as minorities
and low-income populations, or small businesses, which may have fewer opportunities
or resources to participate - Supporting comments
New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Office of Administration:
We also commend the inclusion (p. 82337) of the objective of "striving to identify, communicate
with and listen to all affected sectors of the public". This should include the recognition that state
environmental agencies share with EPA the role in planning and conducting public involvement
activities that provide equal opportunity for all individuals and groups to be heard. For instance,
there may be situations where DEC will have greater insights for recommending extra
10
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
encouragement and assistance to some sectors, such as minorities and low-income
populations, or small businesses, which may have fewer opportunities or resources to
participate in EPA actions.
Response: EPA agrees that the role of the states needs to be clarified. See new material on
the roles of states in the Policy's "What are the Roles of States, Tribes and Local Governments"
and "Identifying the interested and affected public" sections (new language in bold italics):
"State agencies, tribes and some local governments have unique roles regarding EPA's
programs and decisions:
1. State agencies, tribes and some local governments may be co-regulators with
EPA. In some cases, they implement authorized, approved or delegated Federal
programs. In other cases, they run independent, but closely related programs. In
both cases they work closely with EPA as regulatory partners. In addition, they
may have expertise that can be valuable to EPA in designing public involvement
activities.
2. State agencies, tribes and local governments also may be regulated parties
when they undertake activities that are subject to Federal laws and regulations.
As regulated parties, they are also members of the community of regulated
stakeholders.
3. Whether they are partners helping EPA implement a program or members of
the regulated community affected by EPA regulations, state agencies, tribes and
local governments often play an active role in making recommendations on
policy, rules, plans and recommendations under development, and providing
input on EPA's decisions."
Citizens #3. 13-18. 20-22. 30-31. 33. 35. 38. 40. 49-50. 53-55 (same comment provided by 21
citizens)
I want a public involvement policy that will educate community members to ensure equal
participation and allow them to influence decisions and propose informed solutions. This
includes regionalizing materials to ensure cultural sensitivity.
Response: EPA appreciates the comments. Various sections of the Policy address the
issues of ensuring that EPA provides information to the public that enables them to participate in
a meaningful way, equal participation, public influence on decisions and proposed solutions, and
ensuring that materials are understandable to the public.
Involving members of the public in developing options and alternatives (when
possible) and, before making decisions, seeking the public's opinion on options or
alternatives. Agency officials must avoid advocacy and pre-commitment to any particular
alternative or option prior to decision-making, unless statutory or regulatory
requirements dictate otherwise (e.g. when EPA proposes a Plan for a Superfund site)-
Supporting comments
American Chemistry Council:
Involve Stakeholders In Early Stage of Articulating Issues
Along these same lines, the Council supports the Agency's view that it should, in a transparent
manner, involve the public in developing options and alternatives (when possible). As a general
rule, the Council believes the Agency too often fails to involve the public in the early stages of
11
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
defining issues and options. Instead, these are presented when they are largely fleshed-out, and
the public is merely invited to comment. At best, this results in delay and inefficiency, as issues
and options are reworked in light of public input. At worst, it is too late in the process to fully
express public views, so the Agency's treatment of issues and options, by not including public
input, is less than ideal.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency's decision-making processes should be as
"transparent" as feasible and that the public should be involved as early as feasible in that
process. This comment was provided to the EPA Office of Regulatory Management.
American Chemistry Council:
The Council also supports EPA's statement that it should "avoid advocacy and pre-commitment
to any particular alternative or option prior to decision making."(p82337) While not making a pre-
commitment to any particular alternative, the Agency should nevertheless early on describe the
problem it intends to address as well as the significance of that problem, and indicate the
Agency's general decisional criteria, with particular emphasis on distinguishing the scientific
criteria from policy issues.
Response: The Policy includes these suggestions. See also new language in the section on
"Provide Information and Outreach to the Public" (new language in bold italics): To the extent
practicable, develop information and educational programs so that all levels of
government and the public have an opportunity to become familiar with the issues,
technical data and relevant science behind the issues."
See also new language in the section on "Conduct Public Consultation and Involvement
Activities: (new language in bold italics): "Provide guidance, resources, training, and
professional assistance to Agency staff and interested delegated program partners,
when feasible, to assist them in conducting or participating in public consultation and
involvement activities in an effective and credible manner. This includes providing the
technical, scientific, and background information in a manner that allows the involved
public to understand the relevant science for the issues under discussion."
National Association Of Home Builders:
EPA Should Not Involve the Public Simply to Reach Preconceived Conclusions. However, there
is also a persistent skepticism in the regulated community that despite all the procedural checks
that have been enacted into law, the agency still arrives at preconceived conclusions despite the
public involvement requirements. Simply stated, the regulated community does not feel its voice
is being heard.
Response: EPA agrees that public involvement should occur early enough to allow the public to
feel that EPA considered the concerns expressed. This comment was provided to the EPA
Office of Regulatory Management.
Making every effort to match the design of public involvement programs with the
complexity and potential for controversy surrounding the issue being addressed, the
segments of the public affected, the time frame for decision-making, and the overall
desired outcome of the public involvement process - Support comments
Miami University. Department of Communication:
I'm also glad to see a recognition in the Goals and Objectives that a "one size fits all" approach
12
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
to public participation is inappropriate. Addressing the wants and needs of individual
communities is the only way public participation can be effective. Of course, someone will have
to do some research to find out what those wants and needs are.
Response: EPA agrees that it is important to identify the needs of potentially affected
communities. The Policy recommends that the Agency use questionnaires, surveys, interviews
and other means (subject to appropriate approvals) in the section on "Provide information and
outreach to the public." These can be effective means for identifying the wants and needs of
communities.
Add New Goal to Produce Better Decisions through Public Involvement
International Association for Public Participation:
You should include a statement in the Purposes and Goals of the Policy that public participation
can improve the quality, acceptability, feasibility and durability of decisions. This is the
fundamental reason for incorporating public participation. Fostering trust and meeting legal
requirements are by-products of a good decision process.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
In the list of goals for public involvement processes (p. 82337 center column), the agency
focuses on a list of appropriate process-oriented and relationship-focused goals (fulfill legal
requirements, foster trust, solicit assistance, anticipate conflict, keep people informed, etc.).
However, the policy is strangely silent on a major reason for involving others - the key goal of
making better decisions, decisions that better reflect broad perspectives and therefore better
meet the varied needs of the country and its people.
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
...public participation makes for better policy, We reject the arguments that public participation is
"running amok" and that participation is at all in tension with proper deliberative decision making.
Indeed, we believe strongly that participation, and the ideas and information that flow from it, only
enhances the deliberative process. But perhaps more importantly, public participation is also the
fundamental element of procedural justice that must necessarily be a part of every agency
decision. The purposes, goals and objectives listed in the proposed Policy reflect this dual
importance, yet the Sierra Club is somewhat skeptical that the proposed Policy will meet the
stated objectives.
Children's Environmental Health Network:
However, two key inter-related purposes of this policy are absent from this list. The Agency
does not mention what one would think would be over-riding concerns for undertaking these
efforts: improved decisions as a result of public involvement and more effective protection of the
public interest and thus public health and safety. For example, one would expect that the
Agency's goal should be not just to "ensure that environmental decisions are made with an
understanding of the interest and concerns of affected people and entities" but that the decisions
themselves are improved and thus better meet the public interest as a result of public
participation.
Though the Federal Register notice includes statements about the benefits for other agencies,
statements that public involvement will benefit EPA policies is absent.
Without such goals, public participation efforts by the Agency are little more than empty
13
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
exercises.
Response to above four comments: EPA agrees and has added language to reflect the
concerns expressed in these comments in the "Purpose, Goals...." section(new language in
bold italics): "Improve the acceptability, efficiency, feasibility and durability of the
Agency's decisions."
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
In reality, we believe that enhanced public participation increases the efficiency of decision
making in the sense that an open and intelligible process are more likely to lead to results
accepted by the public. Anger and distrust are potentially avoided with proper public participation
processes.
Response: EPA agrees that effective public participation can lead to results that are more
widely accepted by the public. EPA plans to evaluate this and other aspects of public
involvement processes and their outcomes.
Add New Goal to Address Public Concerns
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
In this section [Conduct public consultation and involvement activities], the Policy misses the
mark. For fuller and more meaningful public participation, the goals of the agency should not be
merely "to understand the interests and needs of the affected public," and "to provide for the
exchange of information and views," but rather it should be the goal of the agency to make sure
that the interests of the public are affirmatively addressed. In public participation, it is not the
ultimate goal of the public to be simply understood - the public is much more outcome-oriented.
And for that reason, to foster public participation, it is important to address the issues raised.
This is of special importance to low income communities and communities of color.
Participation for participation's sake is insufficient motivation for people with otherwise difficult
and busy lives. Public participation that leads to demonstrable results will lead to better public
participation.
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
However, the GLC and the MEJC believe that the EPA must do more than simply "understand"
public interests and concerns to make public comment meaningful. Instead, the EPA must
ensure that its decisions reflect and actively address public interests and concerns, either by
making a decision that resolves those concerns or by providing detailed explanations of the
reasons that certain problems would not or could not be addressed. As the EPA itself notes,
"issues that are not resolved to the satisfaction of the concerned public may ultimately face time-
consuming review." 65 Fed. Reg. 82335, 82337 (2000). Unless affected citizens are persuaded
that the EPA has made its best effort to accommodate their interests and concerns, such "time-
consuming review" is almost inevitable. We urge the EPA to make a stronger commitment to
finding a solution or decision that actually reflects and accommodates public comments and
concerns.
Environmental Defense:
EPA should regularly consult with the public to ensure that its activities reflect the public's
concerns, instead of just involving the public during the policy-making process.
14
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Response to above three comments: EPA agrees that the public participates in government
processes for the purpose of influencing decisions. EPA expects that making public
involvement more meaningful will provide additional opportunities for the public to impact of the
public on Agency decisions. In any given case, of course, a particular stakeholder's view may or
may not be adopted, or considering all the input EPA may make a decision that is different from
the recommendation of any single stakeholder. EPA plans to evaluate the effectiveness of its
public participation activities and implementation of the Policy. In addition, EPA expects to
develop training aids to assist staff in using public comments and providing feedback to
commenters. Please see the evaluation and training sections of the Framework for
Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released with this Policy at
http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/policv2003 EPA will also include recommendations on
how to regularly consult with the public in public involvement training materials for EPA staff.
State Up Front EPA's Mission to Protect Public Health and Environment
Clean Air Council:
The US EPA needs to acknowledge in the preamble to its public involvement policy that its
statutory responsibility is to protect public health and that this priority needs to be reflected in all
of its actions.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:
EPA should clarify that, while committed to improving opportunities for public involvement in its
decisions, EPA's primary mission and the reason for the actions it proposes is to protect human
health and the environment. EPA understands what is at stake when it proposes an action. It
has the authority to exercise stewardship on behalf of the environment—a huge responsibility.
EPA should seek public involvement as a means to improve, mitigate or mediate the actions it
determines are needed. The Policy should state EPA's mission and how EPA will assimilate the
public's view while meeting its mission.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Policy should refer to EPA's primary
mission in relation to public involvement. See revised language in the "Introduction" section of
the Policy (new language in bold italics): "EPA's mission is to protect human health and the
environment To achieve that mission, EPA needs to integrate, in a meaningful way, the
knowledge and opinions of others into its decision-making processes. Effective public
involvement can both improve the content of the Agency's decisions and enhance the
deliberative process. Public involvement also promotes democracy and civic
engagement, and builds public trust in government.
EPA has long been committed to public involvement. The fundamental premise of this
Policy is that EPA should continue to provide for meaningful public involvement in all its
programs, and consistently look for new ways to enhance public input. EPA staff and
managers should seek input reflecting all points of view and should carefully consider
this input when making decisions. They also should work to ensure that decision-
making processes are open and accessible to all interested groups, including those with
limited financial and technical resources, English proficiency, and/or past experience
participating in environmental decision making. Such openness to the public increases
EPA's credibility, improves the Agency's decision-making processes, and informs its
final decisions. At the same time, EPA should not accept any recommendation or
15
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
proposal without careful, critical examination."
Adopt the International Association for Public Participation's Core Values and Code
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
EPA should adopt and incorporate the core values and code of ethics of public participation as
identified by the, which were developed over several years with input by practitioners from
throughout the world.
Response: The goals in the Policy were in part based on the International Association for
Public Participation's core values and code of ethics.
Public Should Contribute to, Not Affect EPA Decisions
McNultv Group:
"...public to become involved and affect the Agency's decision..." This seems to put the public
and the Agency on opposing sides of the table. It implies the Agency may make a decision and
then the public gets to modify it. Better to have the public become involved and *contribute* to
the Agency's decision. Again, as said above, public involvement should provide information that
contributes to a wise, informed decision. If it does that properly, it becomes a part of the
decision making process rather than something that modifies a decision already made.
Response: EPA agrees that one of the goals of public participation is to have the public
contribute to the decision. EPA has revised that sentence in the "Purposes, Goals and
Objectives" section (new language in bold italics): "Effective public involvement will make it
easier for the public to contribute to the Agency's decisions, build public trust, and make
it more likely that those who are most concerned with and affected by Agency decisions
will accept and implement them."
EPA Should Involve the Public in its Decisions
Citizen #83:
I would like a public involvement policy that would allow the public to discuss proposals with the
parties involved and would take the public opinion into account on any decisions made. In the
United States, I see more and more people losing their voice in proposals that will affect their
lives and the lives of others. They are not ignorant people, but because they have no financial
stakes in the decision. More and more, it is the people that will be affected financially that are
listened to and that's not right. Private corporations and the government no longer recognize the
health and emotional effects as priorities. In order to ensure that every aspect of proposals is
considered, the public needs to be given more say in decisions. And sometimes it turns out that
they may have a solution or proposal that no one has thought of.
Citizen #84:
The EPA must involve public input into their policy.
Citizen #85:
I want a public involvement policy because I believe that a democratic government depends on
the full range of opinions and participation of all its voters and citizen.
16
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Citizen #86:
Your decision effects us all therefore we should have a say in what is decided.
Citizen #87:
Public involvement or awareness should be just as, if not more, important then the government
or industries that have influence on the health of our environment. Involve us in decision making
processes!! It's our space too.
Response to above five comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should involve the public in
its decision-making processes. Please also see response to Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency on page 15. The Agency expects that through implementation of this Policy, the public
will have increased and fair opportunities for early and meaningful involvement in EPA's
decision-making processes.
Other Purposes or Goals:
Citizen #2:
I would like to see majority rule. Not government majority but the voice of the people.
Environmental policy in the Bush Administration and the EPA under its guidance has swerved
away from general public sentiment. If this administration is not going to do the people's bidding,
it would be a great benefit for the people to, in a more tangible way, effect policy themselves. I
support public involvement within all the decisions of the EPA
Response: This comment makes a suggestion that is outside the scope of the Policy.
Citizen #3:
Your agency should leave politics out of your decisions and solely act to protect the environment,
which I said before is what you are there for. You should protect the interests of the public, and
not just the oil, gas and nuclear industry. Our environment is fragile and so are we.
Response: EPA agrees that the protection of the environment is very important. This comment,
however, is outside the scope of the Policy.
Washington State University:
When EPA makes a final decision, always remember, and be respectful of the fact, that it is
local citizens who fully experience the consequences of decisions on a daily basis, not the
decision makers in distant regional and national offices. The bottom line is that the public's
personal health and welfare is at stake every time the EPA makes a decision. They are always
aware of this, as well as the reality that they have to live with decisions, whether they agree with
them, or understand them, or not.
Most importantly, if you really want to be successful at public involvement, learn to LISTEN, not
just speak. This will help the EPA to become aware of the difference between what the EPA
intends the public to hear and what the public actually hears.
Response: EPA agrees that it is important to develop skills to hear what the public is saying.
In addition, EPA expects to develop training aids to assist staff in these areas.
4. APPLICATION OF THE POLICY
Apply the Policy to all EPA offices and programs
17
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Citizens #13-15. 17-18. 20-22. 31-32. 38. 40-43. 46. 48-50. 53-54. 57 (same comment provided
by 22 citizens via e-mail)
I want a public involvement policy that will be followed in all EPA offices and programs.
Response: EPA agrees that the Policy should be followed in all EPA offices and programs. In
the Policy's section "When does this Policy Apply?" the Policy states (new language in bold
italics): "This Policy applies to all EPA programs and activities."
Policy Should Apply in All Cases Where the Public Has an Interest or is Affected
International Association for Public Participation:
When enumerating "when does this policy apply?" the Policy should begin by stating that it
applies in all cases where the public has an interest or is affected. Some of these situations will
have legal drivers, but the policy should not list this reason first. Often the challenge is to
conduct effective participation along side the legal requirements; legal provisions for public
participation are seldom sufficient in themselves. This is an area that your office can assist the
Office of General Counsel so that the legal minimum doesn't get interpreted as the sole criteria.
For example, a 30-day comment period need not preclude preliminary dialogue with interested
and affected public or presentation of draft provisions in advance of the formal document.
Response: EPA agrees that the legal requirements for public participation should not be the
sole criteria for application of the Policy. However, the Policy cannot be applied in all cases
where the public has an interest or is affected because some areas such as litigation are not
appropriate for public participation. The section of the Policy "When Does the Policy Apply?" has
been revised (new language is in bold italics):
This Policy applies to all EPA programs and activities. In programs or activities where
the public is already meaningfully involved, EPA can use this Policy to enhance that
public involvement. Where the existing level of public involvement needs to improve,
this Policy provides suggestions for how to move forward. Finally, this Policy can serve
as a model for building public involvement into new programs as they are developed.
The activities where conducting meaningful public involvement should particularly be
considered include:
S EPA rulemaking, when the regulations are classified as Economically Significant Actions
(under the terms of Executive Order 12866)
S EPA issuance or significant modification of permits, licenses or renewals
S Selection of plans for cleanup, remediation or restoration of hazardous waste sites or
Brownfields properties
S EPA's decision on whether to authorize, delegate or approve states or local
governments to administer EPA programs consistent with the relevant regulatory
requirements for each program ( Note: Tribes seeking approval to administer
environmental programs under EPA statutes generally also seek "treatment in a
similar manner as a state (TAS)" status from EPA. Appropriate opportunities for
public participation are contained in the relevant statutory and regulatory
provisions establishing a TAS process. Consult with the Office of Regional
Counsel or the Office of General Counsel, and/or the American Indian
Environmental Office for assistance.)
S All other policy decisions that are determined by the Administrator, Deputy Administrator
or appropriate Assistant, Regional or Associate Administrator to warrant public
18
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
participation in view of EPA's commitment to involve the public in important
decisions
S The development of significant information products (as the Office of
Environmental Information has defined them in Appendix 2: Definitions)
Clarify How Certain Situations May Influence the Design of Public Involvement Activities
Golden Gate University. Environmental Law and Justice Clinic:
Finally, there are several actions that could be clarified or improved upon. The section entitled
What Should EPA Do to Ensure Full and Meaningful Public Involvement, contains a statement
that reads, "[t]he issues, locations, potential environmental and public health consequences of
the activities, potential for controversy... will influence the design of the public involvement
process." However, it does not express what kind of influence it will have. For example it could
be interpreted to mean that if there is a likely potential for heated controversy, then public hearing
should be avoided. We would not endorse such a stance, as we believe it would be necessary
to openly address such a conflict. Therefore is may be useful to clearly define your intention.
Response: EPA agrees that this statement needs clarification in the Policy. See new clarifying
language in that section (new language in bold italics): "For instance, enhanced opportunities
for public involvement should be created for those situations in which there is the
potential for greater environmental or human health consequences or controversy."
Edit Statement Describing Consequences of Inadequate Participation
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
We would suggest strengthening the statement about the consequences of inadequate
participation (p. 82338, column 1, first unbulleted paragraph) to read: "However, lack of adequate
participation or lack of effective means for participation can result in agreements or policies that
do not necessarily reflect or consider the interests or needs of communities or constituencies
that will be most impacted by them."
Response: EPA agrees with this comments and has made the suggested changes (new
language in bold italics): "A lack of adequate participation or of effective means for
participation can result in decisions that do not necessarily reflect or consider the
interests or needs of communities or constituencies that will be most impacted by
them."
"Use all reasonable efforts to ensure public is informed" on technical products-
Supporting comments
American Chemistry Council:
The Council is pleased that the Office of Research & Development (ORD) has taken steps
toward a more open process in developing its technical documents, most notably in its initiatives
for better engagement with the public in developing draft files for the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). We strongly encourage EPA to use "all reasonable efforts to ensure
that the public is informed" (at 82337) and to seek input from stakeholders on IRIS and other
19
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
important technical EPA products.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Policy. It was provided to the EPA Office
of Research and Development.
Clearly Define the Limited Extent of Public Involvement in Certain Decisions
Washington State University:
Like the 1981 policy, this is still a very clear, top down approach. Such an approach
unintentionally communicates that full public involvement is not the goal EPA truly intends to
achieve. This idea is reinforced with statements like "when appropriate," "at the agency's
discretion" or "when the regulations are classified as significant" (what does that mean by the
way?). Tell the public when full involvement is not feasible and provide honest, straightforward
explanations as to why.
State it up front, e.g., "this policy doesn't not apply to some situations as listed and explained
below," rather than tucking in "when appropriate" or "at the agency's discretion," and hoping the
public won't notice. Not only will the public always notice and resent such smoke screens, but
they will also find the assuming "father knows best, don't question it" underlying tone
disrespectful and insulting.
Response: EPA disagrees. The Policy is meant to expand and enhance public involvement,
not limit it. The Policy provides EPA the discretion needed to enable the Agency to design public
involvement processes to match the scope and complexity of the issues.
Washington State University:
Public involvement is frequently misunderstood to include a vote or some level of authority in
decision making. Be very clear up front about the fact that the EPA seeks advice from the public
but that the EPA holds all the reigns of decision making power. The promise of a vote that is
never realized promotes distrust.
Response: EPA agrees that clarifying the roles of EPA and public participants is fundamental.
The Policy as written, makes clear that "involvement" does not mean "vote." Further, the
Policy's "Introduction" section now includes clarifying language on the Agency's mission and use
of public input. See revised language in the "Introduction" section of the Policy (new language in
bold italics): "EPA has long been committed to public involvement The fundamental
premise of this Policy is that EPA should continue to provide for meaningful public
involvement in all its programs, and consistently look for new ways to enhance public
input EPA staff and managers should seek input reflecting all points of view and should
carefully consider this input when making decisions. They also should work to ensure
that decision-making processes are open and accessible to all interested groups,
including those with limited financial and technical resources, English proficiency,
and/or past experience participating in environmental decision making. Such openness
to the public increases EPA's credibility, improves the Agency's decision-making
processes, and informs its final decisions. At the same time, EPA should not accept any
recommendation or proposal without careful, critical examination." In defining public
involvement the Policy states: The term "public involvement" is used in this Policy to encompass
the full range of actions and processes that EPA uses to engage the public in the Agency's work,
and means that the Agency considers public concerns, values, and preferences when making
decisions. Clearly, the decisions are those of the Agency.
20
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Make Any Required EPA Public Involvement Changes through Rule Making Process, not
through Policy
Alabama Department of Environmental Protection:
ADEM believes that EPA's existing public participation requirements for rulemaking and
permitting, which are closely mirrored by state requirements, are more than adequate. If EPA
feels improvements are needed, the improvements should be accomplished through the
regulatory process such as with the upcoming revisions to the major source operating permits
programs, 40 CFR Part 70. This would allow interested parties the opportunity to review and
provide comments during a formal rulemaking process and to adjudicate the final decision, if
they so desired. Formal adoption of these requirements through rulemaking also would lessen
any potential ambiguities that could occur if they are solely implemented through a vague Policy.
In this vein, the Department ardently opposes the imposition of public involvement procedures
via this Policy similar to those reportedly under consideration for the aforementioned Part 70
revisions, (e.g. mandatory public hearings upon request, copies of complete facility files
maintain in the locality of a source, a prohibition against copying charges for documents, etc.)
ADEM plans to comment on these changes when appropriate, should they come to fruition.
The Department's position is that each program should be responsible for implementing its own
public participation program and that a Departmental-wide approach can adversely effect some
programs. For instance, RCRA updated its version of the public participation program in 1998 to
reflect the needs of its program. This current proposal mirrors the 1998 RCRA program in
many aspects, but in some instances is overbearing and impractical from both work and cost
aspects.
Response: The Policy provides guidelines for all EPA programs; it is not directed to the states.
It imposes nothing additional; it outlines the seven steps necessary for good public involvement,
but does not replace, nor can it override regulatory requirements. The Policy provides the
discretion to tailor public involvement to the situation, so that unnecessary process need not be
provided. However, the premise of the Policy is that greater involvement will generally lead to
better decisions.
Policy Should be Required of EPA
Golden Gate University. Environmental Law and Justice Clinic:
As it stands now the Draft Policy is not legally enforceable, but is instead, "the EPA's statement
of its strong commitment to full and meaningful public involvement in Agency activities."
However, because the policy does not, "confer any legal rights or impose legal obligations on
any member of the public, EPA or any other agency," the EPA is not actually being held
accountable to the public. Unfortunately, in our experience, a strong commitment to the public is
not always enough. Conversely, citizen suit provisions in environmental laws are an invaluable
tool in empowering the public to be actively involved in environmental protection. Building such a
provision into the final Policy, making it into a Regulation, or requiring states to incorporate the
Policy into State Air and Water Quality Plans submitted to the federal government, would make it
clear that the Agency is prepared to stand by, and be held to its words, and truly rely on input
from the public.
Citizen #4:
21
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Finally, I notice that "The Draft Policy is not a rule, is not legally enforceable, and does not confer
legal rights or impose legal obligations upon any member of the public, EPA or any other agency.
Talk about lip service.
National Association Of Home Builders:
EPA's Public Involvement Policy Should Be Binding and Enforceable on the Agency. Even EPA
fully concedes the deficiencies it has had with its current Public Participation Policy. In fact, EPA
identifies two areas of particular concern: lack of agency coordination from one activity to the
next, making it difficult for the rest of the agency to benefit; and, second is the tendency to focus
on single initiatives rather than developing a broader program perspective. NAHB believes that
these problems will not be corrected unless the policy is made binding and enforceable on the
agency.
The current proposal relies too heavily on EPA staff discretion and flexibility, and is
unenforceable by the public. Making the policy an enforceable administrative rule would help
ensure the effectiveness of the policy and give the public a greater voice in EPA's regulatory
processes.
City And County of Denver. Department of Environmental Health:
Discretionary Application of the Policy Should be Limited to Ensure Consistency and
Implementation. As a public entity, DEH understands that one-size-fits-all rules often lack the
adaptability needed to address particular needs in specific circumstances, and some flexibility
will be required. But, since the Draft Policy still "relies heavily on the sound use of discretion by
Agency officials," (65 Fed. Reg. 82338), it is not "legally enforceable," and it does not "impose
legal obligations upon . . . [the] EPA or any other agency," id. at 82338, we are concerned that it
will be ignored. The EPA should consider strengthening the policy, making certain aspects
mandatory rather than discretionary. We feel that the new policy needs to....Limit the
discretionary application by the agency to promote consistency and implementation.
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
the Policy has little weight. As mere guidance, it isn't binding. So it ultimately rises only to the
level of a suggestion, which does not require anyone in any agency to do anything. Moreover, by
allowing assistant and associate administrators to "identify and address those activities and
major decisions where application of this Draft Policy is appropriate" the Policy makes explicit
that not only are the suggestions not binding, they are discretionary. It isn't at all clear why the
Policy would not be applicable to all normal agency decision making.
Doctoral Student. University of Washington Geography Department:
The policy, as stated, is non binding. No penalties are incurred if the policy is not followed, nor
are there incentives for those who do invest in good public involvement. This is a significant
problem because without clear incentives or enforcement, the potential impact of the policy is
weakened. I would urge you to reconsider the non-binding status of the policy.
Citizens' Advisory Panel of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee. Inc.
22
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
The existence of a formal policy does not ensure public involvement in practice; EPA
Headquarters intends to ensure that all regional offices adopt and abide by this policy, including
compliance by grant recipients
Southwest Workers Union:
The draft policy says it's not legally enforceable. If it's just left up to the administrator, it will be
inconsistent. If not law, there will be too many loopholes in it and it will yield inconsistent results.
This policy leaves too much discretion to the administrator.
Response to above 8 comments: EPA disagrees. The Policy is not a rule and is not intended
to be mandatory. It is guidance for EPA staff and managers that will be supported with
information and training; it does not apply to grant recipients. Agency guidances provide
guidelines on how EPA staff should implement programs, and allow discretion in applying the
policy to particular situations. EPA believes that a rule would likely be too rigid and not allow
enough flexibility to address the wide range of activities with which the Agency is involved. The
Policy is intended to increase the consistency and effectiveness of EPA public involvement
practices. The Agency hopes to establish incentives and rewards for those at EPA who carry
out outstanding participatory processes.
Children's Environmental Health Network:
On January 19, 1981, the EPA published its first Agency-wide Public Participation Policy "to
ensure that managers plan in advance needed public involvement in their programs, that they
consult with the public on issues where public comment can be truly helpful, that they use
methods of consultation that will be effective both for program purposes and for the members of
the public who take part, and finally that they are able to apply what they have learned from the
public in their final program decisions." (46 FR 5736, Jan. 19, 1981) (emphasis added)
The Network questions the use of the terms "needed" and "where public comment can be truly
helpful" and believes they should be deleted from future iterations and descriptions of the policy.
The Network would be interested in understanding which EPA programs do not "need" public
involvement. It is disdainful for government employees to believe it is their role to make the
advance judgement that public comment would not be "truly helpful." These phrases run
counter to the Agency's stated intent.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Policy. It refers to language included in
the 1981 Policy. The Draft Public Involvement Policy that EPA published for comment in
December 2000 does not contain this language.
Include Specific Public Involvement Requirements in Inter-Agency Agreements
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion & Preventive Medicine:
Coming from a federal agency perspective, DOD, project managers will typically follow EPA
guidance; but too often, project managers will only do what EPA says is mandatory. Although
this public involvement policy is not legally binding, I suggest that the spirit and "requirements" of
this policy be included in any/all other legally binding documents between EPA and DOD
(Federal Facilities Agreements, etc.). Sometimes, DOD will go above and beyond what EPA
outlines as mandatory, but too often, DOD will only do what is absolutely necessary. Include this
23
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
public involvement policy as one of the critical elements DOD must embrace. This goes for
projects where states and/or tribal governments take the lead, too.
Suggest including in EPA/ DOD agreements that an evaluation of public involvement will be part
of the agreement. Is DOD doing what they agreed to do?
Response: A policy, such as the Public Involvement Policy, is not a rule and, therefore, does
not contain mandatory requirements for EPA or its regulatory partners. Further, EPA cannot
unilaterally include provisions in legally binding agreements between EPA and DOD. Such
agreements are the result of negotiations between the two agencies. The Policy encourages
EPA and its regulatory partners to consider EPA's Public Involvement Policy in their work.
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion & Preventive Medicine:
Suggest being more specific about how the public can be involved in developing
options/alternatives. This goes back, again, to my observation that DOD rarely does anything
that is not clearly spelled out in EPA guidance/ policy. If this policy could reference specific
tasks or stages that the public can be involved in (e.g., development of risk assessment
assumptions, identification of pathways, cleanup alternatives, etc.), DOD would be more likely
to consider it.
Response: Because EPA engages in numerous program activities and because this Policy is
guidance only, it is not feasible or appropriate to include in this Policy a list of public involvement
processes specific to each type of activity. It is the responsibility of the EPA office conducting
the activity to determine the best type of public participation for their activity.
Conduct Public Workshops on Draft Policy
California Department of Toxic Substance Control:
Finally, DTSC encourages that U.S. EPA engage in an open dialogue with the public on this draft
policy. As with most policy decisions, that final product will have a direct affect on the public we
serve. It makes sense for U.S. EPA to conduct public workshops in California and elsewhere to
explain the draft policy and receive public comment, in order that the final product is more
reflective of public need. DTSC would be happy to work with U.S. EPA in coordinating this effort.
Response: EPA followed up on this suggestion with EPA Region 9 in San Francisco. EPA
also held a two-week Internet-based dialogue that had participation from all 50 states. The
Agency was only able to hold a public meeting on the draft Policy in Region 6.
5. FUNCTION (NOW STEP) 1. PLAN AND BUDGET FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
ACTIVITIES
Expand Policy's Plan and Budget Section
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
As perhaps the simplest and most obvious of the six "functions" for public participation, the
Policy spends very little time and attention to this area. The Policy recognizes the importance of
advance planning, early notice to stakeholders, adequate time and resources, and evaluation.
Yet, in terms of implementing the Policy, this is perhaps the area in which the greatest
improvements could be made. In practice, notice is seldom early, time and resources are
seldom very available, and evaluations seldom actually performed.
24
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency needs to improve how it plans and budgets for public
involvement. The Policy is intended to increase the consistency and effectiveness of EPA's
public involvement practices. Resources for public involvement are of course constrained by
the Agency's budget and compete with other Agency activities. EPA intends to address the
issues raised above in training provided to EPA staff as well as in efforts to evaluate EPA's
public involvement activities.
Rutgers University. Center for Environmental Communication:
PI should be considered integral to program planning, not merely an additional planning activity.
Although the policy stresses early involvement, it might make more explicit that planning for PI
should occur in the context of larger program planning efforts. This will not only facilitate earlier
involvement and increase resource effectiveness, but it makes it more likely that PI will become
part of agency programs, rather than a less effective addition to agency efforts.
National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. Enforcement Subcommittee:
There are additional costs and logistical demands when involving the public. These and other
potential challenges of public participation [such as a potential increase in time and resources,
revised decision making time lines, training to familiarize Agency staff with these methods,
building the skills of both the public and the Agency staff to work in such collaborative forums,
building trust, etc.] need to be explicitly addressed. Suggestions for dealing with challenges
should be presented.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that public involvement should be
considered integral to program planning, and added new language in the "Plan and Budget"
section of the Policy (see new language in bold italics): "When preparing budget and
planning documents for regulatory and non-regulatory programs, Agency officials
should make provision for: resources and staff time dedicated to public involvement
activities; time for conducting and evaluating public involvement activities; and staff and
resources to provide technical assistance to the involved public where appropriate (see
the Policy's Step 3, "Consider providing technical or financial assistance to the
public")."
Define Public Involvement Objectives in Planning Phase
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
In the first function, Planning For Public Involvement Activities (p. 82338-82339), the policy lacks
the essential step of planning: Defining the objective of public involvement in the project or
decision. Will the objective be collaborative problem solving, assessing impacts of decision
options, understanding the values and issues of the affected public, evaluating the necessity of
an action, acquiring some specific types of information, negotiating between interests? Wthout
defining the specific objectives, staff will not be able to appropriately make other decisions under
this function. Objectives drive tools, schedules, etc.
International Association for Public Participation:
The Draft Policy's first "basic function" for effective public participation is to plan and budget for
public involvement activities. This is important. However, in order for public participation to be
incorporated into project planning and budgeting a public participation plan must be developed
that answers questions such as the objectives and the appropriate/desired level of public
25
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
impact. Does the issue warrant information dissemination, consultation, involvement,
collaboration or some other level of impact? The IAP2 Spectrum is an excellent tool to evaluate
what the Agency's "promise to the public" should be and how to match public participation
activities to it. The objective of including the public in this determination should also be part of
this initial step.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that defining the objective of public
involvement is an essential step of planning, and added the following new language to the "Plan
and budget" section: "Objectives of public involvement in the project or decision, and the
appropriate level of public involvement (For example, does the issue warrant
information dissemination, interactive consultation or more collaborative
approaches?)."
Better Define Public Involvement Steps in the Process
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
Also in the Planning Function, under the bullet about setting key decisions, EPA could improve
the policy by clarifying that the public involvement process should be tied to and designed along
with the decision making process, including clarification of significant intermediate decision
making points. "Key decisions" can be interpreted to mean simply the final and major decisions,
when earlier, intermediate decisions can eliminate or affect options for those later decisions.
Finally, under this Planning Function, the policy would be clearer if you include examples of
types of intermediate planning steps that are often "ripe" for public input - identifying issues,
developing options, assessing impacts, evaluating and picking options, etc.
Response: EPA agrees that public involvement is needed at intermediate decision making
points, and added new language to that section in the content of planning documents, shown in
bold italics (the first bullet): "Key decisions subject to public involvement, along with their
significant intermediate decision making points (for example, identifying issues,
developing options, assessing impacts, evaluating and choosing options);"
International Association for Public Participation:
A second aspect of planning for public participation is for the agency to clearly determine the
internal decision making process and time line. It is remarkable to members of the public how
often the Agency and applicant cannot articulate what the decision process is, the criteria for
decision making, the expected time line, or who will be involved in the decision process. The
most experienced public participation practitioner or dedicated member of the public cannot
know how to be effective if the decision making process is unclear. The Draft Policy's function
5(c) should expand its discussion of process so the "engagement process" and the decision
process are one in the same.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should clearly identify its internal decision-making
process and time line for the public. See new language in the sixth bullet in the "Plan and
Budget" section (shown in bold italics): "Proposed schedule for public involvement
activities that is consistent with the timing of the decision process." See also new
language in the Consultation section, c. Content: "Agency officials should clearly identify
26
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
the issues for discussion, negotiation or decision prior to and during a public
involvement process, so that participants understand on which issues they should
comment EPA officials should describe clearly the type of public involvement process
planned, the schedule, EPA's expectations for the outcomes of the process and the
timing and type of feedback that EPA will provide. If possible, the public should be
involved in determining the design of the processes."
EPA Needs Adequate Public Involvement Funding for/from Specific Activities
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
we believe that the EPA should consider the possibility of generating funds earmarked for public
participation wherever the opportunity arises. For example, where the EPA itself is responsible
for issuing permits, the agency should review the possibility of setting permit application fees at
a level that would ensure the availability of funds for expanded public participation, including
provision of technical assistance.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Public Involvement Policy. EPA does not
currently have authority to determine fees and collect them for a particular purpose or raise
funds for public involvement. EPA funds public involvement out of the funds designated by
Congress for specific programmatic purposes. Many states do use fees to help fund permitting
programs, and EPA encourages them to explore using such fees to provide resources for public
involvement.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Rocky Flats Oversight Unit. Hazardous
Materials and Waste Management Division:
One area where the proposed policy seems deficient relates to sites where long-term actions
are included in the remedy The policy can incorporate these long-term considerations. On
page 15 Of 40, the Goal 1 recommended action could specify that EPA request funds for
continuing public involvement activities at sites whose remedies include long-term actions.
Response: EPA agrees that public involvement opportunities should be available throughout the
course of an EPA action, including long-term actions. According to EPA's Superfund program,
Superfund's Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) program provides assistance throughout the site
remediation process. EPA can award a TAG grant related to a National Priority List site at any
time until the site is deleted from the priorities list.
6. FUNCTION (NOW STEP) 2. IDENTIFY THE INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PUBLIC
"Lesser Actions" also Warrant Identification of the Public
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
...the Policy should not assume that "lesser actions" do not warrant identification of interested
parties. Instead, interested parties should be allowed to decide whether the actions are in fact
minor. These are precisely the situations in which distrust of the agency will fester.
Response: The term "lesser actions," which refers to actions that are minor and ministerial in
nature, such as the change of a corporate address on a permit, no longer appears in the Policy.
27
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Provide More Details in this Section of the Policy
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
Identify the Interested and affected Public, this language is general and the lack of specificity
raises some environmental justice questions. For example, will one legal notice in the
appropriate newspaper be adequate for a notice of public hearing on a permit?
Response: EPA does not agree that this section is too general. Because of the wide range of
circumstances covered by the Policy, EPA does not believe that specifying these details would
be useful. The Policy cannot provide specific recommendations for all situations, but
recommends that EPA programs use a variety of methods in order to effectively reach the
public. Many such recommendations are contained in the Policy's "Provide information and
outreach" section.
Partner with Local Organizations and Government Organizations to Identify Public
Environmental Defense:
The Agency may also want to co-plan and co-sponsor meetings with local community
organizations (not just environmental groups, but also religious, public health, minority groups
and so on). Such partnerships can attract other citizens who are more inclined to work with a
local group than a large government agency, thereby possibly attracting a larger and more
diverse group of participants.
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
Identify the interested and affected public - underserved.
Partner with local health departments. Often local health departments:
- know the people in the community;
- can provide information on how the community is likely to respond to an issue;
- can speak the language of most of the people in the community; and
- have a positive relationship with the community that could overflow to a "partner" agency.
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
Different programs within EPA should reach out to each other and to other Federal and State
agencies for help in solving issues of how to reach a community. In many cases an agency
may already be working with a community and the "new" program can gain insight about the
community and receive help in building a relationship with the community.
Talk with WIC program coordinators to determine productive ways of reaching the community.
Response to above three comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should partner with local
organizations to identify the interested and affected public. See new language added at the end
of the Goals section:"Develop and work in partnership with state, iocai and tribal
governments, community groups, associations, and other organizations to develop and
promote public involvement," and the methods portion of "Identify interested and affected
public" section of the Policy, re: participating in the events of others and reaching the members
of organizations through their publications. Such collaborative efforts will also be included in
EPA training.
Use Enhanced Communication Strategies to Identify Public
28
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Michigan Environmental Council:
In identifying interested and affected members of the public, the agency should strive not only to
proactively seek out new constituencies but also to fully integrate existing relationships into new
communications strategies. Agency notification processes should be enhanced to reflect the
increasing influence of new technologies. In the end, the public involvement process should
seek to reveal consensus solutions.
Response: EPA agrees that Agency staff should continue to involve existing participants and
use enhanced communication methods to identify the public. See new language in the above
response. Also, the Agency intends to expand its use of the Internet as an information tool, while
maintaining other dissemination methods for those without access. Public involvement
processes may, but do not always, lead to consensus solutions.
Expand Policy's Description of Alternative Methods for Identifying Public
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
The Policy should be more accommodating of alternate methods of identifying members of the
public with interests.
Response: EPA disagrees that the Policy restricts the use of alternative methods of identifying
the public. In the "Identify the interested and affected public" section, the Policy recommends
"using other comprehensive or creative means that consider community structure, languages
spoken, local communications preferences..."
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
The Draft Policy is primarily focused on developing standard "contact lists" for various
programs, activities and projects. The GLC and the MEJC believe that identifying parties
interested in particular subject areas in advance may be helpful, but such pre-identification will
not be possible in many cases. For that reason, the Policy should include more specific
information/guidance on conducting community outreach on a project specific basis and on a
tight time line. For example, the Draft Policy discusses participation at public events, such as
conferences, workshops, meetings, fairs and festivals, as one way of providing information to
the public. This outreach method should also be referenced as a means of identifying interested
and affected parties. In fact, when major decisions are being made, we believe that the EPA
should actively seek opportunities for public speaking, participating in training seminars, and
appearing at public meetings and events as a means of gathering names of potentially interested
parties and creating a notification list for the proposed action.
Response: EPA agrees that the methods contained in the "Provide information and outreach"
section are also applicable to the "Identify the interested and affected public" section, and added
new material in the latter section under "Method"(revised bullet): "Participating in workshops,
community meetings, public events, etc. to share information with potentiaiiy interested
groups and individuals, and enable them to request additional information on the
particular program, activity or project". In addition, training materials will assist staff in
recognizing and using all available methods.
Identify People in Geographic Proximity to a Site
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
29
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
The EPA should also recognize that simple geographic proximity may be an appropriate basis
for identifying potentially interested parties. For example, where a cleanup, remediation or
restoration plan for a hazardous waste or Brownfields site is proposed, people living within the
immediate vicinity of the site are likely to be interested in the plan and should be placed on any
notification list.
Response: EPA agrees that geographic proximity is an appropriate basis for identifying
potentially interested parties, especially for site-specific public issues.
Expand Policy's Description of Using Surveys to Increase Public Involvement
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
In this section of the Draft Policy, the EPA mentions surveys aimed at understanding a
community's level of awareness regarding certain environmental issues as one measure of
identifying interested parties, but provides no concrete plans for using this information to
increase public participation. We believe that such surveys may be useful in identifying
communities that need additional assistance in learning about and understanding the
environmental issues that affect them. Once such areas are identified, however, the EPA
should make every effort to focus its assistance and outreach on these communities, to educate
them about relevant environmental issues and otherwise facilitate public participation in agency
decision making.
Response: EPA agrees that surveys can also be used to gauge the need for public education
and outreach. See new language in the second bullet of section 2b in the "Identify the interested
and affected public" section of the Policy (in bold italics):"Using questionnaires or surveys to
find out levels of awareness and the need for tailored public education and outreach." In
addition, EPA intends to include methods for the use of specific tools will be included in public
involvement training for EPA staff.
Use Risk Perception Mapping to Identify Public
University of Michigan- Dearborn. Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory:
I would like to point out that my earlier comment was offered to demonstrate how risk perception
can be used as the basis for identifying the socio-perceptual and geographical boundaries of an
affected population, and thus is an effective means upon which to build a population-specific
outreach program. ...The purpose of that work was to demonstrate an ethnographic means of
public participation, called "Risk Perception Mapping," that is sensitive to the role that cultural
variation and risk perception can play in a community's participation in environmental
management.
Response: EPA appreciates being made aware of this technique, and intends to include it as a
tool in reference materials for EPA staff.
Ask People Who are Already Involved to Help Identify Public
Citizens for Responsible Water Management:
30
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Could it ask these persons [persons who have shown interest in its operations] to identify others
who might contribute useful input on particular issues?
Response: EPA agrees that people who are already involved can use their networks to expand
the number of people invited to participate. See the various mechanisms for gaining input and
the expanded language on methods in the "Identify the interested and affected public" section of
the Policy (new language in bold italics): "Asking those who attend events what, if any,
interests are missing."
Better Manage/Update Contact Lists
National Association Of Home Builders:
EPA Should Provide More Effective Outreach Mechanisms. EPA asserts that it seeks to create
more effective and flexible contact mechanisms to ensure better public outreach and
involvement. However, NAHB has experienced many difficulties with EPA contact lists and other
outreach tools in the past. Although identifying proper contacts is a difficult and ongoing task,
EPA should develop more effective tools to insure contact information is accurate and up to
date. NAHB, for instance, has over 850 state and local Home Builder Association in its
federation and has found few of these groups have ever been identified as groups interested in
EPA actions. This is true despite the fact that the construction industry regularly participates in
EPA proceedings and is significantly affected by countless EPA actions.
Citizens for Responsible Water Management:
Has the EPA taken adequate steps to ensure that addresses of concerned citizens and groups
don't 'fall off' lists? Is adequate effort made to request feedback from each at regular intervals? (It
has been my experience that some established groups are 'lost in the shuffle' by EPA where
occasional communication to them could elicit useful insights.)
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should effectively manage
and update contact lists. EPA seeks to work through partners, and must sometimes depend
upon membership associations to help alert and inform their constituencies of potential impacts.
See new language added at the end of the Goals section:"Develop and work in partnership
with state, iocai and tribal governments, community groups, associations, and other
organizations to enhance and promote public involvement," and the Policy's "Identify the
interested and affected public" section suggests (new language in bold italics): "EPA should
update each list frequently..." EPA also agrees that obtaining feedback from participants can
be helpful; however, Federal agencies' ability to request regular feedback from participants can
be impacted by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Public involvement training for EPA staff is
intended to address the need to update lists.
Problems with Contact Lists as Primary Identification Method
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
....the Policy purports to recognize the importance of this particular element of the public
participation process, but other than the development of a "contact list" the Policy fails to provide
31
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
much in the way of accomplishing any improvement. Indeed this may be the weakest part of the
proposed Policy, especially in terms of low income and minority communities.
The reliance on contact lists inherently guarantees that participation will be limited to those
individuals who find their way onto the lists. Contact lists are inevitably too narrow. Moreover,
despite the fact the Policy wishes to "ensure that all points of view are represented on the lists,"
the development of such lists tends to presuppose what those interests are. Sorting or
generating lists by category of interest or by geographic area, as the Policy suggests for
example, will always be underinclusive. In practice, such contact lists are heavily weighted to
interests with the wherewithal to position themselves on the lists. Industry, for example, with
lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants know which lists are being created and for what purposes.
Community members, however, find themselves on such lists typically only by happenstance,
and usually much later in the process. The bottom line is that agencies should work on the
presumption that many more persons than can be represented on a contact list may have
interests in or may be affected by a decision.
Response: EPA agrees that all interested and affected people may not be represented on
contact lists, and EPA should use a variety of methods to identify the public. The Policy's
"Identify the interested and affected public" section suggests "using other comprehensive or
creative means..." to identify the interested public. See new language added at the end of the
Goals section:"Develop and work in partnership with state, iocai and tribal governments,
community groups, associations, and other organizations to enhance and promote
public involvement" EPA also added new material in the identify section under Methods:
"Participating in workshops, community meetings, public events, etc. to share
information with potentially interested groups and individuals, and enable them to
request additional information on the particular program, activity or project" In addition,
public involvement training materials are intended to assist EPA staff in recognizing and using all
available methods for identifying the public.
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
While some [contact] lists are under inclusive, others are sometimes so broad in subject matter
that community members are inundated with so much information and so many requests for
participation that sorting through it all is too time consuming and difficult. Indeed this is a major
problem for underserved communities. In such communities, where participation rates are low,
agencies look to the few individuals who are participating and ask them to do more rather than
reach out to a wider community.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency needs to improve its use of contact lists and to reach
out to a wider community. The Policy recommends using many methods to identify potentially
interested people beyond those already involved, including partnering with local organizations.
See new language in the above response.
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
In practice, both types of lists, under inclusive and over inclusive, are updated infrequently. And
in both cases, the methods for the development of contact lists tend to be event oriented
(persons who attended prior meetings, for example) or essentially word-of-mouth. Most lists are
retired when the proceedings relating to the initial purpose are completed. For these practical
reasons, contact lists must not be the full extent of identification process.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should effectively manage and update contact lists.
The Policy's "Identify the interested and affected public" section suggests (new language in bold
32
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
italics): "EPA should update each list frequently..." The Policy also recommends using a
variety of methods to identify and involve the public; see above responses. EPA intends to
address the issues raised above in public involvement training provided to EPA staff.
Add Local Stakeholders to Contact Lists
Reichold. Inc.:
The EPA needs to expand its list of stakeholders to small local municipal governments, rural
communities, tribes, and urban communities by compiling a list of local governments,
churches/synagogues, community centers, etc.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should add such local contacts to its stakeholder lists,
especially for community-based or site specific projects. See new language added at the end of
the Goals section:"Develop and work in partnership with state, local and tribal
governments, community groups, associations, and other organizations to enhance and
promote public involvement." EPA also added new material in this section under Methods:
"Participating in workshops, community meetings, public events, etc. to share
information with potentially interested groups and individuals, and enable them to
request additional information on the particular program, activity or project." EPA
intends to address the issues raised above in public involvement training provided to EPA staff.
Use Post Cards to Identify Interested Parties from a Larger List
Minnesota Pollution Control Aaencv:
The MPCA understands that some EPA programs use post-cards in an effort to locate
interested parties from a larger mailing audience. The EPA offers to send a more detailed notice
on request. This seems like a good idea, if additional lead-time for processing and mailing is
available.
Response: EPA agrees that it can be beneficial to use post cards to identify interested people
from a larger mailing list, and intends to add this suggestion to EPA training materials as a best
practice to consider.
This Section of the Policy can be Interpreted to Contain Excessive Requirements
Alabama Department of Environmental Management:
The Department believes this proposal may be interpreted to require project managers to initiate
and maintain contact lists for each facility, geographic areas, and specific industries. These lists
may be required to be formed not only through sign-up sheets during major modifications, permit
issuances, etc. as currently required, but also through pro-active surveys, questionnaires, and
research conducted by the project managers; again for each facility... This language may be
interpreted to mean that the project manager is required to initiate and maintain a contact list for
each facility, then incorporate this information into other lists that should broken into geographic
33
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
areas and industries. Furthermore, this proposal will require project managers to send out
surveys and questionnaires to aid in construction of these lists and then once the lists are
established, use the list to send out announcements of involvement opportunities, available
information, etc. This may eventually be interpreted to mean making periodic updates of each
facility's progress or activities available to everyone on the contact list.
Response: The Policy is not a rule, but rather a set of recommendations for how to effectively
involve the public in EPA's decision-making process. The Policy is guidance for EPA staff, and
although EPA encourages states to use the Policy in developing their own practices, the Policy
does not apply to state employees. While the Policy does not require either EPA or state
managers to take any actions, EPA believes that efforts should be made to inform the public
about EPA decisions that are of interest to them.
7. FUNCTION (NOW STEP) 3. CONSIDER PROVIDING TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE TO THE PUBLIC TO FACILITATE INVOLVEMENT
Broaden Policy's Discussion of Assistance to the Public
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
Providing Assistance To The Public (p. 82339), this function is laudable but should be broader to
include more than just technical or financial assistance. There should also be a goal of tailoring
the public involvement process to the process needs of participants. While sometimes that
might include financial or technical assistance, it also might mean changing venues,
methodologies, meeting formats or considering privacy concerns and cultural differences when
involving the public.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should try to identify and accommodate the process
needs of public participants. This suggestion is included in the Policy's "Conduct public
consultation and involvement activities" section (new language in bold italics): Identify and
select public consultation or involvement processes appropriate for the scope of the
decision and the time and resources available. When possible, consult or involve the
affected public to ensure that the approaches selected consider and, if appropriate,
accommodate the potentially affected parties' needs, preferences, schedules and
resources, as well as the Agency's needs. Overcoming the public's barriers to participation
is intended to be part of training materials.
More Clearly Emphasize Technical and Financial Assistance in the Policy
US Department of Interior. Office of Surface Mining:
On page 82338, item 3, third column, the draft mentions that EPA should: "Consider providing
technical or financial assistance to the public to facilitate involvement." The term "consider" is
not very emphatic, particularly in the context of spending agency funds. If this is a desirable
aspect of public involvement, and if EPA wants it to be administered uniformly and fairly, the
Agency may want to emphasize it more clearly in the document.
Response: EPA agrees that the draft policy did not emphasize provision of technical or
financial assistance. EPA revised and clarified this section of the Policy. The Policy
recommends that the Agency consider providing such assistance as one of the seven steps for
conducting effective public involvement. EPA's allocation of funds is a decision made by EPA
34
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
offices when they prepare their budgets, and is discretionary, depending among other things, on
total resources available. Therefore, EPA does not believe that more prescriptive wording is
appropriately justified.
Inform the Public about Assistance I Ensure that Assistance is Available Early in the
Process
Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition:
It would also be advantageous to the public to make them aware of the assistance that is
available to them through the EPA as stated in the Draft Public Involvement Policy. If more
people were aware of the assistance and resources available to them, they would be more
willing to be involved. This should be done as early in the process as possible so the public can
take advantage of the help BEFORE they have to formally respond to issues.
Lake County. Illinois. Health Department:
If financial assistance is available for public involvement, the time line for submitting, reviewing
and approving an application needs to be such that funding is available for potential use at the
beginning of a decision process.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should inform the public
about the availability of assistance and try to make that such assistance available early in the
public involvement process, and added the following new language in the "Consider providing
technical or financial assistance" section (new language in bold italics): "It is also important
for the Agency to identify those situations where members of the affected public may
not have the requisite knowledge or resources to directly participate or obtain expertise
to engage in meaningful involvement In such situations EPA may have the authority to
take special measures such as providing technical or financial assistance to facilitate
effective participation. When such assistance is needed and available, EPA should
announce its availability as early in the process as possible, and clearly describe the
process and timing for accessing it" EPA intends to address this issue in public involvement
training provided to EPA staff.
Use Internal Communication Mechanisms to Determine Best Methods for Providing
Assistance
New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Office of Administration:
We support (p. 82339) the continued provision of technical or financial assistance to the public
to facilitate involvement, particularly to members of the public who lack the ability to participate in
an effective or timely manner in EPA public consultation or involvement activities. For this to
occur, internal communication mechanisms must be established for EPA managers to consult
with knowledgeable staff (some staff may be located in state agencies) to determine the most
feasible and legal methods to follow.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency needs to use internal communication methods to
determine the best methods for providing assistance. The Policy recommends working closely
with regulatory partners in state, local, tribal, and federal agencies.
35
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Assistance Should Come with No Strings Attached and be Directed by the Community
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
The technical and financial assistance, however, should come without agency imprimatur or
strings attached. It is important, from a community perspective, that the assistance be
independent and trustworthy. That it should be community driven and directed. And that the
assistance should allow for advocacy rather than being required to be rigorously "impartial." The
purposes of the assistance should not be so limited, rather the assistance should be given with
the simple purpose that communities express themselves more effectively. Too often, the
"assistance" provides only another layer of difficulty, if not distrust, for an under represented
community - often not helping to express the community's views, but merely the views of the so-
called assistant.
Response: EPA agrees, and the Policy states, that financial assistance should be structured
to allow stakeholder groups or other members of the public to participate effectively in the action.
However, it should be noted that statutory restrictions govern how EPA can provide financial
assistance. The way in which funds can be used depends on the specific statutory basis for the
grant. Groups or individuals seeking financial assistance should discuss their concerns with the
appropriate EPA official at the time they seek assistance to ensure that they understand any
restrictions. EPA plans to address methods of ensuring that assistance that is provided serves
the community's needs appropriately in training.
Support for Both Technical and Financial Assistance - Overall
Clean Air Council:
There is an underlying belief that simply providing the public with information somehow
empowers them to effectively participate in policy debates or in the more local decisions that
affect their neighborhoods. Information is not power—it is simply a tool. In order to use that tool
effectively community based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) need access to financial
and technical resources to allow them to understand the information provided by agencies such
as EPA and how to use it to protect their communities.
Environmental Defense:
By providing technical or financial assistance to people or groups who lack the adequate
resources to participate effectively, EPA can ensure that everyone is able to deliver their
comments. Financial resources can also go to providing additional technical assistance; for
example, it is sometimes useful for citizens to have access to independent economic analyses
or consultants to help them organize and formulate their ideas and submit useful comments.
EPA should structure its technical assistance grants to determine when and how such
independent analyses and other studies can be done with the Agency's assistance.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that community groups sometimes need
financial and technical assistance, and the Policy recommends that EPA programs consider
providing such assistance. However, it should be noted that statutory restrictions govern how
EPA can provide financial assistance. Groups or individuals seeking financial assistance should
discuss their needs and concerns with the appropriate EPA official at the time they seek
assistance to ensure that they understand any restrictions.
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
36
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
This should be more than mere consideration. Technical and financial assistance is absolutely
essential in an ever-increasing number of highly complex and technical agency decisions. Many
decisions now require an extraordinary effort on the part of community lay persons simply to
understand the issues involved, and even more effort to provide effective and timely comment.
The Sierra Club understands the statutory and budgetary limitations on such funding, but every
effort must be made to assist communities in these increasingly technical decisions. This is
critically important in low income and minority communities which have traditionally not had
access to the levels of expertise necessary to participate fully in modern environmental decision
making.
Response: EPA understands this concern and the Policy encourages programs to support
financial and technical assistance whenever possible. Decisions regarding financial and
technical assistance are made by the program office, in light of its total available resources,
competing needs and statutory authorities.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Water Supply Section:
Where appropriate, implementation of this Draft Policy will require Agency officials to give extra
encouragement and consider providing assistance to some sectors.... This is a good concept,
providing all comments received are treated with equal weight.
Response: The purpose of this Policy is to encourage public participation by all interested
sectors, not to afford particular sectors special considerations. To clarify this point, the
language in the "What Are the Purposes, Goals and Objectives of This Policy" section has been
revised to read (new language in bold italics):"Identify, communicate with and listen to all
affected sectors of the public (Agency officials should plan and conduct public
involvement activities that provide equal opportunity for all individuals and groups to be
heard. Where appropriate, Agency officials should give extra encouragement and
consider providing assistance to sectors, such as minority and low-income populations,
small businesses, and local governments, to ensure they have full opportunity to be
heard and, where possible, access to technical or financial resources to support their
participation.)" One of the Policy's goals is to "foster, to the extent possible, equal and open
access to the regulatory process for all interested and affected parties." EPA believes that
efforts to encourage public participation by encouraging and providing assistance to some
sectors should foster equal, not disparate, treatment of all interested parties.
OMB Watch:
Training and assistance grants. EPA should provide support grants to environmental
organizations, libraries, nonprofit technology assistance centers, and other entities, to
strengthen their ability to access and use environmental information and to teach the public how
to access and use it.
Response: EPA agrees that it would be beneficial to partner with organizations and libraries to
increase public access to environmental information. This message was shared with EPA's
Office of Environmental Information.
Include Cost of Providing Financial/Technical Assistance as Part of Cleanup Costs
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
To the extent permitted by law, the EPA should also consider including financial support for
technical assistance to communities in reviewing and commenting on cleanup, remediation or
37
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
restoration plans as part of the costs of the cleanup, remediation, or restoration of hazardous
waste or Brownfields sites.
Response: EPA agrees that that public involvement opportunities should be available
throughout the course of an EPA action, including long-term actions. According to the
Superfund Program, EPA initiated the Technical Outreach Services For Communities (TOSC)
program in 1994 to provide technical assistance to communities affected by hazardous waste
that was not listed or pre-listed on the National Priorities List and thus could not obtain
assistance through any of EPA's established programs. Since that time, TOSC has been
providing free assistance to communities on issues related to environmental investigation,
technical assistance, cleanup and other challenges communities may face as a result of living
near hazardous waste facilities. The TOSC program is a non-advocate technical assistance
program conducted through EPA's Office of Research and Development and supported by
universities and colleges in EPA's Hazardous Substance Research Centers. Communities
seeking assistance from TOSC can view the TOSC website at: http://www.toscproaram.ora.
Provide Technical Assistance Grants for Long-term Involvement at Cleanup Sites
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Rocky Flats Oversight Unit
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division:
One area where the proposed policy seems deficient relates to sites where long-term actions
are included in the remedy The policy can incorporate these long-term considerations.... Goal
3 on page 18 of 40 could also include funds for stakeholders to maintain involvement at these
sites. Specifically, TAGs could be provided to allow stakeholders to maintain data bases and
files on these sites.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Policy, however it was shared with EPA's
Superfund program.
Create Formal Referral System for Community Groups to Obtain Technical Assistance
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
We also commend the EPA for recognizing that technical assistance is often required for
community groups to effectively participate in agency decision making. However, we are
concerned that the Draft Policy relies too heavily on ad hoc recommendations of technical
assistance sources. We urge the EPA to develop a more formal referral system for community
groups who need expert assistance or advice on the issues being debated by the agency.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment and, according to the Superfund Program, it intends
to make efforts to increase public awareness of the availability of technical assistance.
EPA Must Provide Staff and Resources for Providing Technical Assistance to the Public
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
In addition, we believe that the EPA must focus more energy on finding funding for technical and
direct financial assistance. For example, the Draft Policy states that the EPA may provide
technical assistance through "[a]ccess to Agency experts or contractors to obtain information
and analyses as resources allow." Draft Policy, 65 Fed. Reg. at 82339. The EPA must, at
minimum, ensure that its own staff has the time and resources to provide technical information
and advice to concerned members of the affected public. As discussed earlier in the Draft
38
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Policy, the EPA's budgetary planning documents should reflect support for public participation
and, in particular, the need to make agency officials, as well as agency experts and consultants,
available to affected members of the public.
Response: EPA agrees that Agency staff should have the time and resources to respond to the
public's requests for general and technical information. See new language in the "Plan and
budget for public involvement activities." section (in bold italics): "When preparing budget and
planning documents for regulatory and non-regulatory programs, Agency officials
should make provision for: resources and staff time dedicated to public involvement
activities; time for conducting and evaluating public involvement activities; and staff and
resources to provide technical assistance to the involved public where appropriate (see
the Policy's Step 3, "Consider providing technical or financial assistance to the
public")."
Fund "How-to" Manuals that Help the Public Participate in Specific Regulatory Activities
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
In addition, we believe that the EPA should set aside funding for broader methods of providing
expertise to the general public. For example, we suggest that the EPA specifically commit to
developing "how to" or "self help" manuals, such as The Proof is in the Permit, a handbook
developed by the New York Public Interest Research Group Fund, Inc. and the Earth Day
Coalition, Inc., that guides communities through reviewing and commenting on Title V permits
under the Clean Air Act. Such resources can provide assistance and guidance to a large
number of people at a relatively low cost.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. Decisions to fund such
projects are office and region specific. EPA agrees that such resources can be helpful, and
EPA's web site contains links to the above mentioned handbook, as well as other EPA and
external resources, at http://www.epa.aovshared with/involvework.htm#manuals.
Create a Database that Describes Information Resources for the Public
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
We also suggest that the EPA's commitment to "[collection and dissemination of information on
outside sources of funding or technical assistance" and to "[collaboration with non-
governmental organizations and other information brokers" explicitly include a commitment to
developing an easily accessible database of information resources. Although these resources
should include EPA experts, we believe that the primary focus should be on outside expertise
and resources, such as experts within other federal, state and local agencies, within university
research centers, and within non-governmental agencies. While we recognize that the EPA
itself contains a great deal of expertise, we believe that environmental justice communities are
likely to be wary of bias within the agency and to find outside experts more credible.
Response: EPA agrees that making information of this kind more accessible is a desirable
goal. The Policy's "Consider providing technical or financial assistance" section suggests
several examples of methods which may be used to provide assistance to the public; the two
activities mentioned in the comment are part of that list of suggestions. In addition, the EPA web
site contains helpful information on funding sources such as a link to the catalog of federal
assistance programs at http://www.cfda.gov/. The EPA web site also contains a tutorial on the
grant application process at http://www.epa.gov/seahome/grants.html. General information and
39
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
forms are located at: http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/how_to_apply.htm . This site also includes
links to each of the Regional Offices' grants web pages. Superfund grants are listed at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/assistance/index.htm . The handbook at the following
web site explains how to apply for a Superfund Technical Assistance Grant
http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/tools/tag/download/book1 .pdf The following site
explains how to manage these Superfund grants
http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/tools/tag/download/book4.pdf. For environmental
justice related grants, see http://es.epa.gov/oeca/main/ej/grants.html
Create Hotlines that Help the Public Find and Use EPA Information
OMB Watch:
Training and technical assistance hot lines. EPA should maintain telephone hot lines to assist
the public in finding, obtaining, and using EPA information holdings.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. EPA maintains many topic-
specific and regional office telephone hotlines, and also uses short-term hotlines for
geographically focused and area limited calling. A list of these hotlines can be seen at
http://www.epa.aov/epahome/hotline.htm This comment was shared with EPA's Office of
Environmental Information.
Create Hotlines that Advise the Regulated Community on Compliance Issues
OMB Watch:
Hot lines should also provide advice to the regulated community on compliance with federal
regulations and required information submissions.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. EPA maintains over 30 virtual
compliance assistance centers for specific industrial sectors through the National Compliance
Assistance Clearinghouse. This clearinghouse is on the EPA web page at
http://cfpub.epa.aov/clearinahouse/preview.cfm7ResourcelD=23. The EPA's telephone hotlines
provide information; however, contract employees operate many EPA hotlines and cannot
provide advice on compliance issues.
Oppose Financial Assistance - EPA Should Not Give Preferential Treatment
City of Austin. Texas. Water and Wastewater Utility:
On Page 82339 (65 FR 82339) of the Federal Register, the Policy states ". . . Assistant and
Associate Administrators, Regional Administrators and Office Directors may have authority to
provide funds to outside organizations and individuals for public involvement activities associated
with rules underdevelopment." This is alarming because it raises serious ethical issues that will
bias regulatory development. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to finance one set of
stakeholders at the exclusion of others. When the EPA funds public involvement, it should do so
through the Federal Advisory Committee process where all stakeholders are treated (funded)
equally.
American Water Works Association:
40
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Funding for organizations: This is especially alarming when many advocacy groups are as well-
funded as any other organization. Many advocacy groups choose to spend their funds on media
relations and public relations efforts rather than funding their members to travel for public
involvement processes. This is alarming because it raises serious ethical issues that will bias
regulatory development. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to finance one set of stakeholders
at the exclusion of others. When EPA decides to fund public involvement, it should do so
through the Federal Advisory Committee (FACA) process where all stakeholders are treated
(and funded) equally.
National Association Of Home Builders:
NAHB members frequently feel they are at a decided disadvantage in the regulatory process
when EPA actively assists groups who oppose NAHB members' goals. In the new proposal, for
instance, EPA plans to provide "technical and financial assistance" to various groups. However,
this financial "assistance" may well translate into preferential treatment for groups who share
EPA's position on a particular issue. Likewise, EPA's efforts at "outreach" are often viewed by
industry as an attempt to stir up supporters for EPA's viewpoint and to "stack the deck" against
industry groups. This despite the fact that many of these so-called "public-spirited"
environmental groups are in fact powerful special interest groups with large financial resources.
NAHB members feel that EPA's support for these groups means that industry will never get a
fair opportunity to participate in a meaningful way, and NAHB opposes such powerful and
unaccountable discretion at the hands of the agency. NAHB believes that any such assistance
should be closely monitored or the effect of the policy will be the continued deterioration in public
confidence in the agency and a further sense of frustration, distrust, and dissatisfaction with
governmental actions.
NAHB is concerned that EPA's policy will be used to provide financial and technical support for
various groups whose ideas could not otherwise succeed in the marketplace of ideas. The
policy appears aimed more at empowering environmental groups than in promoting responsible
economic growth and development policies.
Response to above three comments: EPA cannot and does not promote certain groups over
others, but works to ensure that all interested parties can participate and provide input. In some
cases, this may lead to EPA funding of community groups, some public interest groups, local
governments or others that otherwise do not have the staff or resources to effectively participate
in EPA's decision-making processes. Although EPA uses FACA committees to obtain collective
or group advice and recommendations on numerous issues, EPA does not seek group advice
on most decisions.
Support Financial Assistance - Amount Should be Equivalent to Private Parties'
Expenditures
Golden Gate University. Environmental Law and Justice Clinic:
...we believe that some form of public participation grant is absolutely essential to facilitate
adequate citizen involvement. This funding should be equivalent to what interested private
parties spend in the process.
Response: EPA agrees that, to the extent that funding is available, financial assistance grants
are useful. However, EPA disagrees that the amount should be equivalent to private parties'
expenditures.
41
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Support Financial Assistance - Provide Scholarships to Attend Meetings
Citizen #5:
The public must be able to attend public stakeholder meetings. EPA should provide significant
advance notice of public stakeholder meetings, and should do its best to make sure the affected
public is invited to the meeting. This includes advertising the meeting in public spaces (other
than just the Federal Register notice), providing scholarships for the public to attend these
meetings, and possibly holding meetings in "the field" as opposed to Headquarters or regional
EPA offices.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. These ideas are included in the Policy.
Provide Grants to Organizations to Increase Civic Capacity/ Work with Political
Scientists to Implement Such Grants
Georgetown University. Government Department:
...you can expand and more strongly commit yourself to one of the suggested responsibilities for
Regional Administrators (last section of draft document - focusing on who is responsible for
implementing this policy — suggestion "j") — "Provide small grants to representative public
groups for needed public involvement work; where feasible and appropriate." I would argue that
grants can and should be provided to organizations whose sole/main purpose is to increase
"civic capacity," i.e., the ability of people to communicate with public officials and help to govern
their own lives. This small grant program could be expanded to include both small and medium
size grants (i.e., any where from $5000 to $100,000) for work on building civic capacity.
Who could help you with such implementation? I would also argue that there are political
scientists in each of the ten EPA regions that have expert knowledge about citizen participation
(about who participates, who doesn't, and why). Furthermore, many of these political scientists
have the skills to help EPA develop such programs, tailoring the "Civic Capacity Grants"
somewhat to the particular concerns in any given region. For a further idea of how such a
program could be structured, you may want to look into an innovative program being done at the
local level in Arlington County, Virginia. The program, "The Arlington Neighborhood College,"
attempts to encourage underserved members of Arlington to become a part of the larger group
of citizens actively involved in civic matters here in their community — by giving these citizens
skills through training exercises in small-group and large-group settings.
Response: EPA appreciates this suggestion, and added a second goal to this section of the
Policy: "To use such assistance to help build capacity to understand complex technical
issues and enable people to participate substantively in EPA's decision-making
processes." Capacity building beyond participation in EPA activities is outside of the scope of
the Policy. Small grant funds for participating in EPA decision-making processes are highly
limited.
Clarify that Some States are Prohibited from Providing Financial Assistance
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials:
... the description of function number 3, "Consider Providing Technical or Financial Assistance to
the Public to Facilitate Involvement" at page 82339 includes items sometimes specifically
excluded by State statutes such as compensated advisory committees. The Agency should
42
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
revise this language to be clear that this listing is exclusively one of federal program support, and
that State and other governments should be expected to address these resources intensive
vehicles on the basis of State priorities and laws.
Response: This policy provides guidance to EPA; EPA does not and cannot require states or
other governmental agencies to follow these guidelines.
EPA Should Notify State Agencies of Any Grants Given by EPA
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Water Supply Section:
financial assistance - The State primacy agency for a given program, such as the drinking water
program, must be notified of grants EPA provides to various agencies within their state, to avoid
funding duplicate programs or redundant training courses. There have been instances where
both the State and the EPA Region was unaware of the projects paid for by the federal grants.
Response: EPA appreciates this comment, but it is outside of the scope of the Policy. This
comment was referred to the EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and Office of
Grants and Debarment.
EPA Needs to Define Implementation Criteria for Providing Assistance
Minnesota Pollution Control Aaencv:
It sets goals where the Policy admits no implementation criteria yet exist. For example, it
suggests the need to provide financial assistance to facilitate more public involvement and the
need to budget for this—but lacks specifics. The MPCA believes that anticipating participation
levels, proving financial hardship of interested parties, then providing assistance to these parties
would be extremely difficult.
Response: EPA agrees that decisions regarding selection of groups for funding are not easy.
The Policy provides suggested criteria for providing financial assistance; however, it does not
include detailed screening mechanisms.
Assistance Criteria Should Include Residency in Environmental Justice Community as a
Factor
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
Believe that technical assistance and expert advice is the key to effective citizen input in
environmental decision making, particularly in environmental justice communities. For that
reason, we urge the EPA to include, as one factor in determining whether financial assistance
should be awarded to a particular applicant, whether an applicant is a resident of an
environmental justice community.
Response: EPA agrees that technical assistance is important, especially in environmental
justice communities. The Policy's "Consider providing technical or financial assistance" section
includes suggested criteria for providing financial assistance, and also states (new language in
bold italics): "In general, the Agency should make special efforts to provide assistance to
groups that may have fewer opportunities or insufficient resources to participate."
Environmental Justice related grants are listed at http://es.epa.aov/oeca/main/ei/arants.html.
For information about EJ small grants, see http://es.epa.aov/oeca/oei/arlink1.html.
Financial Assistance Criteria Should Include Local Governments as Eligible
43
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Citv of Phoenix. Arizona. Office of Environmental Programs:
If EPA is considering criteria for providing formal assistance to facilitate public involvement,
mechanisms should exist for providing community involvement/technical resources and grants
to local governments. Local governments have had a much more difficult time accessing grants
because EPA seems to give preference to community groups and activist organizations. Even
the "Fees for Copying" Section singles out private citizens, public interest organizations or small
businesses as being worthy of having fees waived, but not small communities which should also
be included in this category. Further, grants such as Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs)
should also be available for local governments, which are often the first information resource for
citizens.
Response: EPA agrees that some local governments may need assistance to facilitate their
involvement in EPA's decision-making processes, and added new language to the Policy's
"Consider providing technical or financial assistance to the public to facilitate involvement"
section (new language in bold italics): "There are numerous ways to assist members of the
public and small local governments who lack the ability..." Another change was made in the
section on "Purposes, goals and objectives": "Where appropriate, Agency officials should give
extra encouragement and consider providing assistance to some sectors, such as minorities
and low-income populations, small businesses, and local governments, to ensure they have
full opportunity to be heard..." Please note that statutory and regulatory requirements may
affect the availability of funding; for example, Technical Assistance Grants under § 117 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) cannot
be awarded to local governments; see 40 CFR 35.4020(b)(5)(2001). This comment was shared
with the EPA Superfund Program and the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations. Further, please note updated language: "Fees for Copying: In responding to a
request for records, the Agency will follow its regulations implementing the Freedom of
Information Act C'FOIA ") at 40 CFR Part 2. The Agency may waive the fees associated
with a FOIA request, pursuant to the criteria listed at 40 CFR 2.107(1), if disclosure would
contribute to public understanding of government operations and is not primarily in the
commercial interest of the requester."
8. FUNCTION (NOW STEP) 4. PROVIDE INFORMATION AND OUTREACH TO THE
PUBLIC
Environmental Justice Outreach
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
As stated in our "General Comments Attachment", we concur with the draft Policy statement
that EPA should "ensure that the public understands the legal requirements for Agency
action...". We feel that in minority, low-income and under served communities that special
emphasis should be given to this. EPA should determine initially what the community knows
44
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
about EPA. Do they know what the agency does? Do they know what the agency can and
cannot do with regards to the program/project? Clarify any misconceptions and clearly state the
policy/program goals and objectives emphasizing how this affects the community.
Continue to use the Internet. This means of disseminating and gathering information will
continue to grow.
Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition:
The EPA can improve involvement opportunities for minority, low-income and the under served
population through early awareness and simplified explanations. Often times the general public
is unaware of the potential effects the decisions made by the EPA will have on their community.
These potential effects need to be expressed when meeting notices are announced. This needs
to be done through all available options including newspapers, radio, flyers etc. If more of the
general public were aware of what could happen to the community, they would show a greater
interest in being involved. They need to know how these decisions will affect them personally.
Response to above two comments: The Policy includes these suggestions in several
sections. For instance, the "Provide information and outreach" section recommends that EPA
information concerning a public involvement process should contain background information on
the action's "statutory basis, rationale, specific goal(s) of involvement activities, or the triggering
event of the action." That section also recommends that EPA: "summarize complex
technical materials for the public; write information and outreach documents in plain
language that the public will easily understand, and write engineering and technical
documents as clearly and concisely as possible" In addition, the Policy's "Conduct public
consultation and involvement activities" section recommends: "Provide guidance, resources,
training, and professional assistance to Agency staff and interested delegated program partners,
when feasible, to assist them in conducting or participating in public consultation and
involvement activities in an effective and credible manner (This includes providing the
technical, scientific, and background information in a manner that allows the involved
public to understand the relevant science for the issues under discussion.) This section
also recommends that EPA describe "Information on the social, economic, and environmental
consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives that has been prepared in connection
with the proposed decision." EPA intends to seek to emphasize in public involvement training
the need for clear and concise communications and effective outreach.
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
GLC and the MEJC believe that the Draft Policy must specify that more aggressive outreach and
notification efforts are needed when a proposed action or decision may adversely affect an
environmental justice community. In such circumstances, we believe the EPA should consider
holding a public meeting just before or just after the beginning of the comment period to ensure
that these communities are aware of the proposed action, its possible effect and their right to
comment on the decision. The EPA could work with churches, community centers and social
service organizations to plan and publicize these meetings.
Response: For local or site-specific community projects, EPA agrees that enhanced outreach
in environmental justice communities is appropriate. New language in the goals section of the
Policy suggests that EPA should partner with local community organizations for outreach:
"Develop and work in partnership with state, local and tribal governments, community
groups, associations, and other organizations to enhance and promote public
45
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
involvement" The Policy complements EPA's environmental justice activities. EPA intends to
seek to include the comment's suggestions in EPA public involvement training materials.
Create Documents that are Clear and Concise
Citizen #4:
There is one aspect of this public involvement thing that I would like to comment on, and that is
the actual public notice itself (e.g., Federal Register). The notices are frequently just too lengthy
- this particular notice being a case in point. I was especially frustrated by a recent Final Rule on
the Risk Management Program (RMP) for the release of OCA data. That particular notice was
extremely lengthy, yet still failed to communicate in any understandable way in language that
anyone could understand, that the public can visit a reading room to view the RMP/OCA data,
can take notes by hand, but cannot print, photocopy or download any of the data.
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts:
One does not usually know the Federal Register number and that system at best is confusing,
burdensome, overly complicated and uses advanced language skills that many folks don't
possess. This language must be simplified with executive summaries in plain English, at about
the 6th grade level, so an average person can read and understand the issues and facts...
The essence of public involvement is to give stakeholders something that is clearly stated and
readable without spending hours and hours and hours to do so. I'm sorry the rules makers have
to create such complex documents.
Golden Gate University. Environmental Law and Justice Clinic:
in reference to the notion of making the process more accessible to public, circulating
materials in "plain English" and making them available in other languages, in addition to large
print and Braille would be an important step. It would also be helpful if in tandem with this
approach, the documents were streamlined so as not to be to be redundant, or dense with non-
essential information. I must admit that even in reviewing this policy that is geared towards
inclusivity, it took me an enormous amount of effort to sort through.
WPI:
The plain language concern is related to the complexity of most decision making processes.
They are so long and full of drafts after draft report that a person on a citizen advisory committee
can be easily overwhelmed. Summarizing, paraphrasing and otherwise simplifying the reading
and other procedural information would help to attract and maintain public participation.
Response to above five comments: EPA appreciates the comments. While the material that
EPA typically includes in the public notice frequently results in lengthy notices, EPA recognizes
the need for notices to be understandable. The Policy's "Provide information and outreach to the
public" section recommends that EPA (new language in bold italics): "summarize complex
technical materials for the public", "Write information and outreach documents in plain
language that the public will easily understand" and "Write engineering and technical
documents as clearly and concisely as possible"
EPA plans to emphasize the need for clear and concise communications in training. EPA is
working to improve public notices and provides training on writing in plain language. The Agency
46
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
also has several internal guidance documents that provide detailed guidelines and examples
about the use of plain language for staff.
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
LACSD would ask that EPA consider a short introduction to rulemaking language published in
the Federal Register that incorporates the essence of the voter's pamphlet: a concise summary
of the issues followed by pro/con arguments from identified proponents/opponents (perhaps
followed by EPA's traditional text explaining how you got where you are going).
Response: EPA notices already contain a summary or short introduction at the beginning of the
notice and EPA agrees that such a summary is helpful. EPA, however, does not agree that
pro/con arguments from identified proponents/opponents of a rulemaking should be included in
the notice as this would provide some members of the public a greater voice than others. EPA
is working to improve public notices and provides training on writing notices in plain English.
Provide Guidance on Plain Language vs. Legally Defensible Language
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
The policy contains language that Agency officials should write documents in "plain language
that the public will easily understand". This is a laudable goal, but how does this affect
engineering and technical documents? In many cases, less understandable but more "legally
defensible" language is required by EPA staff and EPA and state agency attorneys. EPA should
provide guidance on how to resolve this apparent conflict of needs.
Response: Legal requirements are outside the scope of the Policy. However, EPA has made
some changes to the Policy to address the concern regarding engineering and technical
documents. See new language in the "Provide information and outreach to the public" section:
"Write engineering and technical documents as cieariy and concisely as possible" See
also the revised statement in the same section of the Policy:"Write information and outreach
documents in plain language that the public will easily understand." The Policy also
recommends providing summaries of technical information. EPA is working to improve the use
of plain English in public notices and other documents and provides training on how to write
documents in plain English.
Translate Documents to Other Languages
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
To ensure that these [technical documents] materials are truly accessible, we also suggest that
the EPA commit to translating these documents upon request and publicize the availability of
that service.
Response: EPA intends to publish proposed policy guidance on Title Vl's prohibition against
national origin discrimination as it affects limited English proficient (LEP) persons, as required by
Executive Order 13166. The proposed guidance suggests a general framework that EPA-
assisted and EPA-conducted programs and activities can use to provide meaningful access to
LEP persons. The draft LEP guidance also discusses an individualized assessment for EPA-
assisted and EPA-conducted programs that balances factors to ensure meaningful access by
LEP persons to critical services and vital written materials while not imposing undue burdens.
Whether or not a document (or the information it disseminates or solicits) is "vital" may depend
upon the importance of the program, information, encounter, or service involved, and the
47
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
consequence to the LEP person if the information in question is not provided accurately or in a
timely manner.
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. Environment Division:
I don't think it can be understated how important it is to write documents in plain language and
when appropriate in other languages, as well.
Response: EPA agrees documents should be written in plain English and in other languages
where appropriate. See above response. The Policy's "Provide information and outreach to the
public" section recommends:"Consider whether EPA should provide documents in languages in
addition to English in order to reach the affected public or interested parties..." EPA intends to
emphasize the need for clear and concise communications in public involvement training for
EPA staff. EPA is working to improve the use of plain English in public notices and other
documents and provides training on how to write documents in plain English. EPA is also
working to expand its capacity to provide translations.
Recommendations for Outreach to Non-English Speaking Communities
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
What is the requirement or guidance of the policy regarding translation issues and outreach
through nontraditional government channels such as churches and cultural organizations? Both
of these are very labor-intensive, requiring personal contacts. As written, "by using other
comprehensive or creative means" to consider languages spoken, local communications
preferences and location, the language implies that a thorough, comprehensive effort (e.g.,
multi-media campaigns in languages other than English) should be made for every action or
activity. Often, smaller and more targeted efforts are more effective.
Response: The Policy does not suggest that comprehensive communication efforts as
described in the comment should be used for every action or activity. Rather, the Policy
contains various suggestions for involving the public, including, in the "Provide information and
outreach to the public" section: "Consider whether EPA should provide documents in languages
in addition to English in order to reach the affected public or interested parties..." The Policy
contains no requirements, but the "What Are the Purposes, Goals and Objectives of This Policy"
section recommends using appropriate public involvement techniques to "Make every effort to
tailor public involvement programs to the complexity and potential for controversy of the
issue, the segments of the public affected, the time frame for decision making and the desired
outcome."
EPA intends to soon publish proposed policy guidance on Title Vl's prohibition against national
origin discrimination as it affects limited English proficient (LEP) persons, as required by
Executive Order 13166. The proposed guidance suggests a general framework that EPA-
assisted and EPA-conducted programs and activities can use to provide meaningful access to
LEP persons. The draft LEP guidance also discusses an individualized assessment for
recipients that balances factors to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons to critical
services while not imposing undue burdens on small businesses, small local governments, or
small nonprofits.
Pollution Posse:
48
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
The discussion is limited to only people who speak English. From my experience, EPA
employed so many people that were very hard to understand, and many times it appeared that
they hid behind the language barrier when hard questions were asked of them, but on the other
hand people who were affected by pollution that spoke Spanish (for example), had no way to
understand what was going on. On many occasions, I asked for an interpreter, and when a
public meeting was held EPA's answer to me was.... "The Spanish speaking people didn't come,
so we didn't need a interpreter," On this occasion EPA also held the meeting outside of the
community, further hindering public participation. If there is a large population of any race or
ethnic background, EPA should provide people who can communicate to them. A site in
Missouri where there is a large population of Slavic, etc., residents, the polluting company is
smart enough to have hired a man who has a Slavic name, and practices the same religion as
many people living there.
Bison Land Resource Center:
In our area, one of the greatest barriers is a language barrier, as our largest minority group is
the Lakota/Dakota (Sioux). When events are held in English without translation, many members
of this group are effectively excluded. Similarly, when local reservation publications and Lakota-
language radio stations are not provided full information for public involvement, these populations
are excluded. For the public to truly be involved, the general public must be notified of
environment-related activities in a time frame and in a manner that makes input not only
possible, but likely.
Response to above two comments: EPA appreciates the comment. See above response. In
addition, the Policy's Conduct public consultation and involvement activities also recommends,
"...consult or involve the affected public to ensure that the approaches selected consider and, if
appropriate, accommodate the potentially affected parties' needs, preferences." EPA intends to
incorporate these ideas in public involvement training materials and a data base of public
involvement best practices for use by EPA staff.
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. Falmouth. Massachusetts: All of the major ethnic and cultural
communities have their publications of their own that can be helpful to the Environmental
Protection Agency. Cable television and radio stations can be useful in calling attention to
environmental concerns. If the EPA is trying to work with Portugese-speaking people on Cape
Cod or in the New Bedford, there are editors and station managers willing to be helpful. In
regions where many individuals speak Spanish, or other languages, there are other journalists
and community leaders to contact. Please don't overlook "minority publications." They're very
important for an increasing number of Americans.
Response: EPA agrees that "minority publications" and news media can be helpful in reaching
particular populations. EPA intends to include these ideas in training materials and incorporate
them into a data base of public involvement best practices for use by EPA staff.
Environmental Defense:
These should be advertised on TV, radio and newspapers and should not be excessively
technical and should be understandable to the whole public, and when necessary, should be
done in various languages.
Response: EPA agrees that notices to the public should be understandable and not overly
technical. This position is stated in the Policy. Also, see above response.
49
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Provide Guidance for Multi-Lingual Outreach
American Waterworks Association:
The importance that EPA places on translating information for people that do not speak English
is reflected in its drinking water program requirements for Consumer Confidence Reports and
Public Notification. AWWA encourages EPA to assume the same level of responsibility for
informing non-English speaking people that it has recommended for drinking water utilities. For
example, in its Public Notification Handbook (EPA 816-R-00-010, June 2000) EPA recommends
that utilities consider a "threshold of ten percent of the population or 1,000 people whichever is
less for providing multilingual information" (page 13). In addressing this issue, AWWA also
recommends that EPA develop specific guidance for determining what constitutes a large
proportion of non-English speaking people and the process and data to be used in such a
determination.
Response: EPA appreciates this comment, however, the Policy is not the appropriate vehicle
for such guidance. Also see above section responses.
Recommend Regular Communication with Interested Public
Citizens for Responsible Water Management:
Might the EPA do more to ensure that persons who have shown interest in its operations are
kept fully informed?
National Association Of Home Builders:
NAHB also recommends that EPA program officers should maintain an ongoing dialogue with
industry, trade associations, and other interested groups so that no proposals issued by EPA will
take any seriously interested group by surprise.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that efforts should be made to keep
interested persons informed. Staffing and resource constraints affect the Agency's ability to do
so, however. See new language in the "Provide information and outreach to the public." section
of the Policy, under "Actions: 'To the extent possible, maintain ongoing communication
and outreach with the interested and involved public on particular EPA activities through
periodic newsletters, list serves or other means."
Recommendations for Better Involving "General Public"
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
At some EPA stakeholders meetings the "general public" is brought in to be part of the meetings.
Unfortunately, many of the people are not fully briefed on the issue and cannot contribute much
to the process. EPA needs to find a better way to involve the public in these issues. Possibly,
conducting some sort of briefing/issue discussion prior to involving the "general public" in the
stakeholder meetings would help.
Response: EPA agrees that the general public should be educated on the particular issues
under discussion in order to effectively participate in meetings. EPA intends to include this idea
in training materials and in a database of public involvement best practices for use by EPA staff.
Long-term Outreach Needed for Contaminated Sites
50
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Rockv Flats Oversight Unit. Hazardous
Materials and Waste Management Division::
One area where the proposed policy seems deficient relates to sites where long-term actions
are included in the remedy The policy can incorporate these long-term considerations...
On page 15 Of 40, the Goal 1 recommended action could specify that EPA request funds for
continuing public involvement activities at sites whose remedies include long-term actions. Goal
3 on page 18 of 40 could also include funds for stakeholders to maintain involvement at these
sites. Specifically, TAGs could be provided to allow stakeholders to maintain data bases and
files on these sites. Goal 4 on page 20 of 40 could specify outreach for post-ROD decisions
selecting and implementing long-term actions and controls, including site delisting and five-year
reviews.
Response: This suggestion was referred to the EPA Superfund program.
Allow Public Comment at Each Stage of Cleanup Process
Washington State Department of Ecology. Toxics Cleanup Program:
Public comment is not required during each stage of cleanup on EPA projects. This should be
changed to reflect the goal of early and meaningful public participation. Comment should be
held on each significant stage of cleanup (i.e., Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study,
Proposed Plan, etc.)
Response: EPA agrees that the public should be involved in decision-making processes as
early as practicable. According to the Superfund Program, last fall it issued a memorandum
focused on improving early and meaningful community involvement. This document (OSWER
Directive 9230.0-39) can be found on the web at:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/earlv.pdf
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Rockv Flats Oversight Unit. Hazardous
Materials and Waste Management Division:
One area where the proposed policy seems deficient relates to sites where long-term actions
are included in the remedy. EPA has recently issued guidance on the use of Institutional
Controls under RCRA and CERCLA. The emphasis in this document is on the need for effective
long-term actions and the necessity of meaningful five-year reviews. As described in the policy,
the focus of organized public involvement is on EPA decision making, and has traditionally
addressed the project scoping and RI/FS phases through the ROD. The policy has the
opportunity to provide some leadership about post-remedy phases of the project, where delays
and fewer activities create a lower profile for the project with the public.
Current EPA decisions may include specification of long-term activities, including institutional
controls. However, most often these long-term attributes are merely noted in the remedy
selection and ROD, and actual definition is deferred until some future O&M Plan (or similar
document), which is usually not provided to the stakeholders for public review. In fact,
community involvement at the site is essentially ignored after the ROD or Remedial Design
stage.
In addition, EPA is driven to remove sites from the National Priorities List once the remedy is
implemented. If the remedy has long-term features, such as monitoring, maintenance, or
institutional controls, the site can still be delisted regardless of the degree of risk management
required at the site. This delisting could occur years after the ROD or RD, when no site-specific
public involvement mechanisms are in place.
51
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Similar flaws exist for five-year reviews, which are required for sites with remaining
contamination. EPA does not create or maintain mechanisms for involving the concerned
stakeholders in these latter activities.
Response: EPA agrees that public involvement opportunities should be available throughout
the course of an EPA action, including long-term actions. According to the Superfund Program,
EPA recently issued Superfund guidance (OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P) establishing
expectations for public involvement during the five-year review process. This guidance can be
found at: http://www.epa.aov/superfund/resources/5vear/index.htm
Moreover, the Superfund program has explicit requirements for public participation during the
delisting process, including a 30 day comment period, to ensure the public knows about and can
express any concerns about the proposed action. Accordingly, EPA has added a new third
bullet to Step 5 "Conduct public consultation and involvement activities.", section "a. Actions",
which reads (new text in bold italics): "For site-specific activities, start public involvement
efforts early in the action and continue them, as appropriate, until all work is completed'.
Support Public Involvement in Developing Significant Information Products
American Chemistry Council:
In discussing its applicability, the draft policy fails to mention "significant information products"
such as websites and reports. EPA's Office of Environmental Information has led the Agency in
recognizing that information-based initiatives can, like rules and cleanup plans, have significant
effects on members of the public. Their development can likewise benefit from early public
involvement. The Agency's draft framework for its Information Products Bulletin (IPB) (65 FR
71314, Nov. 30, 2000) explains these points well. The final public involvement policy should
explicitly mention public involvement products and reference the IPB.
Response: EPA agrees that the development of significant information products can benefit
from early public involvement, and has added among the items listed for particular consideration
of public involvement: The development of significant information products (as the Office
of Environmental Information has defined them in Appendix 2: Definitions)." The Office of
Environmental Information developed the Information Products Bulletin (IPB) to provide the
public with advance notice of EPA's and some states' products under development. It also
provides information about public involvement opportunities during those products' development.
The Policy refers to significant information products and references the IPB. For further
information about the IPB, see http://www.epa.aov/ipbpaaes/
Inform the Public about EPA Meetings with Stakeholders
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Earth Island Institute:
[Recommend that] The EPA provide, via its web site, public notice of meetings between agency
management and staff with stakeholder organizations.
We do not believe that the development of a simple electronic "meeting calendar" on the EPA
web site would result in the harms which have been suggested. Indeed, we believe that this
approach is the only means of ensuring that all stakeholders are properly notified of EPA
meetings that are relevant to their mandate.
Citizen #6:
52
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
The fact that you do not want to disclose to the general public the business groups and front
organizations you regularly meet with is evidence enough of whom you really serve in these
decisions If the attempt to obtain public input into "Draft 2000 Public Involvement Policy" is
legitimate, which is dubious to many of us who have watched the scheming of big businesses
aggressively pushing their agenda for so long, then there is only one way to start to clean up the
corruption. If this is indeed not just another public relations ploy instigated by the well-
compensated front groups of big business, then the best service you could do the American
people is to publish regularly (annually or semiannually) a list of organizations that meet with the
Environmental Protection Agency. An added service to the public would be to possibly include a
main issue or topic under discussion with each group Such a policy would require little
effort, result in a huge benefit to the public at large (since we could actually track corruption for a
change), and actually move your agency in the direction of its stated purpose.
Citizen #54:
I want a public involvement policy that informs the public of any connections with special
interests contrary to the environment which might be influencing environmental policies (such as
big business).
Citizens for Responsible Water Management:
The EPA would receive more aid from concerned citizens if it informed the public more fully of
the multitude of pressures exerted on individuals in government.
Response to above four comments: EPA has an area of its Web site dedicated to informing
the public about its public meetings. Please see http://www.epa.gov/epahome/announce.htm to
view these listings. This site can be accessed from the EPA Newsroom site. It contains lists of
upcoming public meetings, conferences, workshops, & symposia, enforcement actions, &
announcements from several EPA Regional offices (near the bottom of the page). EPA
welcomes suggestions on how to improve this presentation of meeting information.
EPA does not agree that public notice should be given of all meetings between agency
management and staff and stakeholder organizations, or that it should adopt a general policy
against meeting with individual stakeholders and groups without others present. In many cases,
such meetings will be more candid and provide more information to the Agency. It is EPA's
policy, however, to provide the fullest possible participation in Agency decision making, and in
rulemaking to ensure that new data or information provided in meetings are placed in the
rulemaking docket. One of the goals of the Policy is to "foster a spirit of mutual trust,
confidence, and openness between the Agency and the public" The Public Involvement Policy
is meant to promote an "even playing field" for all.
Present New Outreach Activities in Context of Existing Efforts
Doctoral Student. Washington State University. Department of Geography:
Outreach is another one of those tricky words. When an agency finds outreach necessary, in
the minds of many citizens, it's because they aren't "there" or involved in the first place. Said
another way, presenting outreach as a new thing to do, communicates it hasn't ever been done
and it's the first time anyone ever stopped to think about it. Presented as ways to expand or
improve current outreach strategies, and discussing/delineating the new and old strategies, may
53
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
be more successful in building public trust. If it is a new thing, be honest about it, e.g., "in
response to our inadequate outreach efforts of the past, we will "
Response: In the Policy, EPA is not presenting outreach as a "new thing." The 1981 Policy
was clear about the necessity of providing solid outreach programs (see
http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/pdf/Frn2.pdf). Though the updated 2002 Policy has an
expanded outreach section, it is not because of non-performance, it is because the Agency has
broadened its experience over the past twenty-two years.
Partner with Local Organizations for Outreach
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
The EPA could work with churches, community centers and social service organizations to plan
and publicize these meetings.
ACES. Inc.:
Could EPA fashion a program to use, for example, COA (Coalition for Aging) and/or AARP
groups to locate retired persons willing to work in their community on environmental problems? I
think COA's are a natural for this approach since they frequently have seniors with professional
talents. Many retired people are waiting to be asked for their help; COA's also are organized with
a staff. The COA could be the buffer between EPA and possible seniors and handle any
financial matters through a grant.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Toxics Cleanup Program:
A way to improve outreach is to assign a public involvement specialist to get to know the
communities. Attend church meetings and link messages through ministers where these
minorities already have trust developed. Go door-to-door in these communities with someone
they already trust to give out the messages. Recruit one or two leaders from each group to
attend EPA meetings and provide input from their perspective, etc. Make them part of the
process.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Toxics Cleanup Program::
There is a list of ideas on how to meet with the public. What's missing is the idea of going to
them. Not everyone has the time or desire to attend every meeting. Offering to take the
message to already organized and planned meetings (in addition to holding the "required
meeting") gives organized groups more context to hear our message and has often been more
productive. Asking the community what they want is a good way to begin.
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
Work with church leaders and leaders of local civic groups to determine what are the best ways
to disseminate information and the format of the information (both written and verbal).
Schools, churches, community centers, etc. could be asked to get involved in mobilizing the
community to participate in EPA activities.
Environmental Defense:
The Agency can also use local community groups—not just environmental but also other locally-
based groups—to help organize and publicize public meetings; these groups can reach a larger
54
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
and more diverse population than EPA often can... Finally, EPA can forge partnerships with
local grassroots groups to reach different segments of the population.
Response to above six comments: EPA agrees that it is important to work with local
community organizations. See new language added at the end of the Goals section:"Develop
and work in partnership with state, iocai and tribal governments, community groups,
associations, and other organizations to enhance and promote public involvement," Also
see in the methods portion of "Identify interested and affected public," participating in the events
of others and reaching the members of organizations through their publications. EPA will seek
to include these suggestions in EPA training materials. Resource and staffing constraints will, of
course, affect EPA's ability to utilize all of these suggestions.
Michigan Environmental Council:
EPA regional leadership should develop and maintain lists of consistent strategic partners who
can serve as conduits for public involvement opportunities and announcements. Each list
should include state agencies, trade organizations, non-governmental organizations, corporate
interests and private citizens. These groups should understand that they are partners in the
effort to build public awareness of pending EPA decisions. Partners should be provided with
notification of processes about to begin and basic instructional materials regarding the public
participation methods for dissemination to their constituents. Particular attention should be paid
to the development of partners representing and including minority and low-income populations.
These cross-project associates will help generate consistent participation from under served
communities and enhance the EPA's list of concerned citizens.
The Groundwater Foundation:
I would also like to suggest that along with formal frameworks for public input such committee
work, and stakeholder meetings, EPA should consider partnerships with groups like the
Groundwater Foundation in reaching stakeholder groups that may not be able or experienced in
contacting the government directly. Some groups are hesitant about this even after a specific
invitation is extended-yet these individuals and groups can prove to be very helpful The
Groundwater Foundation has found that local teams are in an excellent position to develop
innovative solutions and address local problems with local resources. These experiences can
provide a wealth of data and on-the-ground solutions to EPA as the agency seeks broad public
involvement.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that it is important to work with local
community organizations. See new language added at the end of the Goals section:"Develop
and work in partnership with state, local and tribal governments, community groups,
associations, and other organizations to enhance and promote public involvement," Also
see in the methods portion of "Identify interested and affected public," participating in the events
of others and reaching the members of organizations through their publications. EPA will seek
to include these suggestions in EPA training materials.
Partner with Conservation Districts
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts:
Conservation districts, some 3000 strong across the United States, are the backbone of local
involvement and should be recognized by your agency and your regional offices as such. These
55
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
locally led districts work with local stakeholders on various environmental issues and could be
your key to successful and meaningful outreach I would recommend you consider full time
liaisons to agriculture, producers, and conservation districts in EVERY state or region, to
validate the concept of Stewardship and Outreach that you are pursuing.
Response: EPA agrees that this partnership should be further explored; however, EPA does
not have sufficient staff or funding to assign liaisons in every state or region. It is not EPA's
primary function to provide localized information and assistance delivery, but conservation
districts are very helpful collaborators in our community-based efforts.
Conduct Cross-Border Outreach
Citizen #8:
It's very important that, with questions which involve issues that cross borders, connections are
sought with citizens, as well as governments, across those borders. This may be best facilitated
by including non-governmental organizations, especially those with members in both countries.
Response: EPA agrees, and routinely implements this suggestion. EPA US/Mexico Border
Offices facilitate such exchanges with NGOs and work with EPA Regions 7 and 9. Regional
offices also work with Carribean organizations and governments. With Canada, EPA Regions 2,
3, 5, 8 and 10 work with the appropriate Canadian provinces and regional organizations,
Canadian federal agencies and national organizations, and with the US-Canada International
Joint Commission. EPA Headquarters Office of International Activities leads EPA's international
efforts.
Clarify the Public Involvement Process for the Public
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
The decision making process on rule-making, creating guidance, implementation or application
of rules, regulations, or guidance, is frequently very difficult for various stakeholders to
understand. Once they are firmly established, by statute or by agreement, agencies should
provide easily-understandable "ground rules" at the outset of any public participation process
informing the public as to how their input will be used, what their role in the decision making
process will be, any statutory or regulatory requirements which must be satisfied by any agency
action under consideration, any review process which will involve other agencies or
governmental entities, and any rights of administrative appeal open to public participants.
Response: EPA agrees that materials should be provided at the beginning of any public
participation process outlining the process that will be used. The Policy recommends such
materials to be developed and disseminated. EPA will seek to include these ideas in training
materials and in a data base of public involvement best practices for use by EPA staff.
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
The public needs to be informed as to the minimum criteria which must be met to conform with
applicable international, federal, state, or local law or regulation so that they understand the
"bottom line." In some states, state regulatory requirements may not be more stringent than
federal requirements. Public participants must be informed that any recommendations which
they make to the state agency to address local concerns which are more stringent than federal
requirements will be dismissed out-of-hand at the state level. On the other hand, some states
56
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
may offer more procedural options, for example, and that such options are available must be
clear.
Response: EPA agrees that the public should be informed of the federal statutory and/or
regulatory requirements that may constrain the action or decision. In the Policy's "Provide
information and outreach to the public." section, under "a. Actions" the Policy sets out several
recommendations to address these concerns. This Policy is not binding on states, and each
state must make its own decision on how it believes these matters should be expressed to
members of the public.
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
Agencies should not change the ground rules well into the public participation process unless
the public welfare is being undermined. When the public participation process is abused, the
process of developing and implementing public policy can break down.
Response: EPA agrees that the ground rules for public participation should be changed only in
limited circumstances. EPA will seek to address this issue in EPA public involvement training.
City and County of Denver. Department of Environmental Health:
The Policy Must be More Cohesive, and Bring Together All the EPA's Public Participation
Programs. Currently a hodge-podge of public participation requirements and programs exists
which is confusing to both EPA staff and the public. Even sophisticated participants in EPA
activities have a hard time understanding the various public participation programs, what types
of participation are available under which circumstances, and whether public participation is
mandated or simply discretionary in a particular instance. The average person has no chance of
understanding the system. DEH staff suggest that as part of the new policy, the EPA prepare a
checklist of both required and recommended public involvement activities, along with sample
forms reflecting the requirements for each statute or program where differing requirements exist.
This will enable all involved to know which requirements exist in a particular situation. The
checklist should clearly specify the role of the general public, state governments, local
governments, and tribes so EPA staff and all others involved will know what is expected and
what is required.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment, and agrees with the goal of attempting to make
public involvement requirements more cohesive. EPA will seek to improve the public's
understanding of public involvement requirements through training and resources such as EPA's
"Public Involvement in Environmental Permits: A Reference Guide"
(http://www.epa.gov/permits/publicguide.htm). The document "Engaging the American People:
A Review of EPA's Public Participation Policy and Regulations with Recommendations for
Action " which can be found at [http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/policv.htm#enaaaina1
provides a listing of public participation requirements under EPA's various environmental
programs. Such detail is appropriate to and may be reflected in training materials.
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
The draft Policy states that EPA should "ensure that the public understands the legal
requirements for Agency action...". We concur with this statement. We would like EPA to
strongly emphasize with communities it is working with what it can and cannot do, what EPA
can commit to and EPA's goals and objectives for the project. Establishing this foundation at the
beginning of a project/program is helpful for all involved parties.
57
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
California Department of Toxic Substance Control:
We believe efforts should be made to ensure the public is involved as early as possible in the
process, that agency staff make every effort to explain the process, and that our regulatory
authority be understood by all affected parties. This may prevent creation of an unrealistic
expectation that the process will address issues outside the agency's regulatory authority, and
ultimately lay the foundation for trust in our decisions.
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators:
First of all, the Agency should include a time line with its meeting announcements and feedback
requests that relate to the public how the input fits into the overall agenda of the issue or policy
that is up for comment (i.e., how far along are they in the decision making process? How soon
before the public knows the result of their comments?)
Response to above three comments: EPA agrees that ground rules setting out goals and
objectives, as well as legal constraints, should be established and disseminated to the public at
the beginning of the public involvement process. The Policy suggests that this information
should be clearly stated. EPA added the following new language to the "Plan and budget"
section of the Policy, especially the bullets such as, "Proposed schedule for public
involvement activities that is consistent with the timing of the decision process" listed
under section "a. Actions:". Also see new language in section 5(c) under "Conduct public
consultation and involvement activities" (shown in bold italics): Agency officials should clearly
identify the issues for discussion, negotiation or decision prior to and during a public
involvement process, so that participants understand on which issues they should
comment EPA officials should describe clearly the type of public involvement process
planned, the schedule, EPA's expectations for the outcomes of the process and the
timing and type of feedback that EPA will provide. If possible, the public should be
involved in determining the design of the processes.
Use Additional Communication Tools to Reach the Public
Delaware Nature Society:
The Society applauds the Agency's recognition that the Federal Register and legal notices are
not enough to alert the public of EPA actions/activities. For those members of the public that are
technically aware, the EPA website will continue to provide much information. However, for
those technologically challenged, efforts to inform the public beyond the website are needed and
appreciated.
Columbia River Crab Fisherman's Association:
Federal Register is a poor way to get notice or information to the average citizen.
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. Environment Division:
Certainly, utilizing creative means to get intended messages across is paramount in smaller
communities where technical and electronic information may be limited or unavailable. EPA will
need to make a more concerted effort in reaching out to those minority, low-income
communities whose voices may not be heard in favor of more populated areas.
Response to above three comments: EPA agrees that information dissemination should not
be limited to the Federal Register and/or the Internet. The Agency will continue to provide
information through multiple sources. See new language added at the end of the Goals section:
58
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
"Develop and work in partnership with state, local and tribal governments, community
groups, associations, and other organizations to enhance and promote public
involvement" Also see in the methods portion of "Identify interested and affected public,"
participating in the events of others and reaching the members of organizations through their
publications.
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services:
EPA's Draft Policy is also commendable for containing a series of practical guidelines for its
implementation. These guidelines, including those on page 82340 setting forth specific methods
for effectively providing information to the public, should indeed prove helpful to EPA staff in
carrying out their various outreach activities.
Response: EPA appreciates this comment, and agrees that providing practical guidelines
should be helpful.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Office of Administration:
Although we recognize (p. 82340) that seminars, print media, the Internet and other electronic
media do provide notice of availability of materials and facilitate public understanding of more
complex documents, we underscore the importance of "when practical, information should be
provided in formats and locations that match the public's needs." Careful assessment of these
needs should be included in EPA program planning.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should assess the public's information needs
regarding formats and accessible locations during program planning. EPA will seek to include
these suggestions in public involvement training materials for EPA staff.
Use Local Media to Reach the Public
Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition:
These potential effects need to be expressed when meeting notices are announced. This
needs to be done through all available options including newspapers, radio, flyers etc.
Michigan Environmental Council:
Television and radio are the primary sources of information for most citizens. As such, the EPA
should make use of these media for a major announcement. The Agency should consider
developing cooperative arrangements with local community cable access systems to publicize
public participation opportunities.
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
In particular, we commend the EPA for recognizing that public notices must be distributed
through a wide variety of sources, including non-traditional venues such as community and
religious publications; radio, television and cable outlets; and the Internet. Wide dissemination of
public notices through sources that community members already rely on for community news is
crucial to ensuring that public participation is adequate.
Environmental Defense:
EPA's public meetings and comment periods can also be publicized more widely. Few people
read the Federal Register, and email and web postings may not reach the population most
59
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
affected by EPA's decisions (such as inner-city or low-income populations). EPA can engage a
wider segment of the public by placing ads and notices in newspapers and on TV and radio.
Environmental Defense:
EPA should also revise its advertising strategies when planning public meetings and comment
periods. These should be advertised on TV, radio and newspapers and should not be
excessively technical and should be understandable to the whole public, and when necessary,
should be done in various languages.
Citizen #5:
EPA should post public notices in a LOCAL paper. Often posting in just statewide papers does
not get to local populations that are truly affected.
Citizen #9:
This seems like a good program but the public will be still unaware unless you let it be known on,
say, public television.
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. Falmouth. Massachusetts:
In order to inform the public about public hearings, try to use the avenues for communication that
are important to community people. Religious leaders, such as myself, can assist in notifying the
public about important meetings.
Response to above eight comments: EPA agrees that media sources should be used to
disseminate information to the public. EPA has expanded the language in the "Provide
information and outreach" section "b. Methods:" of the Policy to include this suggestion (see new
language in bold italics): "Public service announcements, articles and news releases
through local newspapers, radio, and other media sources that reach the interested and
affected public." EPA does send notices to media, particularly local media, when dealing with
local issues. However, the Agency generally cannot buy media space and/or time for national
issues.
Local partners can assist in raising awareness by helping the media understand the issues and
the importance of getting information to their communities. See new language added at the end
of the Goals section:"Develop and work in partnership with state, local and tribal
governments, community groups, associations, and other organizations to enhance and
promote public involvement." Also see in the methods portion of "Identify interested and
affected public," participating in the events of others and reaching the members of organizations
through their publications. EPA will seek to include a discussion of expanded methods for
public notice and outreach in public involvement training for EPA staff.
Recommendations for Other Specific Communication Methods in Communities
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
Use phone surveys to reach people who will not come to meetings.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The Policy's "Provide Information and Outreach to
the public.", section "b. Methods:" recommends using "questionnaires, surveys, and interviews"
as communication tools. Such surveys are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
60
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
National Farm*A*Svst:
The Outreach methods section might be revised to specifically identify support for organization
of peer to peer education and outreach activities, and/or community dialogues and study circles.
This could fall under 5) Educational publications, programs or activities; but people tend to think
of education using the "vessel" metaphor where the educator "fills up" the student, rather than
using the reciprocity model where we're all teachers and all students.
Outreach "materials" could include direct dialogue, focus groups, study circles etc. I see that
these kinds of activities are included under 5. Conduct public consultation and involvement
activities. However, a focus group for public consultation is a different beast from a peer-to-peer
education program where, for example, local youths are trained to take action-oriented material
door to door in their neighborhoods. Or where neighborhood "eco-teams" gather to educate
each other on "green lifestyle" issues. These and other strategies may be much more effective
ways of providing information and outreach to the public than printing brochures or even holding
public forums.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The Policy's "Provide Information and Outreach to
the public.", section "b. Methods:" states (new language in bold italics):"Participation in
conferences, workshops, meetings, community dialogues or local study groups."
Environmental Defense:
To improve its outreach activities, the Agency needs to work on the ground with stakeholders.
EPA can use facilitators who are sensitive to the local needs and concerns and train employees
to effectively communicate with stakeholders.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The Policy includes these ideas in the "Conduct
public consultation and involvement activities.", section "a. Actions: Provide guidance,
resources, training, and professional assistance to Agency staff and interested delegated
program partners, when feasible, to assist them in conducting or participating in public
consultation and involvement activities in an effective and credible manner. This
includes providing the technical, scientific, and background information in a manner that
allows the involved public to understand the relevant science for the issues under
discussion" and "Consider the appropriate use of third parties (neutral facilitators or
mediators) in the development and implementation of programs, projects and activities".
A third party or neutral party can act as a facilitator providing professional assistance for the
process.
Citizens for Responsible Water Management:
The EPA has a broad range of documents in wide circulation relating to every aspect of its
operations. While these constitute earnest effort to involve the public, I've noted that concerned
citizens are often at a loss to find clearly-briefly-colorfully illustrated information helping them to
comment on particular items. Has the EPA done all it can to insert information into schools,
libraries, government offices, newspapers, and waiting rooms of hospitals - clinics - churches -
dental offices when matters of unusual importance are involved? Has it worked with fast-food
chains to install bulletin boards that can be regularly updated?
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. In some cases in which an activity affects a
specific geographic area or population, EPA attempts to make information accessible in places
such as those mentioned in the comment. The Agency has also worked with several fast food
61
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
chains to provide information. If resources were available to do so, EPA could create and
maintain bulletin boards in places where EPA staff are stationed or where EPA works with local
partners to help with the task. EPA will seek to include these suggestions in EPA public
involvement training.
National Association Of Home Builders:
NAHB identified a number of additional methods of outreach that could be used by EPA to inform
our membership of new and ongoing activities. These included the publication of notices in local
and regional newspapers, additional public forums, expanding the number of sites for locating
public documents, and better contact lists.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. These suggestions are included in the Policy's
sections on "Provide information and outreach to the public" and "Identify the interested and
affected public."
Require that EPA Effectively Notify the Public
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
the Club applauds the Policy for stating the obvious: "agency officials should not assume
that the general public reads printed legal notices of Federal Register notices which are often
required by statute or regulation." Yet the Policy, in the very next sentence, makes additional
notification efforts merely optional. The Policy should require that the standard for notice be such
that it would be reasonably likely that a person with an interest in the proposed action have actual
notice of the public participation opportunity. If such notice requires more extensive media
efforts, or if it requires more one-on-one outreach, the agencies need to be prepared to do what
is required.
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
The Draft Policy also focuses on notification methods in this section [consultation section].
Again, we applaud the EPA's recognition that bare legal notice is often not effective in actually
providing notice to the affected community. However, we believe that the Draft Policy should
take a stronger stance on this issue. Specifically, we suggest that the Draft Policy presume that
bare legal notice is insufficient and mandate that agency officials use other, less formal
notification methods (such as publication in community newspapers, church or social service
organization newsletters; radio announcements or cable/television ads). Agency officials should
be required to justify any decision to provide notice only through the Federal Register and/or
printed legal notices.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that it is desirable to provide more extensive
outreach than is mandated by regulation. The Policy is not a rule and, therefore, cannot impose
binding requirements that EPA staff must follow. Furthermore, public involvement needs are so
varied that EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to mandate a specific approach. The
Policy does contain guidance for effective public involvement in EPA decision-making
processes. In particular, the Policy's "Provide information and outreach to the public" section
provides a long list of recommended mechanisms to ensure that people with an interest in the
proposed action receive notice.
Public Notice and Requests for Comment must be Placed in Federal Register
62
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Color Pigments Manufacturers Association. Inc.:
In particular, the CPMA is concerned about the EPA's use of the Internet and informal guidance
documents instead of appropriate rulemaking procedures. The 1981 public participation policy,
which would be replaced by the Draft Policy, may require updating to reflect current rulemaking
procedures, changes in statutes, executive orders and communication technology. However, the
fundamental manner in which EPA goes about its rulemaking activities, as described in the
Administrative Procedures Act, and relevant regulations, should not change. Whatever manner
EPA may choose to communicate with the public now and in the future, notice and substantive
information sufficient to allow the public to respond must be provided in the Federal Register...
While it is important for the EPA to know, at a minimum, who the interested parties are and how
best to provide them notice, 64 Fed. Reg. 82339, notice of EPA activities and rulemaking should
be provided in the Federal Register. We agree with EPA's use of contact lists for notification of
interested parties. Such activities cannot, however, replace appropriate notice in the Federal
Register. If EPA seeks comment on a document or report, whenever possible that document
should be reproduced in the Federal Register. In the event that a subject document is not
published in the Federal Register, that document should be carefully and completely
summarized in the Federal Register to enable readers to provide comment on the proposal.
There must be one central publication which the interested public can monitor in order to follow
EPA activities, rulemaking, policy and guidance. That central publication is the Federal
Register...
We are not in favor of EPA using the Internet instead of appropriate notice in the Federal
Register. Likewise, the use of "electronic communications such as web pages, chat rooms, on-
line dialogues and list servers" 65 Fed. Reg. 82340 as an alternative to the Federal Register, are
not appropriate vehicles for notice to the public or primary methods of communicating with the
notified or interested public...
There is an important need to preserve the process of publication, comment, review of
comments, and finalization, all conducted in a deliberative and formal public manner. This
testing in the crucible of public scrutiny should be augmented by other means, but certainly not
replaced.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. This Public Involvement Policy is not intended to
and does not change the APA notice and comment publication requirements or the Agency's
practice of publishing notices of the availability of important documents in the Federal Register.
EPA agrees that the Federal Register should be used in conjunction with additional
communication methods in order to reach the public.
Use Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Process to Achieve Early Involvement
Color Pigments Manufacturers Association. Inc.:
Many of these goals [in the draft Public Involvement Policy] can be achieved by EPA making
much more frequent use of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("ANPR") process. The
ANPR seeks preliminary comment on issues and options before a new rule is proposed in the
Federal Register...
The ANPR process provides the public, and particularly stakeholders, with an opportunity to
provide comment on proposals and options before the EPA invests a vast amount of time and
valuable administrative resources on a particular approach or option in a formal proposed rule.
Invariably, when the ANPR process is not used, the EPA is compelled to defend "substantiated"
63
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
proposed rules in the comment period which follows the publication of a proposed rule. This lack
of flexibility created by investing excessive resources in one particular option before the public
and knowledgeable stakeholders have had an opportunity to comment often produces
unworkable final rules.
The final rules produced without early public comment in a fair and open ANPR process often fail
to consider the costs of the rule adequately and fail to compare those costs to the benefits
anticipated from the rule. Final rules prepared without early public comment are far more likely to
create unnecessary or redundant administrative and paperwork requirements. Finally, final rules
of this type are far more likely to result in expensive litigation and ultimately require revision.
Certainly, using ANPR procedures would comply in almost every case with EPA's
recommended action to "provide program and technical information to the affected public and
interested parties at the earliest practicable times to enable those potentially affected...to make
informed and constructive contributions". 65 Fed. Reg. 82340.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy and was shared with the EPA
Office of Regulatory Management.
Disagree with RCRA Radio Spot Requirement
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:
The MPCA has found that the single spot radio ad announcement required under Part 124 for
RCRA Permit Notices is not a practical use of public participation resources.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The Policy, however, cannot alter the minimum
requirements as set out in the RCRA regulations. Section 124.31(d) of the RCRA regulations
requires the applicant to provide three different kinds of public notice regarding the pre-
application meeting. One of these must be a broadcast media notice. It is up to the applicant to
decide whether radio or TV is the best way to fulfill this requirement. EPA expects that the
prospective applicant will broadcast the notice at a time and on a station that will effectively
disseminate the notice.
SUPPORT ONLINE INFORMATION
Improve Internet/Electronic Communication Technical Problems
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
Ensure that the visually impaired and others with handicaps can use the Internet pages.
Specifically make sure:
- pages do not "hang-up" any "screen reader" (programs that convert text to speech);
- pictures are identified in the background by descriptive text and not just code; and
- the page and web site can be navigated entirely by text, entirely by graphics, or through a
combination.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. However, it should be noted
that EPA is working to ensure that all web pages and electronic information technology (EIT)
designed, procured, used, and maintained after June 21, 2001 comply with the 1998 amendment
(Section 508) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This comment was referred to EPA's Office of
Environmental Information.
Minnesota Pollution Control Aaencv:
64
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
The Policy should direct EPA to make electronic documents available in multiple or more-
universally-readable formats (i.e., ASCII, Rich Text, HTML or PDF); to use conventional filename
protocols and extensions (e.g., filename.rtf, pdf, txt, or htm), and to provide the version of the
format used (e.g., Word 2000, WordPerfect 6.0) in order to improve usability. EPA needs to
consider the technical capability of its target audience. EPA commonly posts or distributes
electronic documents to wide audiences using a single format. This poses communication
barriers to many in the target audience. Even when possible to convert a file, the steps involved
are multiplied by numerous users and can hamper communication. Busy readers may skip or
delay reading a time-sensitive message rather than leaping the hurdles or seeking needed help.
Improving communication is consistent with the federal GPRA goals. Individual conversion
hurdles may appear small, but the issue is significant when taken in aggregate across all users.
EPA needs to consider the varied technical abilities and support available to its target audience.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Water Resource Management:
We recommend that documents distributed to the public in an electronic format be in a format
that can be opened by everyone. At a minimum that should include a PDF option and, if possible,
also a WORD and WordPerfect version. Although many now have Internet access, not
everyone may be familiar with how to open different formats. It would be constructive to include
text on how to copy PDF documents into Word or WP (or provide guidance towards the
instructions on the ADOBE web site).
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion & Preventive Medicine:
Communications Technology: Beware of specialized fonts in public release materials and on
web pages. Some computers will not recognize them, causing confusion and preventing the
intended communication.
Response to above three comments: These comments are outside of the scope of the
Policy. However the Agency appreciates them and is committed to improving public access
through the use of multiple formats. EPA currently provides its documents in both HTML and
PDF formats. HTML is the universal language of the Web and PDF is readily available through
Adobe Acrobat reader, which is free to all. An Agency-wide workgroup is currently working on
how to improve access to PDF documents. Agency guidance discourages the use of
proprietary formats, such as MS Word and WordPerfect, because many users do not have
access to the necessary software for these. These comments were provided to those offices
the Office of Environmental Information and the Office of Public Affairs. These offices are
responsible for web standards, internal communication, product review guidelines, and internal
information product development guidance.
Center for Public Environmental Oversight:
The increasing use of the World Wide Web to disseminate information should be specifically
addressed. Though the Web is an important communications tool, the use of which should be
expanded, EPA should not use the Web to shift printing costs to readers. More important, EPA
web sites should be tested so that people who use modems, as opposed to high-speed Internet
connections, or who use software and hardware that is not the most recent version, should still
have reasonable access to information. Extraneous graphics that slow downloading should be
avoided. Web sites should not demand the installation of new browser software, some of which
demands new hardware.
65
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Bison Land Resource Center:
Another major problem in the last several years has been the move toward printing fewer copies
of Draft Environmental Impact Statements. This seems like a great idea from an environmental
angle, and at first I avidly ordered my CD-ROMs for NEPA documents. The problem is that
CD-ROMs are not useful for those who want to do more than take a leisurely stroll through a few
pages of Executive Summary. One cannot compare maps and the pages describing them, look
at the main text and supporting appendices, or cross-check information from section to section
without essentially printing out their own copy from the disk - which is unrealistic and, in some
cases, impossible.
Some CD-ROMs, such as the one for the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad (DM&E)
project, are so slow as to be unusable. Electronic access may be present for those with
computers, but in this case it was also so slow as to be unusable to members of the public.
Only those whose sole life focus was reading the DEIS were able to access larger portions of
the document electronically. What's worse, when people discovered that their CD-ROMs were
unusable and websites for the documents were useless, they were not able to get a paper copy
of the DEIS. The Surface Transportation Board would not send a second DEIS in any form to
someone who had already received one. This makes sense in terms of conserving agency
resources and tax dollars in most situations. But in a case where public involvement is the law
of the land, it does not make sense, after all.
Response to above two comments: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It
was shared with the EPA Office of Environmental Information, which manages EPA's Web site
and develops internal Web and information product development guidance.
Improve Content of EPA Internet Material
ACES. Inc.:
ACES has used the Internet extensively in our search for environmental information appropriate
for the problems we face; our advantage is that we have seniors with computer backgrounds.
However, many citizen groups lack these abilities often even if they access the Internet, the
plethora of information becomes overwhelming. These citizens need help. ACES is currently
proposing one solution to this problem with MADEP; the attached letter and proposal will best
explain our approach. Perhaps EPA could borrow this concept since your web page has a
tremendous amount of valuable information. Even experienced web browser like ACES has
available find it difficult to locate specific information, or just understand the extent of EPA's web
page content.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with the EPA
Office of Environmental Information and the Office of Public Affairs. EPA is working to improve
content coordination and search capabilities of its web site, including reorganizing it along topical
lines to make it easier for users to find material quickly. In addition, EPA continues to improve
the user-friendliness of its Web site by conducting Web site usability testing.
ACES. Inc.:
[proposal originally submitted to Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, to be
considered by EPA as well]: The DEP web page already provides excellent resources of help;
your Site Map page provides numerous choices of factual material in a number of areas.
66
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
However, for the concerned first-time citizen user there is minimum guidance on the path to take
for help with their problem.
[recommend that web page easily show citizens how to find information]:
A new subheading on the Site Map entitled something like "Citizen and Community Aids"
This subsection might contain a series of case studies of what citizens can and should do when
a local environmental problem arises.
These local activities would involve educating citizens on potential causes of the problem, and
adverse public health effects.
In addition, learn about potential legislative aids available to citizens.
Techniques for finding and using the above information would be described in the new
subsection of the web page; actual case studies could be a prime source of help. In addition,
some descriptive material would provide the web page links to lead one from the type of
environmental problem to associated resources.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. These comments were shared
with EPA's Office of Environmental Information. However, it should be noted that EPA's home
page has a section called "Where You Live." From that heading the user goes to a page where,
by entering a zip code, numerous data bases are accessible that provide information and maps
specific to that zip code. In addition, on that web page the user can access key issues for
"Concerned Citizen Resources." Case studies and citizen aids are not provided centrally on
the web page. However, EPA's home page has a section called "Laws and Regulations" which
provides useful information.
Environmental Defense:
One of the best ways to provide a wide array of information to the public is through the Internet.
It is absolutely important that EPA follow up on the Draft Policy's goal to "fully implement the
goals of the Agency's Public Access Strategy...(to provide the public with integrated, online,
user-friendly access to environmental data and information)...." Much of the currently available
data has many gaps, is poorly integrated, and does not tell a complete "story" about the
environmental conditions...
Environmental Defense:
High up on EPA's list should be integrating and consolidating EPA's databases so it is easier for
both the public and EPA employees to use the data. For example, the different EPA databases
currently all use their own number systems for facilities, making it virtually impossible and labor-
intensive to understand a facility's total environmental impact or to compare among facilities in
the same industry. An upfront facility ID is needed to ensure consistent, higher-quality data
submittals the first time. In addition, there needs to be a multi-media approach to information
collection: facilities and people affect the air, water and land, and information should be collected
and presented to reflect this. Integrating information in this way reduces the burden on both the
public and EPA employees in obtaining and using environmental information.
Response to above two comments: These comments are outside of the scope of the Policy.
EPA notes that it is working to improve data and information available on its web site. These
comments were shared with the EPA Office of Environmental Information (OEI), which leads the
development of EPA's Target Enterprise Architecture, the Agency's core applications
architecture framework, and the System of Access, which are intended to, upon completion,
provide access to all of the Agency's fully integrated electronic information resources.
67
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
OEI also leads the development of data standards that help to improve users' ability to integrate
data for their own use. Specifically, OEI maintains several electronic application systems to
accomplish this. One is the EPA Facility Registry System (FRS), a centrally managed database
of comprehensive information on facilities subject to environmental regulations or of particular
environmental interest. Another is Envirofacts, which provides the public access to this
information. When fully implemented, Central Data Exchange (CDX) registrations will also be
used to validate high quality, accurate, and authoritative facility identification records. The quality
of these records is intended to be assured through rigorous verification and management
procedures.
Environmental Defense:
The Internet can also serve as a useful tool to get feedback from the public on various issues.
EPA can use this to get feedback on its website's user-friendliness and data availability. The
current site is much improved from the old one, but EPA needs to keep up with the rising
expectations of users.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. However, EPA has numerous
optional surveys on its web site to collect user feedback. Further, EPA received approval from
the Office of Management and Budget for a "generic" web survey which any office or region can
use, so the public can expect to see more requests for user feedback. In addition, EPA
continues to improve its web site by conducting site usability testing and focus groups. EPA has
also created an online EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) system to further encourage and enable
public involvement in a variety of EPA actions. For more information about E-docket, please visit
http://cascade.epa.aov/RiahtSite/dk public home.htm
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Policy Office:
Publicizing proposals in the Federal Register is a good way to distribute information, but the
average person may not read the Federal Register or know how to sort through the abundance
of information. DEP developed an electronic Public Participation Center on our website which
provides access to every DEP proposal open for comment. From this website, documents can
be printed and comments can be submitted electronically on any proposal. There are links on
the website where the public can learn about DEP public meetings, plans for future regulations,
the status of current regulations, and read the Pennsylvania Bulletin and codified regulations.
We invite you to visit the Center at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/subject/pub_par_cen.html.
DEP believes the public should be able to rely on a central location on the EPA website where
one can easily find all regulations and policies that are open for comment.
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts:
However, the largest major drawback to public participation: the EPA web page and information
on it. It simply does not disseminate, in a usable form, forms, facts or links that enable one to
comment easily. If you truly seek public input, you must put active, hot links on the EPA home
page that indicates where people can click to comment on topics such as Arsenic, AFO/CAFO,
etc...this should include email addresses, snail mail addresses, etc. It would say something like
"Comments on Proposed Regulations" and link to pages that have TITLES on various topics as
mentioned above. Certainly such links should also clearly state the cut off dates for comments.
The system used now, to refer one to the Federal Register, is dinosauric and appears as an
obvious ploy to keep the average person from finding the information needed in order to form a
comment.
68
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Response to above two comments: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It
was shared with EPA's Office of Regulatory Management, EPA's Office of Environmental
Information, and with EPA's Office of Public Affairs .
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:
EPA should consider broadcasting public service announcements and notices via a single, well-
formatted Web page menu.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with the Office of
Environmental Information and the Office of Public Affairs .
Support Electronic Access to EPA Information by Local Governments
Local Government Advisory Committee:
LGAC supports the ongoing development of the Local Government Environmental Assistance
Network (LGEAN). Enhanced utilization of LGEAN and similar information sites represents an
opportunity to make EPA more accessible. Moreover, further development of other interactive
technology could provide additional and productive access for local government to EPA's
policymaking and program development efforts.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. However, it should be noted
that EPA agrees that LGEAN is a helpful resource for local governments, and shared this
comment with EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations.
Recommend Increased Use of Electronic Communication
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
Continue to use the Internet. This means of disseminating and gathering information will
continue to grow.
Environmental Council of the States:
The Internet and increased availability of computers has also made it easier for many individuals
to provide input through that avenue rather than attendance at meetings; both US EPA and the
states need to expand use of this means of communication.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Internet should continue to be a
useful tool, and the Agency plans to expand its use.
Citizen #7:
Are there Internet or e-mail based methods of gathering public comment?
Response: There are Internet and e-mail based methods for gathering public comment, and
EPA is working to use them more broadly.
Doctoral Student. University of Washington Geography Department:
I am also disappointed by the failure of the policy to mention or explore opportunities for
collecting information and feedback from the public that makes use of Internet technology. While
I certainly appreciate being able to provide these comments on email, there are many additional
Internet-based approaches that could be used to interact with the public, such as list-serves,
69
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Internet surveys, etc. I would like to see some recommendations about these types of feedback
tools included in the final policy.
I would never argue that Internet interactions should be the ONLY form of communication with
the public- too many people still do not have access to computers. However, the country is
becoming more and more computer savvy every day. Mechanisms of interacting with the public
through the Internet allow a wider range of individuals to access and interact with information
when it is convenient for them than do some of the more traditional mechanisms of public
involvement - such as a formal meeting. Internet technology provides a different flavor of public
involvement that should be more fully explored.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should expand its use of the Internet and added new
language in the section on "Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section "b.
Methods:", list common examples of information exchange including "internet-based dialogues"
and in "Provide information and outreach to the public" section "b. Methods:" cites "Electronic
communications such as Web pages, chat rooms, on-line dialogues, and list serves..." as
effective mechanisms to gain information. Also, the Agency now has EDOCKET ((electronic
docket) and has numerous optional surveys on its web pages to collect user feedback. Further,
EPA has approval from the Office of Management and Budget for a "generic" web survey which
any office or region can use, so the public can expect to see more requests for user feedback.
In July 2001 EPA sponsored a two-week Internet-based Dialogue that generated a multitude of
ideas for implementing the Policy. Results are at http://www.network-democracy.org/epa-pip.
California Department of Toxic Substance Control:
We also fully support the concept that the policy should be more reflective of the shift toward e-
government, with the emphasis on re-examining outreach efforts that do not reflect the
improvements in communications technology. Also, the policy should proactively encourage
efforts to provide electronic communication with communities that in the past may have been
disempowered due to a lack of technology.
Response: EPA agrees that the Policy should promote e-government tools, and that EPA
should work with local organizations to encourage electronic access for disempowered
communities. The Policy includes these suggestions in the "Provide information and outreach"
and "Consider providing technical or financial assistance" sections. EPA will also seek to
include these suggestions in public involvement training for EPA staff.
Create Electronic Notification Systems
Michigan Environmental Council
The EPA website should offer an opportunity for citizens to register to receive notification of
hearings, meetings and decisions, either electronically or by mail. Registrations should include
an option to specifically identify a project, generically identify a policy area, or identify a
geographic region. MEC acknowledges the associated expense of direct mail communications
of this nature, but believes that the current fees should be waived for community based
organizations or individuals who can demonstrate a financial hardship. Electronic
communications can be automated to the point that no fee should be warranted.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. EPA has a list of newsletters and listservs and
other resources accessible from the EPA home page by clicking on "Information Resources."
Instructions for signing up as well as descriptions of the listservs are available by clicking on
70
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
"Listservs;" however, EPA does not have a central sign up system for "generic," project
specific, or geographic registrations. There are no fees for electronic information. This
comment was shared with the EPA Office of Environmental Information, which developed EPA's
Public Access Strategy and with EPA's Office of Public Affairs .
Reichold. Inc.:
When new policies are developed requiring public involvement, the EPA can e-mail us and
numerous other stakeholders with the EPA URL address where the policy can be reviewed and
commented on. The Internet, as it ever grows, should enable the EPA to reach the broad range
of US citizens as targeted in the policy. The Internet is also a paperless option to comply with
the reduction in paperwork series of laws.
Response: EPA agrees that the Internet will enable the Agency to reach a broad range of
citizens. Many EPA programs compile e-mail contact lists that they use to provide information to
the interested public. See also new language in the section on "Conduct public consultation and
involvement activities" in section "b Methods:" (new language in bold italicsO: "Interactive
methods that provide participants with opportunities to discuss the issues and their
input with the Agency through public meetings, listening sessions, workshops,
availability sessions, open houses, interviews, focus groups or surveys, Internet-based
dialogues and other methods (Note: Some of these types of exchange activities,
including surveys and Internet dialogues, potentially are subject to provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act and security and privacy constraints)".
Local Government Advisory Committee:
LGAC supports enhanced utilization by EPA of listservers to enhance timely input from local
government officials. EPA should develop procedures to utilize list servers at the earliest stages
of program and policy development.
Response: See above response. This comment was shared with the EPA Office of
Environmental Information, EPA's Office of Public Affairs and with the Office of Congressional
and Intergovernmental Relations.
Environmental Defense:
First of all, EPA should improve the management of its listserves so the Agency's feedback
notices better reflect the interests of the listserves and its members.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with EPA's
offices that are working on public access issues.
National Association Of Home Builders:
We now add to that list the prospect of more effective Internet-based contact lists where
members of the public could sign up to be contacted on various issues and be able to amend
the contact information to keep it accurate and up to date. These improved databases would
ensure better notice and the opportunity to participate in EPA regulatory activities.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. EPA has considered the use of such a database,
however, it has not been implemented because issues of security and the requirements of the
Privacy Act constrain such efforts.
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
71
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Ensure that public announcements are available on the Internet as well as distributed by the
press. If you are working with a community that has hearing or visually-impaired people, develop
an e-mail mailing list, and include additional assistance, if necessary, for those who may not
easily understand announcement content.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should post public announcements on the EPA web
page and send them to the media. EPA also agrees that the Agency should attempt to ensure
that the interested and affected public have access to and understand the information, subject to
EPA's budgetary constraints.
Create Electronic Docket for Documents
Environmental Defense:
EPA should also improve its Internet docket. For example, the Department of Transportation's
Dockets are all available via a search engine. Instead, EPA's dockets are not all available online
and require people to either travel to Washington, DC or to request for them to be mailed to
them. Having the documents available online can save EPA and the public time and resources.
Response: In April, 2002, EPA launched the EPA Docket System (EDOCKET). This is an on-
line regulatory and non-regulatory tracking system that allows users to search for docket
information, as well as allowing on-line public comment. For more information about EDOCKET
please visit http://cascade.epa.gov/RightSite/dk_public_home.htm
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Water SuppIv Section:
Any government document referred to in a rule should be available on the Internet for easy
access.
Response: EPA agrees that important background documents should be available on EPA's
web page, and has added new language in the "Provide information and outreach" section of the
Policy (new language in bold italics):"Publications, fact sheets, technical summaries,
bibliographies, resource guides, relevant supporting documents and other printed and
electronic materials which may be made available through the mail, on the EPA web site and
at information depositories..."
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Policy Office:
DEP suggests that EPA emphasize electronic access to documents and decisions as the
preferred method for publicizing information and accepting comment. DEP encourages EPA to
update the policy to emphasize and centralize electronic access to all proposals open for
comment.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should increase electronic access to documents and
decisions. However, the suggestion to centralize electronic access to proposals is outside the
scope of the Policy. This comment was referred to the Office of Environmental Information.
The new EPA Docket System (EDOCKET), launched by EPA in April, 2002, allows the public to
view and comment on environmental policy development, as well as other key Agency decision-
making processes.
TRI-TAC:
The Draft Policy specifically refers to "Depositories or dockets" as central collections of
documents, reports, studies, plans, etc. It also states that these should be located in places that
72
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
are convenient to the public and suggests using "electronic depositories that take advantage of
the Internet to reach directly into homes, libraries, and other facilities throughout a community
and across the nation." Tri-TAC strongly endorses this approach, and also encourages EPA to
post publicly submitted comments along with other relevant documents. Although not all
documents are submitted to EPA in electronic format, those that are should be placed on the
Internet for easier access. EPA may want to encourage interested parties to submit comments
in acceptable electronic formats for wider accessibility.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should enhance electronic access to information, and
is making more of its documents available on the Web and including URLs in its public notices.
This comment was shared with the EPA Office of Environmental Information, EPA's Office of
Public Affairs and with the Office of Regulatory Management. The Office of Environmental
Information (OEI), in partnership with various EPA Programs, has launched a new electronic
docket system (EPA Dockets - EDOCKET). EDOCKET allows public participation through two
methods: tracking of regulatory development, and the opportunity to submit comments directly
to EPA via the web. EDOCKET will hold all public comments, whether submitted by email or
regular mail, and makes them available on-line. For more information about EDOCKET
please visit http://cascade.epa.gov/RiahtSite/dk public home.htm
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
The Draft Policy envisions making these [technical] documents available at central repositories
or through the mail. However, given the wide availability of Internet access, the GLC and the
MEJC recommend that the EPA set a default policy that all documents available at "information
depositories" or through the mail should also be made available on-line; EPA officials should be
required to justify any decision not to create an electronic document repository.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should make greater use of electronic depositories.
The Policy's section on "Provide information and outreach to the public" recommends that
"Agency officials are encouraged to determine the accessibility to the interested public
and feasibility of electronic repositories that take advantage of the Internet to reach
directly into homes, libraries and other facilities throughout a community and across the
nation." This comment was shared with the Office of Environmental Information, which
develops internal Agency Web and information product guidance. This comment was shared
with the Office of Environmental Information, which developed EPA's Public Access Strategy.
Electronic access is necessary and is quickly becoming the way EPA does business. However,
EPA does not have the resources to locate all past publications and make them available on the
Web.
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts:
I must commend you, however, for having the proposed policy available on the web. All
proposed policies should be published on the web; today the average person has no true
access to libraries, water districts or city hall, at least in California. We are computer literate out
here believe electronic communication is vital to adequate outreach efforts.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should post proposed policies that are open for public
comment on the EPA web page. The Policy recommends using a variety of methods to ensure
73
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
that the interested public has access to information, including both electronic and traditional
methods to accommodate those without access to the Internet.
Address Digital Divide Limitations
National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. Enforcement Subcommittee:There is a
danger of creating an over dependence on technology to reach the public - for example,
depending on the web site as a means of getting out information about opportunities for public
participation. Most communities that I work with do not own computers or have access to a
library with such resources, placing them at a disadvantage when it comes to information
gathering and utilizing databases such as the TRI. Keep this in mind when putting a substantial
amount of resources into web site and links [and the document notes the reality of the "digital
divide"].
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
...the Sierra Club recognizes the power and convenience and possibilities for participation
presented by the Internet, but we believe that until the issue of the "digital divide" relating to
Internet access in poor communities is resolved, the Internet cannot substitute for more rigorous
and traditional forms of outreach and participation.
Delaware Nature Society:
The Society applauds the Agency's recognition that the Federal Register and legal notices are
not enough to alert the public of EPA actions/activities. For those members of the public that are
technically aware, the EPA website will continue to provide much information. However, for
those technologically challenged, efforts to inform the public beyond the website are needed and
appreciated.
Response to above three comments: EPA agrees that it should make information available
to people who do not have electronic access. The Policy recommends using a variety of
methods to ensure that the interested public has access to information, including both electronic
and traditional methods to accommodate those without access to the Internet.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
...posting documents on the web can save substantial printing and copying costs, however, only
50% of the population has access to the web. The draft policy recognizes that Internet
availability should not be a "substitute for public access to the complete documents." However,
it does not give guidance on how much agencies can rely on the Internet for distributing
materials. It would be helpful to have further guidance on how should agencies address the
limitations of web access in a way that is efficient and cost effective for all parties.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with the Office of
Environmental Information, which develops internal Agency Web and information product
guidance.
IMPROVE CONTENT OF OUTREACH MATERIALS
Include More Information in EPA Meeting Notices
Environmental Defense:
74
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Advertisements should also have alternative contact information for people who cannot attend
the meetings.
Response: EPA agrees that advertisements should contain contact information. The Policy
contains the following language in the "Provide information and outreach to the public" section
that describes recommended content of outreach materials: "The name and contact
information (address, e-maii address, telephone and telefax numbers) to reach EPA staff
for further information". EPA will seek to include this suggestion in public involvement
training for EPA staff.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:
The MPCA has experienced difficulty participating in EPA sponsored meetings due to poor
advance notice and poor communication about meeting details. The Policy should direct EPA to
provide clear, advance notices when inviting guests to meetings....The invitation should clearly
say who is invited and why, meeting details and agenda, availability of funding for travel, when
attendees are expected to arrive and leave, and where to stay.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should provide clear advance notice of public
meetings. The "Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section of the Policy
recommends that"Agency officials should provide early advance notice of public involvement
processes..." EPA will seek to address these concerns in public involvement training materials
for EPA staff.
Include Key Issues of Interest to the Public in Outreach Materials
Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition:
The EPA can improve involvement opportunities for minority, low-income and the under served
population through early awareness and simplified explanations. Often times the general public
is unaware of the potential effects the decisions made by the EPA will have on their community.
These potential effects need to be expressed when meeting notices are announced. This needs
to be done through all available options including newspapers, radio, flyers etc. If more of the
general public were aware of what could happen to the community, they would show a greater
interest in being involved. They need to know how these decisions will affect them personally.
Response: EPA agrees that outreach materials should contain information on potential effects
when possible. The Policy's "Provide information and outreach to the public" recommends in
section "c. Content:" that outreach materials contain information on the "social, economic, and
environmental consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives" as well as other
background and summary information. This section also outlines many suggested methods for
ensuring that the information reaches the public, including those suggested in the comment.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Water Supply Section:
We have found through several years of public participation efforts in the drinking water program
that unless there is a significant fee issue or contamination problem that affects the general
public, there will be little public participation from the general public, regardless of socio-
economic status. ...The public must first perceive that there is a problem that directly affects
them, over which they may have some control if they do make the effort to comment, before that
effort will be made.
75
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Response: EPA agrees that outreach materials should encourage public involvement. The
Policy's section on "Provide information and outreach to the public" suggests in "c. Content" that
EPA clearly describe the issue, including information in the above response, and also suggests
that EPA provide "Specific encouragement to stimulate active involvement by the public,
including describing the nature of its influence, roles and potential impact on the decisions."
Citizen #10:
There should be materials available aimed at ordinary people, discussing key environmental
issues, not just for scientists or politicians, and the policy of involving the public should be
consistent throughout the agency. I believe that an educated public will be your best ally.
Response: EPA agrees that outreach materials should be understandable to the public. The
Policy's section on "Provide information and outreach to the public" suggests that EPA
"Summarize complex technical materials for the public" and "Provide policy, program, and
technical information to the affected public and interested parties at the earliest practicable
times, to enable those potentially affected or interested persons to make informed and
constructive contributions to decision making". One of the purposes of the Policy is to
"Establish clear and effective guidance for conducting public involvement activities in EPA's
decision-making processes."
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
For example, the Public Notice could generate interest in participation by including a section
identifying the issues of potential concern or the reasons that members of the public might want
to participate in the comment process. Where the EPA has identified an action as effecting an
environmental justice community, this information should be included in the Public Notice. The
Public Notice could provide affected community members with the confidence to participate by
including information about sources of technical assistance and advice, self-help manuals or
other publications that the EPA has found to be helpful in particular circumstances, and the
technical assistance referral database referenced earlier.
Response: See above two responses. In addition, see new language in this section (new bullet
in section 4.c. "Content": "If available, a list of sources of technical assistance, advice and
self-help manuals or other publications that could be helpful to the public."
Citizens for Responsible Water Management:
Has EPA been duly diligent in finding ways to include maps and diagrams in its notices? I've
seen many notices with blank pages that could have carried useful information that is not easily
acquired by the general public.
Response: EPA agrees that maps and diagrams can be helpful. EPA will seek to include this
idea in EPA public involvement training materials.
Include/Don't Include Estimates of Costs, Effects and Benefits with Proposals
Citv of Austin. Texas Water and Wastewater Utility and also the American Water Works
Association:
76
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Also, on Page 82340, the Policy lists background documents that are typically developed as part
of an outreach effort. In the context of the regulatory stakeholder process, the EPA could
improve its efforts by including "back-of-the-envelope" calculations of costs and benefits for the
different regulatory options under consideration. This would provide an early screen of options
that are really non-starters.
Response: The Policy's "Provide information and outreach to the public" recommends in
section "c. Content:" that outreach materials contain information on the "social, economic, and
environmental consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives" as well as other
background and summary information. This comment was provided to EPA's Office of
Regulatory Management.
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators:
Recent rule proposals and promulgations in the drinking water program have been problematic
because the Agency has sought comment on multiple approaches, each potentially having
different significant impacts. It is not until the rule is promulgated that states and the public are
made fully aware of the Agency's final decisions. In several recent cases, significant decisions
were made between rule proposal and promulgation without public comment on impacts and
costs associated with those decisions.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with the EPA
Drinking Water program.
American Chemistry Council:
As a fundamental principle, the Council believes that information about the costs and benefits of
regulatory proposals and reasonable alternatives is vital to sound decision making. Armed with
this information, a risk manager can better evaluate the most cost-effective approach to
achieving the Agency's - and the public's - goals of protecting human health and the
environment without unduly imposing costs on local, state, tribal, and private entities which bear
the costs of implementing regulatory controls. We strongly urge EPA to adhere to the principles
set forth in E.O. 12866 (and any successive executive order on regulatory planning and review).
The Council was pleased to note that the Agency's proposed policy calls for "outreach materials"
to include information of this sort whenever possible, and would urge an even clearer statement
in the policy regarding the importance of placing cost and benefit information in the hands of
stakeholders.
Environmental Council of the States:
The second point is related: most environmental statutes do not allow, for example, a permitting
agency to consider the social or economic consequences of a proposed activity in reviewing the
permit application. On page 82340, the Policy recommends that the outreach materials include
"Whenever possible, the social, economic, and environmental consequences of proposed
decisions and alternatives". We think this approach misleads the public and often gives rise to
public frustration and contentious meetings in which the comments offered by interested citizens
do not provide the grounds for rejection of the permit application. In addition, it adds a burden to
the environmental staff of any agency to attempt to prepare such analyses.
Response to above two comments: EPA appreciates both of these comments. As the
commenters point out, in some cases EPA is required to prepare economic analyses (both
under EO 12866 and under some statutes). In other cases, consideration of cost is not required
77
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
and in some cases it is prohibited. It is not EPA's intention to create confusion, but to ensure
that information being considered by Agency decision-makers is also available to the public. To
clarify this, EPA has revised the Policy to read (new language in bold italics): "Information on
the social, economic, and environmental consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives
that has been prepared in connection with the proposed decision".
Include Implementation Guidance with Rule Proposals
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators:
Unless and until implementation guidance such as data reporting and violation determinations
accompanies rule proposals, understanding and thoughtful public response to the issues will not
occur. The public and states must understand how a proposed rule will affect them at the local
level. This can only be accomplished through review of the implementation requirements to be
imposed.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with EPA's Office
of Regulatory Management and the Office of the General Counsel.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Water Supply Section:
Goal: "To ensure that the public understands official programs and the implications of potential
alternative courses of action." To assist with this effort in understanding new rules, it would be
most helpful if the implementation guidance was put out in draft form with the proposed rule, and
then in the final form very shortly after the final rule is published. Often, the implementation
guidance is out several months, if not years, after the final rule is published, by which time the
States have already notified their public of the upcoming rule, and have already developed their
rules and implementation plans. Technical guidances should also be issued as soon as
possible, and at least concurrently with the final rule.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with EPA's
Office of Regulatory Management and the Office of the General Counsel.
Include Exposure/Emission Limit Information in Technical Documents
Guild Law Center/ Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition::
The broader list of publications and documents that the EPA has identified as potentially useful
are also important. At minimum, we ask that the EPA ensure that the technical documents
made available for any agency permitting action or approval of any cleanup, remediation or
restoration plan indicate the relevant exposure or emission limits, along with the statutes or
regulations that establish those limits.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. It was shared with EPA's
Office of Regulatory Management to consider for future decision making.
Require EPA to Provide More Information in Public Notice Documents
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
78
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
The GLC and the MEJC applaud the EPA's stated commitment to providing the public with
"accurate, understandable, pertinent and timely information in accessible places. . . Draft
Policy, 65 Fed. Reg. at 82340. We believe that one of the most effective means of distributing
information is to ensure that it is included, or its availability referenced, in all public notice
documents. Public notice documents are generally the most widely circulated materials on
specific agency actions and are the primary means of generating interest in an agency action or
decision. We believe that the Draft Policy should mandate that Public Notice or public outreach
documents include, at minimum, the information listed in Section 4.c (described as potentially to
be included in public outreach documents). EPA officials should only be allowed to omit any of
the listed information where they can demonstrate that it is not relevant or that it is too lengthy to
be included in the Public Notice itself. In the latter case, EPA officials should be required to refer
to the existence of and method of acquiring this information.
Response: EPA agrees with the general goal of using notices to provide information or identify
where it can be obtained; however, this Policy cannot mandate any specific practice. The Policy
contains guidance to EPA staff for effective public involvement in EPA decision-making
processes. It is not a rule and, therefore, does not impose any specific requirements on EPA.
Environmental Defense:
Finally, information is essential for effective participation. It is not only enough for EPA to ask the
public for feedback, but it needs to provide them with the information it needs to participate
effectively. This means increasing the public's right-to-know and providing the public with more
information than is currently available. In addition, the information needs to improve so it reflects
the actual state of the air, water and land, and not just regulatory or statutory activities.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should provide information to the public that enables
them to effectively participate in EPA's decision-making processes. This comment was
provided to the Office of Environmental Information, which develops internal Agency Web and
information product guidance. In addition, the OEI is leading an Agency-wide initiative to improve
environmental information on the conditions of our nation's air, water and land resources. Part
of the long-term goal of the Agency is to enhance information on the health of ecosystems, and
on the impacts on human health from environmentally-related diseases. The first product
produced as a part of this effort is expected to be the EPA State of the Environment Report.
[Note: It is expected to be released In the spring of 2003 - SOON!!! CHECK!].
Draft Policy Requires Too Much Information to the Public
Alabama Department of Environmental Management:
This proposal has also expanded the activities that will require outreach to include selection of
plans for remediation, clean up, etc. Furthermore, this proposal expands the requirement for
information to be provided by the Department as part of the outreach activity from the current
fact sheet with the facility history, facility design, and permit/modification information to then
include: identifying the role of the public in the specific decisions, summarizing complex
technical materials, providing translations, providing tentative information, and providing social,
economic, and environmental consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives. To enact
a policy such as this, at the individual work plan level, would cause major delays in the
assessment and remediation of contaminated sites and could effectively bring clean up
progress at these sites to a halt.
79
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Response: EPA disagrees. The Policy contains guidance to EPA staff for effective public
involvement in EPA decision-making processes. It is not a rule and, therefore, does not impose
any specific requirements on EPA or on any state.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management:
This language may be interpreted to mean that the Department would be required to give
specific information (fact sheets, summaries, time tables, resource guides) along with
alternative courses of action, tentative determinations, and predictions of social, economic, and
environmental consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives to everyone on the contact
list. The Department does not believe it is appropriate for individual project mangers or the
Department to determine social and economic consequences of proposed and alternative
decisions.
Response: EPA disagrees. The Policy contains recommendations for effective public
involvement in EPA decision-making processes. It is not a rule and, therefore, does not impose
any specific requirements on EPA or on any state. With regard to economic and social impacts,
the Policy has been revised to clarify that it does not require preparation of information not
already required. See new language in the "Provide information and outreach to the public"
section (new language in bold italics): "Information on the social, economic, and
environmental consequences of proposed decisions and alternatives that has been prepared
in connection with the proposed decision".
Property Rights and Public Education
Property Rights Congress of America. Inc.:
...Relating to education and outreach, please make it known that efforts to "balance"
environmental concerns while protecting private property rights and natural resource production
is not being "anti-environmentalist."... Americans must be re-educated to know that natural
resource production is not only the creation of our nation's wealth, our economic independence,
but the bread and butter on our tables, and the clothes on our backs.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy.
TIMING OF INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC
Need Adequate Notice of Public Meetings
Michigan Environmental Council:
While we recognize the statutory limitations on the extent of many public comment periods,
preparation of effective testimony at public hearings and meetings demands adequate notice.
MEC recommends that a two-week notification standard be adopted for these situations.
Property Rights Congress of America. Inc.:
EPA should not hold any public hearings or public meetings until 30 days AFTER publication of
Notice in the Federal Register.
Citizen #11:
The public in affected areas should have ample and timely notice of stakeholders' meetings.
80
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
American Water Works Association:
EPA needs to continue to improve its outreach efforts to provide adequate notice of meetings.
AWWA continues to be concerned at the lack of adequate notice of meetings on drinking water
issues.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:
The MPCA has experienced difficulty participating in EPA sponsored meetings due to poor
advance notice and poor communication about meeting details. The Policy should direct EPA to
provide clear, advance notices when inviting guests to meetings. Attendees often need many
weeks to figure out who should attend, to procure travel authority and to make arrangements.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
... in the discussion of timing (p. 82342 middle column), 15 days is rarely sufficient notice for the
public to plan and schedule attending a meeting. Change this sentence to read "Generally notice
should be given not less than 30 days in advance of an impending meeting or consultation
process." Since this is a guideline and not a minimum requirement, the longer time frame is
more suitable.
Response to above six comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should provide adequate
notice prior to public hearings, meetings and comment periods. See revised language in the
"Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section of the Policy dealing with "e.
Timing: "Agency officials should provide early advance notice of public involvement processes
so that the public can obtain background information, formulate their needs and interests and
obtain expert assistance, if necessary. Minimum time frames for notification of public
hearings and public meetings will vary according to the applicable regulations and the
complexity of the issue. For example, for actions subject to the public participation
requirements of 40 CFR Part 25, the regulations require EPA to provide at least 45 days'
notice before public hearings, but that time may be reduced to 30 days if there are no
substantial documents to be reviewed and no complex or controversial matters to be
addressed at the hearing. 40 CFR § 25.5 If the issues are unusually complex or involve
review of lengthy documents, this period generally should be at least 60 days. EPA may
further reduce or waive the hearing notice requirement in an emergency situation in
which EPA determines that there is an imminent danger to public health. 40 CFR § 25.5.
" This issue is intended to be included in public involvement training for EPA staff.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Toxics Cleanup Program:
EPA should give public notice at least 10 days prior to a public meeting (and again 1-2 days
prior) in multiple media venues. Notice is often given 1-2 days before a meeting and sometimes
the same day only by word of mouth. This does not allow individuals to make it part of their
schedule, especially when considerable travel is required. Notice is also often overlooked.
Meetings are held and the public complains they did not know about the meeting. Jf interested
parties cannot readily find the information about upcoming public meetings, the general public
will have an even greater difficulty finding out about meetings.
Response: See above response, as well as other recommendations in the same section "d.
Notification:"
81
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Citizen #5:
The public must be able to attend public stakeholder meetings. EPA should provide significant
advance notice of public stakeholder meetings, and should do its best to make sure the affected
public is invited to the meeting. This includes advertising the meeting in public spaces (other
than just the Federal Register notice), providing scholarships for the public to attend these
meetings, and possibly holding meetings in "the field" as opposed to Headquarters or regional
EPA offices.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should provide effective public notice for stakeholder
meetings. These suggestions are contained in the Policy.
Provide Information to the Public at Early Proposal Stages
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
Again, the Policy speaks to the important issues, but fails to deliver any changes from practices
causing the main frustrations in the community. The Policy suggests that information be
provided to the public at the earliest practicable times, yet seldom is this the practice. For better
participation, not to mention fairness, the earliest practicable time must mean at the earlier
proposal stages rather than the often-statutory notice-and-comment time-periods when finalized
proposals are aired. Industrial permit applicants, for example, often have months of dialogue with
state and federal agencies in order to refine applications, before a "draft" is released for public
comment. In such cases, public comment is often solicited on what is in actuality a done deal.
Response: EPA agrees that it is desirable to involve the public early in the decision-making
process, and the Policy so states in the Purpose and steps 1, 3, 4 and 5. Public involvement
training for EPA staff intend to emphasize the importance of providing early involvement
opportunities.
Provide Requested Information Quickly
Citizen #12:
Follow up, exercise independent action. I requested information of Mr. Hernandez on how to
approach it. He immediately sent me the information. This is how you need to communicate
when asked for information. Follow up to complaints is essential.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy. However, EPA's 1997
Customer Service Standards include these suggestions. These standards can be seen at
http://www.epa.gov/customerservice/standards.htm .
Define Specific Time Frames for Early Public Involvement
Washington Department of Ecology. Nuclear Waste Program:
It has been our experience that defining a time frame within which the agency will provide
information is helpful and helps avoid miscommunication. For example, the Tri-Party Agreement
Community Relations Plan states that the three agencies will strive to include stakeholders "30-
45 days in advance" of the beginning of public comment periods. This provides a guideline for
both public involvement staff and technical staff for preparation of materials for distribution, and
helps reduce conflict over when stakeholders can expect to receive information. This helps
82
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
reinforce our commitment to involving stakeholders early in the decision-making processes,
thereby strengthening our stakeholder relationships.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should provide adequate time frames in which the
public can provide input. See revised language in the "Conduct public consultation and
involvement activities" section of the Policy (new language is in bold italics): "e. Timing: "Agency
officials should provide early advance notice of public involvement processes so that the public
can obtain background information, formulate their needs and interests and obtain expert
assistance, if necessary. Minimum time frames for notification of public hearings and
public meetings will vary according to the applicable regulations and the complexity of
the issue. For example, for actions subject to the public participation requirements of 40
CFR Part 25, the regulations require EPA to provide at least 45 days' notice before public
hearings, but that time may be reduced to 30 days if there are no substantial documents
to be reviewed and no complex or controversial matters to be addressed at the hearing.
40 CFR § 25.5 If the issues are unusually complex or involve review of lengthy documents,
this period generally should be at least 60 days. EPA may further reduce or waive the
hearing notice requirement in an emergency situation in which EPA determines that
there is an imminent danger to public health. 40 CFR § 25.5. " This issue will also be
included in public involvement training for EPA staff.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS
Provide Adequate Notice of Public Comment Periods
National Cattlemen's Beef Association:
Due to time constraints, members of the public may choose not to comment on issues that
directly affect them, thereby limiting the amount of useful input. Therefore, NCBA/ICA supports
efforts made by the Agency to inform the public in a timely fashion on comment periods and
when and where informative materials are available to them.
Idaho Cattle Association:
Due to time constraints, members of the public may choose not to comment on issues that
directly affect them, thereby limiting the amount of useful input. Therefore, NCBA/ICA supports
efforts made by the Agency to inform the public in a timely fashion on comment periods and
when and where informative materials are available to them.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should notify the public in a
timely fashion. These suggestions are reflected in the Policy.
Provide Information Early to Affected Parties
National Association Of Home Builders:
In addition to longer comment periods, there are other tools that EPA can use to assist the public
in maximizing the effectiveness of the notice and comment period. These include early
identification of affected parties, prenotification of subject matter, early availability of technical
materials, and the expanded use of websites and material summaries. NAHB believes these
tools can increase the effectiveness of public involvement processes.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should use a variety of tools to assist the public in
using the notice and comment period effectively. EPA will seek to include these suggestions in
public involvement training for EPA staff.
83
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Post Electronic Documents at Start of Public Comment Period
Citizen #5:
The public should be given a reasonable amount of time to comment on policy documents. This
includes posting the document for comment on the same day as announcement of the
document. While using the Internet to post documents for comment is a good, if EPA does not
make these documents available electronically as soon as the comment period begins they are
really shortening the comment period. This puts the public at a disadvantage- those who have a
full-time job not related to the policy have a hard enough time commenting on documents during
most comment periods.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should post electronic documents on its web site at
the beginning of public comment periods. In the section on "Provide information and outreach to
the public" the Policy recommends that EPA: "Provide policy, program, and technical
information to the affected public and interested parties at the earliest practicable times..." Also
in the Policy's "Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" under "Common
examples:" the policy lists "Interactive methods that provide participants with opportunities
to discuss the issues and their input with the Agency through public meetings, listening
sessions, workshops, availability sessions, open houses, interviews, focus groups or
surveys, Internet-based dialogues and other methods (Note: Some of these types of
exchange activities, including surveys and Internet dialogues, potentially are subject to
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act and security and privacy constraints)".
Have Flexible Public Comment Periods
McNultv Group:
There are all kinds of very sound reasons to limit the length of formal comment periods. If
deadlines are to be met, and projects managed effectively, the formal comment period must be
clearly defined, and limited to a period of time that "meshes" with the overall project schedule.
However, that does not mean decision makers shouldn't be listening (and trying to understand)
before the beginning of the formal comment period, and certainly they should not close their ears
at the end of the period. If someone has a thought or viewpoint that might "make or break" a
project, you want to hear it - you need to hear it - even if it is late. It is better to avoid saying
"the comment period closes ..." for that actively discourages later comments that may be
critically important to the success of your work. Instead say: "Work on the draft, revision, or
final form of XYZ project will begin on (insert date) and comments received before then will be
the most useful and be assured consideration. However, because we are always striving to
improve our work and procedures, comments and suggestions are welcome at anytime." That
way you have a better chance of hearing something you should know, even if it is later than you
wish when you hear it.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. In some cases, EPA program offices have the
discretion to accept public comments after the end of the comment period. However, EPA may
not be able to consider late comments due to time constraints. EPA will seek to include this
suggestion in public involvement training materials for EPA staff.
84
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Allow Longer Comment Periods
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Water Supply Section:
Page 82341: We agree with the statement that "The more complex the issue and greater the
potential for controversy or misunderstanding, the earlier the materials should be distributed." All
rules and guidance documents should have a 60-day comment period at a minimum.
Columbia River Crab Fisherman's Association:
The public generally has a hard time adequately responding to a complicated issue in a 30 day
time frame, 45 to 60 days is more appropriate, depending on the responsiveness of the EPA to
request for additional information that needs reviewing.
Citizen #5:
The length of comment periods should be tied, when possible, to policy complexity. For
example, allowing only 30 days to comment on a proposed TMDL is insufficient.
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators:
The sheer volume of documents to be reviewed (more than 1,000 pages for drinking water rules
and guidances last Spring) either becomes too daunting for public response or results in less
than thorough reviews by stakeholders and other interested parties in the limited time allowed for
review and comment. Comment periods at the Federal level should be at least 60 days - longer
if the proposal is complex or requires compiling data and information to ascertain impacts.
Shoshone Natural Resource Coalition:
In order to have effective public input to the many technical documents that come in to play
during any proposed project, the public MUST be given time to understand those documents.
The public may need to seek professionals to translate the technicalities. The public may need
to hold various meetings to get a broad representation of comments from their community.
Assistance (noted in point 2 above) also can take a lot of time to put into place. These needs
and others like them take time. A minimum 30 day comment period implies that the Agency
doesn't REALLY want substantive comment from the public. The minimum should be 60 days
with allowance for reasonable extensions.
National Association Of Home Builders:
EPA Should Maximize the Effectiveness of Public Notice and Comment Opportunities. In its prior
comments, NAHB opined that it would be helpful to have longer (120 day) and more consistent
notice and comment periods. While EPA responded that many of these notice and comment
periods are set by statute and that EPA has no discretion over them, NAHB believes that the
spirit of its earlier comment remains valid. While EPA is correct that many notice and comment
periods are set by statute, the point is that comment periods should reflect the magnitude of the
issue, and some comment periods provided by EPA are simply not long enough. Comment
periods should be sufficiently long for interested parties to conduct independent research on the
impact of EPA proposals. NAHB has found that EPA tends to utilize shorter, rather than longer,
comment periods and this tends to limit the amount and quality of data that can be generated
Response to above six comments: EPA agrees that longer public comment periods should
be considered for complex issues. In the Policy's section on "Conduct public consultation and
involvement activities" the Policy states in "e. Timing: "Agency officials should provide early
85
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
advance notice of public involvement processes so that the public can obtain background
information, formulate their needs and interests and obtain expert assistance, if necessary.
Minimum time frames for notification of public hearings and public meetings will vary
according to the applicable regulations and the complexity of the issue. For example, for
actions subject to the public participation requirements of 40 CFR Part 25, the
regulations require EPA to provide at least 45 days' notice before public hearings, but
that time may be reduced to 30 days if there are no substantial documents to be
reviewed and no complex or controversial matters to be addressed at the hearing. 40
CFR § 25.5 If the issues are unusually complex or involve review of lengthy documents, this
period generally should be at least 60 days. EPA may further reduce or waive the hearing
notice requirement in an emergency situation in which EPA determines that there is an
imminent danger to public health. 40 CFR § 25.5. " This issue will also be included in public
involvement training for EPA staff.
Minimum comment periods may be set in regulations, statutes, or Executive Orders. EPA
managers choose the length of a specific comment period based on the complexity and other
aspects of the rule or other proposed actions. The Policy is meant to enhance public
involvement. It should foster better planning and enable managers to engage the public in
discussions during the development of proposals, prior to opening a formal comment period on
proposals, and to set the length of comment periods that give the public adequate time to
develop comments.
Consider Community Needs when Setting Comment Periods
Guild Law Center/ Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
The Draft Policy also references the appropriate time period for public comment. Where this
comment period is flexible, the GLC and the MEJC believe that EPA should gear the length of the
comment period to the character of the affected community as well as the complexity of the
issue being considered. For example, if a community is new to public participation, as indicated
by the lack of a developed notification list; has not organized around environmental issues, as
indicated by the lack of awareness of or concern over a given issue; does not speak English as
a first language; or qualifies as an environmental justice community, we believe that the
comment period should be extended to ensure that these communities have an adequate
opportunity to educate themselves about the agency's proposed action, develop a position on
the action and find the expertise and resources needed to support that position.
Response: EPA agrees that when flexibility is possible, the Agency should consider the
community's needs when determining the length of public comment periods.
ACCESS TO EPA INFORMATION
Make Hardcopy Information Accessible to the Public
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
....under recommended actions (p. 82340, middle column), another bullet should be added that
parallels the last bullet. This new bullet would read, "Consider whether EPA should provide
documents through special methods to reach affected public or interested parties" to recognize
barriers other than language differences.
86
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Response: EPA does not agree that another bullet is needed. This suggestion is reflected in
the language of the "Provide information and outreach to the public" section "a. Actions:" of the Policy.
American Library Association:
Libraries provide gathering places where community members can meet and debate important
issues. Working with the EPA, librarians can organize informational meetings where EPA
policies and regulations can be introduced, debated, and discussed. Libraries can serve as
distribution centers for EPA reports, brochures, booklets and other resources. Librarians can
serve as instructors for workshops to provide essential training in environmental resources, and
can offer small businesses information on issues such as protecting the environment, adhering
to regulations, participating in pollution prevention and energy savings programs.
Response: EPA agrees that partnerships with libraries should be further developed. In
September 2000, EPA sponsored a two-week Internet-based Dialogue, "Libraries as a
Community Resource for Environmental Information" with a focus on how libraries and EPA
could work together to increase the capacity of communities and individuals to participate in
EPA's decision-making processes but also in environmental decision making at any level. The
messages from that event are still available at http://www.network-democracv.ora/epa Many
other suggestions on roles for librarians and libraries are contained in the messages exchanged
during the event.
Environmental Defense:
The information should not only be made available online, however. EPA needs to ensure that
those without Internet access can still get the best information through, for example, hard copy
reports, libraries, and so on.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should use both traditional and electronic means to
provide information to the public. The Policy includes these suggestions in the section on
"Provide information and outreach to the public."
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
The Sierra Club is pleased to see the Policy suggest localized depositories or dockets. In many
delegated programs, states and local governments are ill-equipped to provide access to
information. Although most government entities will put a copy of a permit application, for
example, in a local public library, the application alone is seldom sufficient for community
members who wish to make more detailed comments. Never mind the local depositories, many
state and local programs do not even maintain docket systems at all - even within the agency.
All material relevant to a particular agency decision is often not all in the same place. Freedom
of Information Act requests (or state equivalents) are often the only method by which more
complete information can be obtained, but such requests are time-consuming and expensive for
both the agency and the public. Simple organizational and docket structures could minimize the
problems, and the guidance should be stronger on this point.
Response: Although this comment is outside of the scope of the Policy because it refers to
information availability through state and local agencies (and the Policy only applies to EPA's
activities), EPA agrees that the Agency should use localized depositories where possible and
appropriate. Please see new language in the Policy's section on "Provide information and
outreach to the public" item b(1) (new language in bold italics): "Publications, fact sheets,
technical summaries, bibliographies, resource guides, relevant supporting documents
87
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
and other printed and electronic materials. (These materials may be made available
through the mail, on the EPA web site, and at information repositories such as EPA
regional and field offices, federal depository libraries and local public libraries, and
state/tribal/local agencies.)"
Bison Land Resource Center:
In a rural area such as South Dakota, especially when a long and/or complicated environmental
document is involved, library access is not the solution to these problems. Distance alone will
keep most people from being able to provide meaningful input, with people in most areas of the
state having to travel at least 50 miles to get to a repository library. Library access should be
provided, but additional copies of documents should also be available to late-comers, and
comment periods should be extended. Anyone who has a job or a family is not likely to be able
to spend several weeks (assuming they read fast) in a library reading a lengthy DEIS. People
with both jobs and families would find this a hopeless task.
Response: Although this example illustrates a problem encountered with another agency,
EPA's will seek to ensure that public involvement training materials and best practices
information reflect the need to recognize and accommodate local difficulties in accessing
information and other important local issues when planning public involvement activities.
OMB Watch:
EPA should establish an ongoing program with public libraries, depository libraries, and
community technology centers to provide access to EPA information, coupled with efforts to
educate the public about use of the data.
Response: EPA agrees that partnerships with libraries should be further developed. In
September 2000, EPA sponsored a two-week Internet-based Dialogue, "Libraries as a
Community Resource for Environmental Information" with a focus on how libraries and EPA
could work together to increase the capacity of communities and individuals to participate in
EPA's decision-making processes but also in environmental decision making at any level. The
messages from that event are still available at http://www.network-democracv.ora/epa . Many
other suggestions on roles for librarians and libraries are contained in the messages exchanged
during that event and also during the two-week Internet Dialogue on Public Involvement in EPA
Decisions, held in July 2001 available at http://www.network-democracv.ora/epa-pip .
Allow Fuller Access to EPA Information
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
The relevant information, as the Policy suggests, must be fully accessible. But this must mean
all the information on which the agency is basing its decision. Too often agencies allow permit
applicants to rely on claims of "confidential business information" to keep information they've
submitted to the agency from being available to the public for review. Agencies are never critical
enough of such claims, allowing years-old production data, for example, and important scientific
and biological testing from being fully ventilated. The Sierra Club recognizes the need to protect
truly confidential business information, but just because the applicant has rubber-stamped their
materials with a big red "CBI" doesn't make it confidential.
Response: EPA agrees that all information upon which a decision is based should be available
to the public unless there are security, privilege or legitimate Confidential Business Information
88
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
(CBI) reasons for limiting access. EPA's regulations (40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B) set out the CBI
requirements.
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
The Sierra Club applauds the suggestion that the agency make "special efforts" to summarize
complex technical data, and to write documents in "plain language that the public will easily
understand." However, this must not be a substitute for complete access to the data itself, nor
should this be a substitute for technical or financial assistance to communities. And most
importantly, the plain-language summaries must not be simply an effort to sanitize or minimize
the issues of interest to the public. For example, the Policy suggests summaries may be
among the outreach materials generated "if relevant," but this requires the agencies' prior
conclusory determination of what is or isn't relevant to the public's interest. Similarly, an
agency's "delineation of the issues and the interests that they may affect" or their defining
"alternative courses of action" or describing "tentative determinations" are ultimately conclusory
and limiting of fuller participation. Early involvement, complete access, and technical or financial
assistance where necessary are much more important for public participation.
Response: EPA agrees that early opportunities for involvement, access to information and
assistance are important to public involvement processes. The Policy's section on "Provide
information and outreach to the public" states that"Fact sheets, news releases, summaries, and
similar publications... should not be a substitute for public access to the complete documents."
The Policy recommends creation of summaries and fact sheets to provide a first round of
information that enables the public to decide if they want to involve themselves in an issue. It is
therefore very important that plain English summary materials are available.
Provide Materials Free of Charge
Columbia River Crab Fisherman's Association:
Pertinent materials requested by those that comment to a proposed should be supplied free of
charge under normal circumstances without resorting to the FOIA process.
Response: In the Policy's section on "Provide information and outreach to the public," EPA
states that "To the extent practicable, provide the public with integrated, on-line,
user-friendly access to health and environmental data and information and to the extent
practicable, enable communities, including minority, low-income and underserved
populations, to have access to relevant data and information." In the same section, the
Policy also states:" When practicable, EPA should provide information in formats and locations
that match the public's needs," and " The Agency should provide one or more central collections
of documents, reports, studies, plans, etc. relating to controversial issues or significant
decisions in a location or locations convenient to the public. Suitable locations will depend on the
nature of the action." Much of this access is free. Further, in the same section, under "f. Fees
for Copying: In responding to a request for records, the Agency will follow its regulations
implementing the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA ") at 40 CFR Part 2. The Agency
may waive the fees associated with a FOIA request, pursuant to the criteria listed at 40
CFR 2.107(1), if disclosure would contribute to public understanding of government
operations and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. "
Provide Real-Time Local Environmental Information
Environmental Defense:
89
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
EPA officials need to ask themselves and the public whether environmental information is easy
to access and use and whether it tells people about the conditions where they work, live, or play.
We've found that while the agency does a good job of making existing environmental information
available to the public, the information is not easy to use and does not do enough to inform
people about what they can do to protect their health and local environment. People need to be
well-informed to effectively participate in their community through activities such as formulating
comments on EPA policies or taking action against specific facilities (e.g. consent orders). To
that end, EPA must follow up on its goal to provide people with timely (ideally real-time)
information (in various languages) so they can make informed decisions about their actions and
effectively contribute to EPA activities. EPA's EM PACT program is a step in the right direction of
providing this kind of information to the public, though the future of the program is in doubt as
President Bush's proposed budget does not contain funding for EM PACT.
Response: The Agency agrees that a public that is informed about environmental issues can
make good personal decisions about their health and local environment and can better
contribute to EPA's decision making. However, insofar as the comment relates to EPA's web
site it is outside of the scope of the Policy. This comment was provided to EPA's Office of
Environmental Information.
Improve Methods for Public to Learn about EPA
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
EPA has many avenues that people can use to become educated about EPA and what EPA
does. We would like to see EPA continue to strive to improve the methods used by the average
person to gather information about EPA and its programs. Also these systems should continue
to be easier to use.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should continue to improve the methods the public
can use to obtain information, and the Policy recommends many ways to improve public access
to information about EPA and EPA's programs. This comment was also provided to EPA's
Office of Environmental Information.
9. FUNCTION (NOW STEP) 5. CONDUCT PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND
INVOLVEMENT
ACTIVITIES
GENERAL ISSUES
Public Should Help Define the Contours of Public Discussions
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
The Policy suggests that "agency officials should clearly identify issues to be discussed,
negotiated, or decided prior to and throughout the engagement process so that the public
understands which decisions are subject to its input." But this type of top-down determination
will tend to stifle public participation, not promote it. If, in fact, the public is invited to participate
early as the Policy suggests, and the public is provided with adequate information early, then the
public should also be able to participate in defining the contours of the discussion as well. For
example, the public should be afforded the opportunity to assist in the development of public
participation work plans.
90
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Response: EPA agrees that when possible, the Agency should involve the public when
developing public involvement processes. In the "Conduct public consultation and involvement
activities" section, the Policy recommends: " When possible, consult or involve the affected
public to ensure that the approaches selected consider and, if appropriate,
accommodate the potentially affected parties' needs, preferences, schedules and
resources, as well as the Agency's needs." The phrases noted in the comment are included
in the Policy because EPA believes that it is important to clarify for the public the issues that are
under discussion, as well as the roles of the public and the agencies involved. In most cases,
the range of issues that is relevant will be limited by the nature of the Agency decision or action
being discussed. While the public can usefully help frame the issues, it is also important to
make members of the public aware of the limits on the scope of discussion.
Consultation Categories Listed in the Policy are Too Stark
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
...the "categories" of consultation techniques are too stark. The Policy should not limit
participation to the simplified "information exchange," "recommendations," and "agreements."
For example, a public process designed for "information exchange" such as the normal notice-
and-comment procedures must allow comments to rise to the level of "recommendation" or the
entire process may be pointless from the public's perspective. As a corollary, the ability to make
"recommendations" must not be limited to those select "stakeholder representatives" invited to
collaborate with each other and agency staff. The Policy recognizes our point, namely that the
categories are "not mutually exclusive" but that they "form a progression."
Response: EPA agrees, and changed the "Conduct public consultation and involvement
activities" section in many ways. The following language now appears in that section, along with
brief descriptions of common public involvement methods (new language in bold italics):
General descriptions of public involvement methods follow, including their purposes,
common examples, and key actions. The following list of public involvement methods is
not exhaustive. Its variety demonstrates the need for program officials to be flexible and
to obtain information that enables them to choose the appropriate techniques for each
situation. EPA staff also should review the Agency's detailed public involvement
manuals and guides when planning public involvement activities. (See Addendum 1 for
a list of key resources.)
Allow as Much Consultative Public Involvement as Possible
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
But the Policy makes the statement that "progressing to a recommendation process or
agreement process is not necessary, practical or affordable in all decision making processes."
The Sierra Club believes that a fundamental purpose of the public participation guidance is to
place the public as high on the Arnstein ladder of participation as is possible, and the Club
believes that waiving off such a goal as unnecessary, or impractical, or not affordable is
essentially a copout.
The Sierra Club believes that better public participation comes when it occurs higher on the
"ladder" of participation. Too often public participation in environmental decision making occurs
on the lower rungs. The goals of the participation are more often "placation" (communities get to
negotiate tiny concessions) or "manipulation" (communities subjected to public relations
campaigns) rather than "control" or "partnership" in the decision making.
91
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Response: EPA agrees with the general goal of enhancing public involvement. However, EPA
also believes that the more participatory public involvement practices are not appropriate to all
decision-making processes. In the "Conduct public consultation and involvement activities"
section of the Policy, EPA recommends that programs "Identify and select public
consultation or involvement processes appropriate for the scope of the decision and the
time and resources available." EPA needs to use a variety of methods because its decisions
vary widely in complexity, scope and impact. In addition, EPA should not strive for consensus in
all decisions, and its programs operate with limited resources. However, EPA will strive to
promote the appropriate use of more participatory techniques in public involvement training for
EPA staff. Please see an interpretation of the Arnstein ladder on page viii of the EPA December
2000 report 'Engaging the American People," which can be seen at
http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/policv.htm#enaaaina
University of Calaarv. Department of Economics:
The most important criterion that EPA can set is that, when policy is being created or
implemented, public involvement should be in the form of consensus building. First, it is only
when all interested parties have a direct influence over policy development that the outcome can
be expected to maximize social benefits. Second, when parties have a direct influence, the
benefits to them of participating increase, making it more likely that EPA will reach its goal of
maximizing the level of participation.
Response: EPA agrees that consensus-based public involvement is appropriate in some
circumstances, which is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act;; however, in many
cases a consensus approach in the sense of unanimous consent is not desirable or realistic.
See above response.
University of Calaarv. Department of Economics:
In many cases, policy is made and implemented in a two- (or multi-) stage process. In the first
stage, the central agency creates a general policy that applies broadly across a large number of
regions or industries. For example, a national policy might be developed for determining
maximum permissible air pollutants from manufacturing operations. In the second stage, those
general regulations are then modified to apply to specific industries, watersheds, or regions. For
example, specific air pollutant regulations may be established for each of the wood furniture,
architectural coatings, and coke oven industries. Each of these industries has developed
regulations through the use of a negotiated rulemaking process. See David Pritzker and
Deborah Dalton, Negotiated Rulemaking Sourcebook, (Office of the Chairman, Administrative
Conference of the United States, Washington, D.C.), September 1995, pp.392-394. My
recommendation is that consensus-building processes be employed at both (all) levels of policy
making. In most agencies, of which I believe EPA is one, public participation at the first state is
generally limited to information exchange or solicitation of "recommendations." The ultimate
decision making authority is left to employees of the agency. But if consensus building is not
used at this stage, the agency will encounter difficulty selecting the socially preferred outcome.
In part, this problem could be overcome if the policies created at the first stage were sufficiently
"loosely" written that participants at the second stage could negotiate the preferred outcome.
However, (a) central agencies generally establish "tight" policies and (b) the less precise are the
directives from the first stage, the less benefit there is from employing that stage. Yet there are
benefits from centralizing some decision making. For example, centralization creates
economies of scale and broader representation can be obtained if relatively small groups are
able to concentrate their resources on a small number of negotiations.
92
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
It is important that the regulations established in the first stage of negotiations are not so tightly
written that the parties at the second stage have little flexibility. First, local and industry-specific
groups will have more information about the specifics of their situations than will national groups
This information will be lost if local groups are prevented from changes to the first stage policy.
Second, the EPA will find it very difficult to induce groups to participate in local decision making
processes if there is very little probability that those processes will yield policies that are
significantly different from those that would arise in the absence of participation.
Response: This Policy encourages public involvement at all stages of the policy process. This
includes decisions on broad environmental goals and standards as well as those on narrower
policies. However, a consensus requirement if universally applied could significantly impede
decision making. Public involvement processes involving consensus are subject to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. Therefore EPA uses this approach judiciously.
Consider the Stakeholder Report Written by Resources for the Future
Environmental Defense:
First, however, we want to mention a comprehensive Resources for the Future study by
Thomas C. Beierle entitled "The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions: Lessons from the
Case Study Record" (November 2000) that showed that stakeholder processes can lead to
better decisions by adding new information, ideas and analysis. Their research also showed
that the higher the degree of public participation—ranging from public hearings to
negotiations—the better the outcomes were. While we commend EPA for re-evaluating its
Public Participation Policy, and its increased commitment to effectively enact it throughout the
Agency and in the States, we urge the Agency to consider this study when deciding on the extent
of its public participation activities.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment, and intends to include information from this study in
its public involvement training for EPA staff. EPA staff who developed the Policy and
implementation activities reviewed Mr. Beierle's draft report, engaged him in EPA's July 2001
online dialogue on public involvement and its evaluation, and seek his advice on both evaluating
EPA's public involvement activities, and on developing our public involvement evaluative tools.
Describe/Define More Fully the Roles of the Public and EPA in EPA Decisions
McNultv Group:
Public involvement is not asking the public to do your job. It should not be asking the public to
make your decisions, write your regulations, or edit your regulations. Both you, and they, should
understand this very clearly from the start. What you need from the public is information, not
decisions. Public involvement should give the decision maker (and his or her advisors)
information that enables the decision maker to make a wise, informed decision. That means
you have to give the public sufficient information to allow them to respond, but you also have to
ask them questions that will help them give you the information you need in a form you can use.
And, be sure you ask questions they are qualified to answer. If you ask questions that they are
unable to answer competently, they will (1) know that, (2) resent it, and (3) attempt to answer
anyway, fearing that you are also ill-equipped to answer or you wouldn't be asking them. In a
93
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
nut shell, public involvement is a part of the decision making process; it is not the decision
making process. The person(s) responsible for making the decision must clearly understand
this, and the involved public must clearly understand it. Once that understanding is established,
public involvement then becomes easy, and a contributor to wise decisions rather than a
stumbling block. That happens for two reasons: First, the public understands their role, and will
accept it and the responsibility that goes with it as long as they receive prompt feedback that
assures them they have been heard *and* understood. Second, the decision makers, and their
subordinates, no longer feel threatened now they know that all involved understand it is their
responsibility to make the hard choices. Now the decision makers can "think out loud" and treat
the feedback they receive back as information rather than as criticism. Naturally there is more
involved, techniques to be properly employed to facilitate the understandings mentioned, to
reinforce the concept of information verses decisions, and to ensure that commenters know
their comments and concerns have been genuinely heard and understood. Those techniques,
to be effective, operate long before responsiveness summaries, drafts, and final drafts are
issued.
Response: EPA agrees that the goal of public involvement is to enable EPA to obtain
information from the public that assists EPA in making sound decisions. EPA further agrees
that Agency staff and the public should understand their roles in the decision-making process.
The Policy provides recommendations for a wide range of public involvement activities from
public education to seeking consensus in decisions. EPA does not cede its responsibility for
making the decisions that protect public health and the environment, clearly the public's role is to
contribute to EPA's decisions as stated in the goals section of the Policy: "Effective public
involvement will make it easier for the public to contribute to the Agency's decisions,
build public trust, and make it more likely that those who are most concerned with and
affected by Agency decisions will accept and implement them."
McNultv Group:
"Public involvement enables the public to work with the Agency and hold it accountable for its
decisions." This misstates the function of public involvement. It should be to support wise
decision making by those whose job it is to make those decisions; it is not to make those
decisions, nor is it to approve or disapprove the decisions. Also, if public involvement is the only
way the public has to work with EPA, you have a problem. Get rid of this statement, and the
thoughts that go with it.
Response: EPA disagrees with this interpretation of "accountable." EPA defines
"accountable" in this context as meaning "capable of being explained," that is, through the public
involvement process, EPA should provide and the public should understand the basis for
decisions. This definition matches the Policy's goal, "To foster a spirit of mutual trust,
confidence, and openness between the Agency and the public." EPA processes provide the
public with opportunities to share their ideas in order to improve its decisions, but not to have the
public make those decisions or provide judgement on them. However, EPA decision processes
should be transparent so the public can understand what led the Agency to make a specific
decision, know what the final decision is and hold the Agency responsible to implement the
decision. This concept of accountability is described in the Policy's section on "Review and use
input, and provide feedback to the public" (new language in bold italics): Gathering and using
public viewpoints and preferences involves examining and analyzing public input in
relation to scientific and other information relevant to the decision, considering if and
how to incorporate that input into final program decisions, and carefully considering
public views when making or modifying decisions. For each decision, EPA officials
94
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
should attempt to find a balance that enables the Agency to consider both relevant
scientific and other information and expressed public values in determining how best to
protect the public's health and the environment The Agency should demonstrate, in its
decisions and actions, that it has understood and fully considered public concerns.
Finally, the Agency should communicate the decision to the public and discuss how the
public's input influenced the final decision."
Environmental Council of the States:
First the Policy includes in the list of goals that appears on page 82337: "To promote the public's
involvement in implementing environmental laws". Under our system of government, the
Executive Branch of government at both the federal and state levels is responsible for
implementing the laws, subject to review by the judicial branch. It is misleading to suggest,
either broadly in this Policy or specifically at a public meeting that the public has a role in
implementing laws. We may ask for public input in how we interpret or implement laws, but
government officials make the final decision. The Policy is inconsistent on this point, as later in
the document on page 82342, two important suggestions are included:
- "Agency officials should clearly identify issues to be discussed, negotiated or decided prior to
and throughout the engagement process so that the public understands which decisions are
subject to its input".
- "The type of process to be conducted, the schedule and the assumptions and expectations for
the outcomes of the process also should be clearly stated so that the public and its
representatives understand whether they are being invited to an information exchange or a
negotiation and can set their expectations accordingly".
These are very critical points with which we agree, as our experience has taught us that more
meetings do not guarantee a better dialogue. A public meeting can become the forum for
grandstanding by a vocal minority, so it is important to look for effective ways to communicate
with those parties who are potentially affected. In summary, a very clear understanding of each
participant's role in the process is fundamental to effective communication. The Policy should
consistently recognize that.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The "implementing environmental laws" language
has been modified, and new language added in the Introduction section of the Policy language:
"EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. To achieve that
mission, EPA needs to integrate, in a meaningful way, the knowledge and opinions of
others into its decision-making processes. Effective public involvement can both
improve the content of the Agency's decisions and enhance the deliberative process."
Through information, education and involvement, the Agency can help individuals, organizations
and communities determine the actions and decisions they can take to improve health and the
environment from the personal to the national and even global levels.
Make Public Participation Requirements Consistent Across EPA Programs
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
One area that is missing in this laudable effort is for EPA to try and achieve some measure of
consistency in the federal regulations covering public participation for the various "media"
programs within the agency. It is confusing and frustrating for the public to need to follow
different processes, time frames or formats to communicate their thoughts and concerns when
such different methodologies are not driven by the nature of the specific "project" for which
95
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
participation is being sought. EPA needs to make it easy for the public to participate and not to
make requirements complex and challenging. Consistency between each program's
requirements should be an important objective for EPA.
City and County of Denver. Department of Environmental Health:
We feel that the new policy needs to do three key things: ....
Consolidate the many different public participation requirements that vary across agency
programs.
Response to above two comments: The Public Involvement Policy is not a regulatory action
and therefore cannot be used to consolidate public participation requirements across Agency
programs. EPA recognizes the difficulty that arises when different public involvement processes
are used. However, specific public involvement processes and time frames are required by
specific regulations, such as those found at 40 CFR Part 25 "Public Participation in Programs
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the
Clean Water Act." A partial listing of existing public participation regulatory requirements is
contained in Appendix 2 of the Policy. Although EPA believes that the Policy should provide
some consistency and improve the quality of public involvement activities across programs, it
also recognizes that public participation processes should be tailored to the particular issue and,
therefore, the Policy should remain flexible.
City and County of Denver. Department of Environmental Health:
The Policy Must be More Cohesive, and Bring Together All the EPA's Public Participation
Programs. Currently a hodge-podge of public participation requirements and programs exists
which is confusing to both EPA staff and the public. Even sophisticated participants in EPA
activities have a hard time understanding the various public participation programs, what types
of participation are available under which circumstances, and whether public participation is
mandated or simply discretionary in a particular instance. The average person has no chance of
understanding the system. DEH staff suggest that as part of the new policy, the EPA prepare a
checklist of both required and recommended public involvement activities, along with sample
forms reflecting the requirements for each statute or program where differing requirements exist.
This will enable all involved to know which requirements exist in a particular situation. The
checklist should clearly specify the role of the general public, state governments, local
governments, and tribes so EPA staff and all others involved will know what is expected and
what is required.
Response: EPA recognizes the difficulty that arises when different public involvement
processes are used. However, the Policy is not a regulatory action and therefore cannot amend
regulatory or statutory requirements. EPA attempted to array the public involvement
requirements of different environmental statutes into tables in the Appendix to the document
"Engaging the American People: A Review of Public Participation Policy and Regulations with
Recommendations for Action." Please see Appendix A - Charts of Public Participation
Requirements in Key Agency Programs, which can be found at
http://epa.aov/publicinvolvement/pdf/eap appendices.pdf. These tables were accurate as of
November, 2000. Also see "Public Involvement in Environmental Permits A Reference Guide" at
http://www.epa.aov/permits/publicauide.htm for an outline of the requirements for public
involvement in permitting under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
All Techniques Listed in Draft Policy Can't be Applied - Resource Constraints
96
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials:
We found the draft policy to contain a remarkably extensive listing of public participation vehicles
and techniques, most of which have already been employed by federal and State programs, and
many of which have proven to be satisfactory when used in the proper programmatic
circumstances. We would be concerned if we believed that EPA intended every one of these
techniques to be applied in all cases, and hope that is not the message. As we understand the
policy, the key is that the Agency intends to apply the six basic functions listed on page 82338,
and to use as many of the techniques listed thereafter in carrying out those functions. While we
agree that functions substantially along these lines assist a successful environmental public
participation program, we have to note that each carries considerably different resource
implications. While the suggested techniques and vehicles all have merit, their use will also be
affected by State judgments about the priority and availability of resources. We are concerned
that with this policy the Agency may mistakenly raise public expectations that all levels of
government can and will provide the full range of described participatory vehicles and
techniques.
Response: EPA agrees that the main purpose of the Policy is to recommend that EPA use the
full range of available techniques as appropriate for carrying out public involvement activities for
specific issues and programs. In the section describing how EPA wishes to achieve the Policy's
"What Are the Purposes, Goals and Objectives of This Policy?" is the following statement:
"Make every effort to tailor public involvement programs to the complexity and potential for
controversy of the issue, the segments of the public affected, the time frame for decision
making and the desired outcome." The Policy also clearly states that it applies only to EPA, and
not to states.
Provide Guidance on When to Use Different Methods
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
While the GLC and the MEJC appreciate that the EPA has thought about multiple methods of
public consultation and involvement, we believe that the Draft Policy should include some
parameters or suggestions for when each of these methods is appropriate. Without some
guidance on when these more unusual consultation methods [ADR and advisory/technical
assistance groups] are warranted, we are afraid that agency officials will simply rely on the more
familiar methods of public hearings, meetings and listening sessions.
University of Calgary. Department of Economics:
I have a similar concern about the draft document's section 5. There, the Agency "lists" a wide
variety of participation processes that may or may not be employed by the EPA, as the situation
demands. But a list is not a policy. Section 5 does not provide a set of criteria that can be applied
(either objectively or subjectively) to determine when, say, "information exchange" will be used
and when "agreements" will be sought.
Failure to provide such criteria may create two types of problems. First, if administrators are not
given detailed direction, there may be inconsistencies in application of the guidelines across
regions or industries. Different procedures may be employed in two otherwise identical regions
or industries leading to disaffection among potential participants. Second, if interest groups are
not provided with clear guidelines, some groups' expectations concerning participation will not be
realized. Again, these groups may become disaffected.
97
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Policy should contain some
recommendations for using the different public involvement methods listed in the Policy. EPA
revised the "Conduct consultation" section of the Policy to include the purposes, common
examples and some key recommended actions for each of the different methods.
Involve the Public at Early Strategy Phase and Throughout Decision Process
International Association for Public Participation:
The overwhelming majority of the public wants to be informed and involved at the Big Picture or
Strategy level. They want to be informed in plain language and be able to give their comments
and concerns in plain language as well. This type of participation is more conversational,
anticipatory, and policy-level. EPA and its delegated agencies should do more of it. In its public
participation training, IAP2 presents a generic decision process that begins with a common
definition of the problem, developing decision/evaluation criteria, developing options, and
evaluation of alternatives. Talking with the public at these steps can be of immense value, rather
than waiting for review and comment on a recommended solution.
Response: EPA agrees that in many cases the public wants to be informed and involved early,
and that they want to be informed with and use plain language to express their ideas. The Policy
recommends that EPA use such practices.
McNultv Group:
At the other end of the project, you need to start listening, at least informally, at the very
beginning of a project. It is far easier, and far less work, to incorporate information and
accommodate concerns early in a job - before endless hours are spent putting a concept down
in words.
Citizen #10:
I firmly believe that your agency must plan early, well-advertised public comment sessions
(accessible to all, of course) so that the public has input from the very beginning of the decision-
making and program-forming process.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should start communicating
with the public early in the project. The Policy supports these suggestions, for instance in the
"What Are the Purposes, Goals and Objectives of this Policy?" section: "Reaffirm EPA's
commitment to early and meaningful public involvement;" and "Promote the use of a wide
variety of techniques to create early and, when appropriate, continuing opportunity for public
involvement in Agency decisions."
Seek Balanced Stakeholder Input
Idaho Cattle Association:
ICA believes the way to ensure public involvement at all levels of government and throughout the
structure of EPA is to put into place a broad, encompassing, and well-balanced outreach
program. One-sided input from groups and organizations with agendas can be destructive to
the idea of public involvement. Unless EPA seeks input from all individuals and communities
affected by the Agency's actions, public involvement may be rendered useless.
National Cattlemen's Beef Association:
98
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
NCBA believes the way to ensure public involvement at all levels of government and throughout
the structure of EPA is to put into place a broad, encompassing, and well-balanced outreach
program. One-sided input from groups and organizations with agendas can be destructive to
the idea of public involvement. Unless EPA seeks input from all individuals and communities
affected by the Agency's actions, public involvement may be rendered useless.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Toxics Cleanup Program:
Audiences are changing. Attendees are more likely to be representatives of organized groups
and less an individual community member. How can we as agencies make sure we are hearing
from all sides? It would seem to be timely to have EPA recognize and address this in their draft
policy.
Response to above three comments: EPA agrees that it should obtain balanced stakeholder
input. The Policy's opening introduction states, "EPA staff and managers should seek input
reflecting all points of view and should carefully consider this input when making
decisions." The Policy also recommends the use of varied outreach methods in the section on
"Provide information and outreach to the public." EPA will strive to address this issue in public
involvement training for EPA staff.
Citizen #5
True public meetings include many members of the public, not just the private sector.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should ensure that the interested and affected public is
invited to attend public meetings, and that the meetings should be planned and conducted in
ways that facilitate their attendance and participation.
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
The Club must point out that reliance on representative public participation (task forces, advisory
committees, focus groups and the like) either formal or informal must be done with caution.
Legitimacy and accountability and balance for such groups are often questionable. In addition,
community representatives are often the only lay persons serving on panels of experts, and their
non-expert input is often discounted. But more importantly, such groups are rarely truly
representative. It is absolutely essential, for example, that the affected community be
represented. But perhaps just as important is that the full range of ideas that the public might
bring to the table be represented as well. Tokenism is rampant in these types of representative
public participation processes, and the guidance should be specific in condemning it.
Response: EPA agrees that when the Agency establishes advisory committees as part of the
public involvement process, those committees should be balanced, represent a broad range of
views, and include the affected community. The Policy suggests that various methods should
be used to seek input and to gather the full range of ideas and interests to inform the decision-
making process. The Policy's opening introduction states, "EPA staff and managers should
seek input reflecting all points of view and should carefully consider this input when
making decisions." The Policy's "Identify the interested and affected public" section
recommends a number of mechanisms to ensure that all points of view are represented and
ways to find all sides. EPA does not agree that the "tokenism" issue raised in the comment
should be addressed in the Policy, but it and other issues regarding representation of the public
in advisory groups is intended to addressed in public involvement training for EPA staff.
Citizen #58:
99
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Public meetings do not work unless the issue is of such high import to the neighborhood that the
meeting is highly charged and emotional to begin with. If not, you get the same "professional"
activists that go to ALL of these meetings. They DO NOT represent the general public. The
general public does not have time to bother with another community meeting. It is very low on
our priority list. So most of the input comes from the full time activists - the squeaky wheels.
They DO NOT represent us. I elect my local representatives -1 do not elect my local activists.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The Policy recommends using a variety of public
involvement techniques in order to obtain input from all affected and interested members of the
public. Elected officials are among those who may participate.
McNultv Group:
One other point here: note the term "hearing from" above. If you are going to include something
about reaching all affected parties, the statement should include the thought that it is not enough
to afford an opportunity for affected parties to comment, the project manager must ensure all
affected parties *are* heard from, and understood.
Response: The Policy recommends using a variety of actions and methods in order to interest
and involve the public in the "Identify the interested and affected public" section. EPA agrees that
"reaching" and "hearing from" are not the same. However, if the people EPA reaches are not
persuaded to participate, the Agency cannot press them for their input, nor should EPA question
their decision not to participate. EPA will strive to address this issue in public involvement
training for EPA staff.
Create EPA Public Ombudsman Position
League of Women Voters of Michigan:
If the EPA is now to be "neutral", I think a sub-agency within the EPA needs to take on the
mission of educating, listening and advocating for the groups about which you have particular
concerns. It may be, therefore, that a somewhat out of date concept -the ombudsman -needs
to be considered as the "front line" "person" for outreach & input. More specifically, the "front
line" office, since such a role would need a number of people to help weigh the kind of personal
interests which are the individual stories of the interested public as well as coordinate the
representation of the individual's "best interests".
Environmental Defense:
Secondly, EPA should consider hiring ombudspersons to go between the community and
government similar to EPA's Small Business Ombudsman, which has grown into an effective
advocate and communication vehicle for small business interests, or USDA's Extension
Service, which is a much valued resource at the local level.
Response to above two comments: These comments are outside of the scope of the Policy.
However some of EPA's staff fill an ombudsman function when they are working on a Superfund
or community-based project. EPA agrees that the small business ombudsman is a good model;
however, EPA currently does not plan to create a new public ombudsperson position. This
comment was provided to the EPA Office of Regulatory Management.
Technical and Outreach Staff Must Work Together
Washington State Department of Ecology. Toxics Cleanup Program:
100
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
It's been several years since I've had opportunities to work with EPA on cleanup sites - so do not
know if these continue to be issues. It's critical in the development of public involvement, that
technical and community relation's staff work together, and that each work in the area they have
expertise in. I have heard this as a problem from many organizations - public and private.
Public involvement must be allowed to occur inside the agency as well as outside the agency for
it to be successful. Public Involvement must be recognized as both the art and science that it is,
included in the cleanup process as is required in the regulations, by staff that have expertise in
the field A public involvement specialist would not be the best person to provide
engineering leadership on a site - and an engineer is not the best person to provide public
involvement leadership. Although this may seem obvious - the reality is sometimes different.
Miami University. Department of Communication:
I would encourage EPA to use technical personnel in workshops to explain technical issues. My
experience has been that publics don't want to hear from the public information staff; they want
to hear from people who "really know what they are talking about" (I've been told that directly).
This tactic can do wonders to calm fears and reduce resistance. When a project engineer can
say, "We considered what you're saying, but here's why we can't make that work," many people
will accept it, even if reluctantly. Of course, this tactic does require technical personnel to be or
become effective communicators.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that technical staff and public involvement
staff should work cooperatively together. These comments show the value of having both types
of experts working together in the outreach effort. They were shared with EPA's Superfund and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act programs.
Techniques for Consulting with Environmental Justice Communities - Partner with Local
Groups
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
The draft Policy states that EPA should "consider the appropriate use of third parties in the
development and implementation of programs..We concur with this statement and have the
following suggestions about third parties that may be helpful. In addition, the groups/entities
listed below could also be helpful in #2 (Identify the interested and affected public) and #4
(Provide information and outreach to the public.).
- Work with local and statewide environmental justice groups. Our state has a statewide
environmental justice advisory group. It probably would be helpful for regional staff to be involved
with such groups. They would build relationships and have a better understanding of
environmental justice issues in the region.
- Consult with bilingual community members and ask them to serve as translators at meetings
or during other activities.
- Engage students (particularly college undergraduate or graduate level) from the community
and ask them to follow the issue and give suggestions about the community's perspective. This
could include talking with residents, gathering their opinions, and reporting back to the agency.
This activity could be for credit or for pay.
- Hire a community person to listen and speak for the community or portion of the community.
This takes the pressure off people who might want to be involved in the issue but may not be
able to lose time from work.
101
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
- Although it often is necessary to work with activists representing minority, low-income and
under served communities, the people who will be living with the program/project should be
involved in the decision making process as much as the activists.
- Often people have "barriers" that prevent them from becoming involved. Some barriers are
physical/time restrictions such as a lack of transportation or need for childcare. An idea of a way
to overcome transportation issues is to hold the meeting or event near the people's homes (e.g.
local school or church), or hold more than one session in different sections of the neighborhood.
If childcare is an issue then hold meetings when children are in school or work with a church or
a trusted civic group to provide childcare during the meeting. Some barriers come from
preconceived ideas; for example new immigrants that come from countries with repressive
governments have a general fear of government. In general, barriers may be more prevalent
among minority, low-income and under served populations and EPA should be aware from the
beginning of a program/project if barriers exist and address them initially. Talk with community
leaders and see if there are barriers that would prevent people from participating. Discuss
suggestions for overcoming the barriers and building trust.
- Many people in minority, low-income and under served communities are not available during
the traditional workday (9 AM - 5 PM) to go to the document repository, call agency staff, do site
tours, etc. Staff should consider ways to make themselves and information about the program
available outside the traditional workday.
- We have found the following techniques helpful in making a meeting between a minority/low
income community and the State more productive:
- hold the meeting/event in a familiar, comfortable location (e.g. school, church);
- provide food;
- have presenters that represent different racial backgrounds; and
- structure the meeting so there are plenty of opportunities for open discussions with a question
and answer component.
Response: These suggestions are useful and EPA intends to incorporate those that federal
regulations and resources permit in public involvement training and a best practices data base
for EPA staff. See new language added at the end of the Goals section:"Develop and work in
partnership with state, iocai and tribal governments, community groups, associations,
and other organizations to enhance and promote public involvement," Also see in the
methods portion of "Identify interested and affected public," participating in the events of others
and reaching the members of organizations through their publications.
Provide Public Involvement Training to EPA Staff
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
The draft Policy calls for "guidance, resource and training" for technical staff. We would like to
suggest that some of that training include public involvement topics, such as why public
involvement is important, benefits of conducting public involvement and potential consequences
of not doing public involvement. We concur that technical staff need fundamental public
involvement training because they may be in a situation where they will have to do the public
involvement.
Response: EPA agrees that public involvement training should include some of the general
topics raised in the comment, and intends to include such topics in EPA public involvement
training for technical staff.
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
102
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Another topic for technical staff training is a session on how people normally react to
environmental threats on their homes and some of the impacts this stress can have on the
community, family dynamics and the health of the residents.
Response: EPA conducts staff training in Risk Communications and covers these topics.
Environmental Defense:
To improve its outreach activities, the Agency needs to work on the ground with stakeholders.
EPA can use facilitators who are sensitive to the local needs and concerns and train employees
to effectively communicate with stakeholders.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should work on the ground with stakeholders,
particularly in site-specific activities, and that facilitators should be sensitive to local needs and
concerns. In the "Who is responsible" section of the Policy, EPA recognizes the importance of
training (new language in bold italics): "Managers should encourage and facilitate the
proper training, support and counseling of staff, and, recognizing overall budgetary
constraints, should plan for and provide adequate funding for training or other needs in
their specific budgets."
Environmental Defense:
There are three strategies that EPA can employ to improve its public outreach. First, it can train
employees in public consultation and Alternative Dispute Resolution, like the Draft Policy
proposes.
Response: EPA agrees that employee training is important. The EPA's recommendations for
implementing the Policy stress training, and EPA will strive to include many suggestions
provided in the public comments on the draft Policy in that training. EPA has a growing cadre of
people trained in Alternative Dispute Resolution.
International Association for Public Participation:
In terms of specific techniques for identifying interested people and groups, providing technical
assistance, providing information, and conducting public participation activities there are
hundreds of pages and decades of experience available to the EPA and your colleagues. While
the ideas delineated in your Draft Policy are admirable, we recommend that EPA conduct a
comprehensive training program where particular techniques can be presented and discussed
in context with your staff at headquarters, at the regions, and at the Tribes and states. In
addition to the community relations staff who currently have responsibility for most public
participation, we also recommend training for project and program staff, technical staff, senior
decision makers, contracting officers and attorneys, restoration advisory boards and other
regular participants. IAP2 offers a full complement of public participation training developed by
the top practitioners in the field. This training includes the principles of public participation, public
participation planning, communications for public participation, large group techniques and small
group techniques.
Response: EPA will strive to include all the items listed in this comment in its public
involvement training for EPA staff.
Doctoral Student. Washington State University. Department of Geography:
103
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
When describing who is responsible for ensuring that the policy is applied appropriately, it is
stated that "managers should ensure personnel are properly trained." I agree but feel this should
be expanded such that managers should also ensure they (i.e., themselves) are properly trained
and the EPA should make sure they provide resources to their own staff to acquire self-
recognized training. Even those of us who are already trained, can benefit from an annual
refresher where new approaches to old problems are presented, as it is difficult for all of us to
keep up to speed with everything we should.
Response: EPA agrees that managers also need public involvement training. The Agency's
plans for public involvement training include training for managers as well as staff. EPA is also
developing a data base of public involvement best practices and training resources that should
enable EPA staff to self-train without extensive classroom work.
National Association Of Home Builders:
EPA Staff Needs Training on Public Involvement Processes As Well As Technical Issues. EPA
has itself identified major flaws in the manner in which its 1981 policy was implemented and
carried out. It will do little good to adopt a new policy and then implement it in an equally deficient
manner. EPA staff engaged in stakeholder and public involvement efforts require special training
in public outreach, communication, and participation. Equally important, however, is the need for
proper training in the technical and scientific issues under consideration by EPA. EPA staff
should be sufficiently versed in the subject matter they are attempting to regulate so they can
fully appreciate the complexity of the issues as well as scientific and technical information they
must evaluate.
Response: EPA agrees that Agency staff would benefit from public involvement training.
EPA's recommendations for implementing the Policy stress public involvement training for EPA
staff. EPA also agrees that training in scientific and technical fields is important, although this is
outside of the scope of this Policy.
Miami University. Department of Communication:
I would encourage EPA to use technical personnel in workshops to explain technical issues....Of
course, this tactic does require technical personnel to be or become effective communicators.
All agency staff should be trained in the principles and skills of public participation.
Response: EPA agrees that technical staff also need public involvement training, and the
Agency plans to offer public involvement training for both technical staff and public involvement
staff.
McNultv Group:
.... skip requirements for detailed written public involvement plans, etc. Instead, institute a
traveling training program (which you can make mandatory) that is designed to convey the
concept of public involvement supporting decision making rather than being decision making.
(Making decisions in public, not the public making decisions.) Require the decision makers to
participate in the training, and insist all others involved in the delegated project (deputies,
managers, regulation writers, etc.) participate as well. You cannot demand they change the way
they think or make decisions, but you can convince them to change. Here your goal is changing
attitudes; probably won't happen in a single session.
Response: EPA agrees that many people at EPA should be participants in some form of public
involvement training tailored to their particular responsibilities and functions. EPA will strive to
ensure that training materials cover how public involvement supports EPA decision making.
104
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS
Oppose Public Hearings that Allow Only One-on-One Interaction
Citizen #59:
Over the last few years, Federal agencies have adopted a public hearing format that
discourages democracy and public participation. The new format forces citizens to talk one-on-
one with government officials and submit written or oral comments individually more or less in
private. The problem with this new format is that other citizens do not get to hear what other
participants are saying. There isn't any give-and-take dialogue in a public forum or arena. A free
exchange of information and opinion does not occur and thus no public consensus can develop.
Please ensure that there be a public forum component of any public hearings held.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment, but does not conduct public hearings in the manner
described in the comment. EPA hearings are open, advertised, and structured to encourage
people to present their ideas. There are situations, however, in which EPA officials may meet
with an individual to discuss specific issues. Such meetings generally are not open to the
public; however, if matters pertinent to a docketed activity arise, notes of the meeting discussion
should be made part of the appropriate docket and publicly available.
Ensure that Public Meetings Are Not Intimidating to Public
Citizen #7:
How do you serve folks who understand issues, but are embarrassed to stand up in an open
public meeting and voice their concerns?
Response: EPA appreciates the concern voiced in this comment. The Policy's "Conduct
public consultation and involvement activities" section suggests a number of information
exchange activities and mechanisms: (new language in bold italics): Interactive methods that
provide participants with opportunities to discuss the issues and their input with the
Agency through public meetings, listening sessions, workshops, availability sessions,
open houses, interviews, focus groups or surveys, Internet-based dialogues and other
methods (Note: Some of these types of exchange activities, including surveys and
Internet dialogues, potentially are subject to provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
and security and privacy constraints)". EPA also encourages people to submit written
comments by mail or via the Internet. This provides an avenue of communication for those who
are uncomfortable speaking in a public meeting or hearing.
Golden Gate University and Environmental Law and Justice Clinic:
...consideration should be given to the fact that offering testimony at public hearings can be an
intimidating experience. Therefore, in situations where public hearings are deemed to be the
best forum for public comment, these should be set in a non-adversarial structure. For
example, adverse parties should not be allowed to cross-examine public commenters. Also, the
option of written testimony as opposed to oral testimony should be offered.
Response: EPA agrees that public hearings should be conducted in a non-adversarial manner,
and generally encourages submitting written comments by mail or via the Internet as an
alternative to speaking at a public hearing. Public hearings offer some opportunity for hearing
105
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
officers and the audience to pose clarifying questions. Cross examination, although required to
be allowed in some limited cases, should not be common practice.
Create Rules that Specify When Public Hearings Must be Held
Citizen #5:
True public hearings should be held on all large or long-term actions... At the very least, clear
rules on when EPA or the states have to hold a hearing need to be established because the
current threshold of "significant public interest" appears to be defined in a widely diverse manner.
Response: EPA disagrees that new rules for public hearings are needed. Requirements for
public hearings are specified in the environmental statutes or regulations, and EPA does not plan
to create additional rules for public hearings as suggested.
Don't Hold Public Meetings Only at the End of the Process
University of Maryland. Department of Communication:
Regarding public consultation and involvement activities, methods should avoid holding public
meetings and public hearings at the end of the process. Despite the alternative and additional
methods that EPA uses in the beginning and middle of the process, some citizens will not
become aware until the decision nears - and becomes more relevant and salient to their lives -
and they may perceive that the EPA has only held public meetings - and public meetings -
especially the traditional, formal, public hearing - hold very negative images for the public, in
terms of their not being truly legitimate or interactive forums of participation. The worst-case
scenario is that it (the meeting) detracts from months (or years) of hard work on involving the
public.
Response: EPA understands that people sometimes do not become involved until the process
is about to end. In the goals section of the Policy please see:"Make every effort to tailor public
involvement programs to the complexity and potential for controversy of the issue, the
segments of the public affected, the time frame for decision making and the desired outcome.
See new language in the "Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section under
"a. Actions:" such as: "Notify the public of potential consultation and involvement activities early
enough to ensure that the public has adequate time to obtain and evaluate information; consult
experts and formulate and express their opinions, options, and suggestions prior to Agency
action."
Allow Public to Participate in Superfund Meetings
ACES. Inc.:
We suggest a procedure and regulations to allow public representatives to attend all joint
GP/PRP meetings, at minimum as observers, and hopefully as discussion participants.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the Policy, and was shared with the EPA
Superfund Program.
PUBLIC MEETING LOGISTICS
Schedule Meeting Dates and Times that are Convenient for the Participants
Citizens #13-15. 17. 18. 20-22. 31. 38. 40-46. 48-50. 53. 54. 57 (same comment provided by 23
citizens via e-mail)
106
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Meetings should be held at a time and day that accommodates working people.
American Waterworks Association:
Clearly, for local issues such as a Superfund site, EPA should consider setting public hearings
in the evenings or on weekends so that the affected public need not take time off from work.
This can be accomplished through setting meeting times that do not conflict with work hours.
Citizen #10:
It goes without saying that sessions must be held when ordinary working people can make them
and where ordinary working people can take public transportation to reach them.
Citizen #8:
The agency could schedule hearings on evenings &/or weekends, when the unempowered have
whatever brief opportunities they may have to comment in person upon a question or 'problem.'
Southwest Workers Union:
Many can't afford to take the day off, so when you have public meetings and want input from
average people, don't have them during working hours.
City of Austin. Texas. Water and Wastewater Utility:
Our experience has shown, that the EPA often chooses meeting days for its convenience, rather
than the public's. The key to encouraging public involvement is to accommodate the public. For
example, in scheduling stakeholder meetings, Mondays and Fridays are often off-limits because
many rank and file EPA staff have compressed work schedules and are unwilling to come in on
their days off. For the public, however, Mondays and Fridays are frequently the best times to
participate since weekend days can be used for travel.
For issues that are clearly local, like a Superfund site, the EPA should consider setting public
hearings in the evenings or on weekends so that the affected public need not take time off from
work. This can be accomplished through setting meeting times that do not conflict with work
hours. We have found this to be very effective in the scheduling of our own public hearings and
public meetings.
American Waterworks Association:
Our experience has shown that EPA often chooses meeting days for its convenience, rather
than the public's. The key to encouraging public involvement is to accommodate the public
rather than federal staff and their contractors.
Response to above seven comments: EPA agrees that public meeting dates and times
should accommodate the interested and affected public. The Policy's "Conduct public
consultation and involvement activities" section states:"Conduct public consultation and
involvement activities at times and places which, to the maximum extent feasible, facilitate
attendance or involvement by the affected public. Whenever possible, public meetings
concerning local facilities or sites should be held during non-work hours, such as evenings or
weekends, and at locations accessible to public transportation." Particularly for local issues and
decisions, EPA staff often plan and conduct evening and weekend meetings, attempting to better
accommodate the public's needs. EPA will strive to include these issues in public involvement
training for EPA staff.
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. Falmouth. MA:
107
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
I hope that EPA staff people understand that, in today's America, different people are working on
different schedules. There's no "best time" for public hearings. Some people - in particular,
retired people and people who work at night - may prefer meetings during the day. Individuals
with traditional nine-to-five work schedules may prefer evening hours for public hearings. Trying
to squeeze all citizens into the same schedule will be almost impossible. Please be as flexible
as possible.
Response: EPA agrees that Agency staff should assess each situation and remain flexible
when scheduling meetings in order to enable the best participation from all segments of the
public. This may include scheduling more than one meeting at different times.
Southwest Workers Union:
With people's work schedules they can't attend daytime meetings... Working class people can't
take off from work...
Minnesota Pollution Control Aaencv:
Also, many attendees don't qualify for federal airfare and hotel rates, so EPA should consider
meeting in lower-cost areas and timing meetings to allow Saturday-stay discounts.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that recognizing and attempting to minimize
participants' costs should be considered when determining when and where to hold meetings.
Bison Land Resource Center:
Another regional reality is weather. I cannot speak for people from other regions, but I know that
in the northern Great Plains, travel may basically shut down for long portions of the winter.
Out-of- town travel may be impossible, uncertain, or dangerous six months of the year,
especially for the youngest and oldest drivers.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency needs to recognize and accommodate weather,
transportation and other important local conditions when planning public involvement activities.
EPA will strive to include this issue in public involvement training materials and best practices
information for EPA staff.
Schedule Public Meeting Locations that are Convenient for the Participants
Citizen #11:
Meetings should be held locally in the affected areas so that members of the public who will be
affected can attend.
American Waterworks Association:
Additionally, EPA often chooses meeting locations for its convenience. EPA regulations have
national impact and yet the majority of stakeholder meetings are held in Washington, DC, where
EPA is headquartered. Again, to encourage public involvement, it must be convenient for the
public. For national issues, we recommend that EPA hold stakeholder meetings and public
hearings at various locations around the country.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Water SuppIv Section:
...it would be most helpful if EPA would hold more than one national meeting on a given rule. Or,
if that is not possible, hold the meeting in a location that is centrally located in the country to
reduce travel expenses, and hold it at such a time when winter weather is unlikely to hamper
travel.
108
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Washington State Department of Ecology. Toxics Cleanup Program:
It is also desirable to have meetings close to people affected by the potential decision. If a
transborder issue exists, meeting should be scheduled in both states to accommodate the
public rather than accommodating EPA's desire not to duplicate meeting information or travel.
Response to above four comments: EPA agrees that when possible, the Agency should
conduct meetings in locations that are convenient for the interested and affected public. The
Policy's "Conduct public consultation and involvement section" states: "Conduct public
consultation and involvement activities at times and places which, to the maximum extent
feasible, facilitate attendance or involvement by the affected public. Whenever possible, public
meetings concerning local facilities or sites should be held during non-work hours, such as
evenings or weekends, and at locations accessible to public transportation." The Agency often
holds meetings in locations outside metropolitan Washington, DC to encourage input on national
issues. EPA also is increasing its use of electronic submissions of comments. EPA will strive
to include these issues in public involvement training materials for EPA staff.
Citizen #5:
The public must be able to attend public stakeholder meetings. EPA should provide significant
advance notice of public stakeholder meetings, and should do its best to make sure the affected
public is invited to the meeting. This includes advertising the meeting in public spaces (other
than just the Federal Register notice), providing scholarships for the public to attend these
meetings, and possibly holding meetings in "the field" as opposed to Headquarters or regional
EPA offices.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should provide advance notice of meetings, effectively
invite the affected public, advertise the meeting using methods beyond the Federal Register and
consider holding meetings in or near the affected community. These recommendations are
included in various sections of the Policy. However, legal limitations prevent EPA from providing
direct financial assistance for attendance at public meetings. Where members of the public are
asked to consult and provide advice directly to the Agency, the Policy's section on "Consider
providing technical or financial assistance to facilitate involvement" recommends providing travel
and per diem financial assistance if those members would otherwise be unable to participate.
Schedule EPA Meetings to Coincide with Other Conferences/Events
American Waterworks Association:
In the second column on Page 82340, the Policy mentions, as one of its goals, that it should "....
ensure that information is provided at places easily accessible to interested and affected
persons and organizations." To achieve broader participation from utilities, we recommend that
the EPA schedule some of its public involvement activities concurrent with events like the
American Waterworks Association's Annual Conference, the Water Environment Federation's
Technical Exposition and Conference, or other water conferences. Generally, stakeholders from
all points of view attend these conferences and this will facilitate broad participation in EPA's
outreach efforts.
Citv of Austin. Texas. Water and Wastewater Utility:
In the second column on Page 82340, the Policy mentions, as one of its goals, that it should "....
ensure that information is provided at places easily accessible to interested and affected
persons and organizations." To achieve broader participation from utilities, we recommend that
109
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
the EPA schedule some of its public involvement activities concurrent with industry events like
the American Water Works Association's Annual Conference, the Water Environment
Federation's Technical Exposition and Conference, or other industry conferences. We typically
have staff in attendance at these conferences and this will facilitate our participation, as well as
that of others, in the EPA's outreach efforts.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that, when possible, the Agency should
schedule meetings to coincide with major stakeholder events. The Policy's "Conduct public
consultation and involvement activities" section states:"Conduct public consultation and
involvement activities at times and places which, to the maximum extent feasible, facilitate
attendance or involvement by the affected public." In addition, the Policy's "Provide information
and outreach to the public" section recommends:"Participation in conferences, workshops,
meetings..." This issue should be included in public involvement training materials for EPA
staff.
Provide Child Care at Public Meetings
Citizens #13-15. 17. 18. 20-22. 31. 38. 40-46. 48-50. 53. 54. 57 (same comment provided by 23
citizens via e-mail)
I want a public involvement policy with public comment sessions accessible to all (... child care).
Response: The Policy suggests:" When possible, consult or involve the affected public to
ensure that the approaches selected consider, and if appropriate, accommodate the
potentially affected parties' needs, preferences, schedules and resources, as well as the
Agency's needs." However, it should be noted that EPA cannot pay for child care for members
of the public who attend public meetings. EPA will strive to include these issues in public
involvement training materials for EPA staff.
Hold Public Meetings at Locations with Access to Public Transportation
Citizens #13-15. 17. 18. 20-22. 31. 38. 40-46. 48-50. 53. 54. 57 (same comment provided by 23
citizens via e-mail)
I want a public involvement policy with public comment sessions accessible to all (public
transportation...).
Citizen #10:
It goes without saying that sessions must be held when ordinary working people can make them
and where ordinary working people can take public transportation to reach them.
Citizen #55:
Finally, as a user of public transportation, please make future meeting accessible via bus or
train! The last time I attended a public meeting, it was in an area not accessible to public
transportation. I ended up taking a bus to the closest location, then taking a taxi. It took me an
hour to get there and cost me $15!
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. Falmouth. MA:
Access to hearings is a major concern. On at least two occasions in recent years, I've been
invited to public hearings, relevant to public transportation planning, that weren't accessible by
public transportation. Needless to say, this oversight seems a bit odd.
110
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Southwest Workers Union:
Don't make it hard to make it here to meetings. More may be on the way.
Response to above five comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should conduct public
meetings that are accessible to the affected public, which includes holding meetings at locations
that are accessible to public transportation where possible. The Policy's "Conduct public
consultation and involvement activities" section states: ""Conduct public consultation and
involvement activities at times and places which, to the maximum extent feasible, facilitate
attendance or involvement by the affected public. Whenever possible, public meetings
concerning local facilities or sites should be held during non-work hours, such as evenings or
weekends, and at locations accessible to public transportation." EPA will strive to include this
issue in public involvement training materials for EPA staff.
Provide Access to Meetings for Disabled Persons
Citizens #13-15. 17. 18. 20-22. 31. 38. 40-46. 48-50. 53. 54. 57 (same comment provided by 23
citizens via e-mail)
I want a public involvement policy with public comment sessions accessible to all (...handicap
access...).
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. Falmouth. Massachusetts:
In a nation in which the average age is rising, it's important to remove some of the barriers that
prevent persons with disabilities from participating in public hearings. Please check sound
systems, in advance, to make certain that all speakers at public events can be heard. Please
reduce the amount of "small print" in government publications so that important reports can be
easily read. Make certain that auditoriums and rooms for public hearings are easily accessible
for people in wheelchairs. Try to provide adequate seating and ventilation in the places where
hearings are being held. Please make certain that restrooms are accessible. (Participation in a
public hearing shouldn't be a physical ordeal.)
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
Ensure that public meetings are in "handicapped accessible buildings". Consider having at the
meeting speaker phones, cable public access and interactive Internet programs to help the
handicapped.
Response to above three comments: EPA complies with the Rehabilitation Act and provides
access to meetings to all participants. EPA has added new language in the "Conduct public
consultation and involvement" section of the Policy regarding EPA's efforts to provide access to
people with disabilities (see new bullet at the end of 5a): "Be knowledgeable of and comply
with provisions of the Rehabilitation Act regarding appropriate accommodations for
individuals who need special assistance in attending public hearings, meetings or other
events." EPA intends to include this issue in public involvement training materials for EPA
staff.
OTHER INFORMATION SHARING METHODS
Need Alternatives to Public Meetings for Getting Input from Busy Public
Citizen #7:
It seems that whenever you have a public hearing of one sort or another, those who choose to
111
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
attend are those with two to five hours to spare. I don't know about you, but my time is precious.
The only way I would commit an hour or more to one of your meetings is if I felt very strongly
about the subject. Is there a way to allow common citizens who are very, very, very busy, to
take five minutes or ten minutes of their otherwise very busy days and quickly comment on EPA
issues as opposed to taking two hours to attend one of your meetings? Can you make it easier
for me to comment on subjects X, Y and Z? Are there Internet or e-mail based methods of
gathering public comment? Can you make it easier for the common citizen to comment?
Response: EPA recognizes that many interested individuals also are very busy. The Policy
encourages the use of public involvement processes, such as e-mail and the Internet, that allow
individuals to provide input without attending traditional meetings. EPA is planning to use
Internet-based methods more broadly, in addition to traditional public involvement methods.
EPA Staff Should Go on Field Visits
National Farm*A*Svst Program:
Another form of outreach I suggest for inclusion (under either 4. or 5.) is "field trips" for EPA
personnel. There is nothing like getting out in the field to see, meet, learn about the people,
natural areas, and phenomena that EPA is trying to affect. Of course these have to be carefully
structured to avoid undue influence in one direction or another. But I've learned there is no
substitute for experiencing a situation directly, or for informal dialogue with stakeholders. One
way to do this would be to invite opposing interest groups to organize their own field visits for the
same EPA personnel at different times. Many private foundation funders find it very valuable to
make site visits that put them in touch with actual constituents or beneficiaries of programs they
fund. Such interactions not only gather information, they also assimilate and provide feedback
on that information (item #6).
Response: EPA agrees that Agency staff and the concerned public can benefit from site visits.
See new language in the "Provide information and outreach to the public" section of the Policy
under 4b Methods (new language in bold italics): "Tours of relevant sites and facilities".
Conduct Surveys and Focus Groups for Public Input
American Waterworks Association:
Innovative options for public involvement such as surveys and focus groups were not mentioned
in the Policy.
Response: EPA disagrees; the Policy encourages the use of innovative options for public
involvement. Specifically, these methods are recommended in the Policy under section 2
"Identify the interested and affected public," section 4 "Provide information and outreach to the
public" part b Methods, and section 5 "Conduct public consultation and involvement activities"
part b Methods.
Citv of Austin. Texas. Water and Wastewater Utility:
Innovative options for public involvement, that were not mentioned in the Policy, are surveys and
focus groups. An advocacy group's claim to represent the public, is often taken at face value. In
fact, advocacy groups may have more extreme views than the public at large. Surveys and
focus groups are an opportunity for the EPA to contact the public, in a neutral and controlled
forum, to ascertain their opinions on environmental matters. The Social Security Administration
has used focus groups successful for a number of years and we encourage the EPA to model
their survey and focus group efforts after the Social Security Administration's.
112
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Response: See above response. EPA appreciates this information and since 1996 has used
the work of the Social Security Administration as resource material when developing EPA's
customer satisfaction and focus group survey instruments.
Citizen #58:
Do a random sample interview process of the general public. Offer them something for this -
focus group style - tickets to a local water park or some such thing. This will give you a more
honest viewpoint than a public meeting. Be creative - Get Out of The Box. Come and talk to us -
like you, we're busy - but we do care.
Response: Surveys and focus groups are among the techniques recommended in the Policy.
Generally, Federal appropriations law may preclude agencies from providing "give-aways" as
suggested, but agencies may provide reasonable incentives for participation in surveys and
focus groups in appropriate cases if funds are legally available for that purpose. Further, the
policy does encourage the use of creative techniques for expanding participation. It should be
noted that the Paperwork Reduction Act limits the use of surveys.
RECOMMENDATIONS - ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Distinguish Military-Convened Advisory Boards from EPA Advisory Boards
Washington State Department of Ecology. Toxics Cleanup Program:
Restoration Advisory Boards for Federal Facilities are called together by the federal facility -
usually with EPA and the state the Federal Facility resides in. The Federal Facility is required to
follow the IRP (Installation Restoration Plan), which requires it to follow CERCLA. It seems
these advisory boards may not be required to follow the same guidelines as other advisory
boards since the lead agency is the military. However it's not clear. Is it worth noting that
advisory boards that provide advice to EPA but are not called together primarily by EPA exist and
are beyond the scope of the requirements for Federal EPA Advisory Committees?
Response: The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) applies to any group established or
utilized by the Federal government to obtain advice and recommendations, regardless of which
federal agency is the lead agency. It is the responsibility of the lead agency to determine
whether FACA applies to the group. EPA intends to ensure that any group providing EPA with
advice and recommendations does so in compliance with FACA.
EPA Should Support Evaluation of The Federal Advisory Committee Act
International Association for Public Participation:
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) was enacted with good intentions, but it has
proved incomplete as a guide to balancing input, dialogue, participation, accountability,
openness, technical analysis, and quality decision making. IAP2 is working with the National
Academy for Public Administration to evaluate FACA and recommend amendments to the
Congress that will enhance the implementation of the Act for all parties. EPA support in this
effort would be welcomed.
Response: Changes to the Federal Advisory Committee Act fall outside of the scope of the
Policy. This comment has been shared with EPA's Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management, which oversees EPA's FACA committees.
Support for Federal Advisory Committees
113
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
The Groundwater Foundation:
Specifically, we would like to commend the agency for renewing its commitment to the Federal
Advisory Committee structure and process. I know that my participation on FACA groups has
brought increased depth and effectiveness to Groundwater Foundation programs. One of the
greatest benefits is from the relationships this participation builds. These relationships continue
to inform and improve our work even after the formal committee work or terms of service are
complete.
Response: EPA appreciates this comment, and agrees that FACA committees are beneficial in
many ways. The Policy recognizes the role of FACAs in the Methods section of Consultation:
"...EPA should work to maximize the use of existing institutional resources as vehicles
for consultation and involvement processes. The more than twenty EPA Federal
Advisory Committees are such an institutional resource. EPA established each of them
to provide advice on a different aspect of environmental policy or management. These
committees are part of the Executive Branch decision-making process and include
members who are scientists, public health officials, businessmen, private citizens, and
officials at all levels of government. Approximately 1,400 citizens sit on FACA
committees, bringing a variety of perspectives and expertise to the environmental
consensus building process."
Support for Advisory Groups with Financial Assistance from EPA
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
On the other hand, creation of a citizen advisory group or technical assistance group, particularly
where financial assistance is available to purchase or develop expertise on the issue under
consideration, can be a powerful tool for a previously unorganized area or an environmental
justice community.
Response: EPA agrees that advisory groups that are given assistance and that develop
expertise can be very effective. The Policy's section on "Consider providing technical or
financial assistance" supports this suggestion.
Support for Additional Small Business Panels, Beyond Requirements
U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Small Business (Rep. Manzullo):
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act's panel process provides an already
existing tool to obtain small entity input. I strongly urge that EPA modify its public participation
policy by voluntarily utilizing the panel process even if the agency determines that it is not directly
regulating small entities. EPA voluntarily should ignore the D.C. Circuit rulings that approve its
certification of regulations that only affect states. Instead, EPA should assume that such
regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
perform an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, and convene a panel to obtain the input of
potentially affected small entities.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment, but does not agree that it should expand the use of
the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (the Panel) process to obtain small entity input on
rules not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). Over the history of the SBREFA program EPA has
convened roughly five Panels a year. In some cases, the Agency could have certified the rule as
not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) but chose to convene a Panel because certain characteristics of
the rule rendered the Panel procedure advisable as a matter of policy judgment. To avoid
114
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
unnecessary delay and expense, EPA reserves the use of Panels to those relatively few cases
in which they are either required by the RFA, or similarly advisable for policy reasons. To
supplement the Panel process, EPA manages its rulemaking procedures under the so-called
"Any/Any" policy, which calls for outreach regarding the analysis of small-business issues in any
rule that imposes any burden on small businesses subject to the rule. EPA believes this policy
encourages reasonable flexibility for small businesses, while reserving the full Panel process for
those few rules that warrant the substantial time and expense required to plan and support the
Panel process.
The comment also suggests that EPA "should ignore" D.C. Circuit rulings upholding EPA
certifications of rules that do not directly impose any regulatory requirements on small entities.
EPA does not believe that it would be appropriate to ignore these rulings. Regulations issued
pursuant to the Clean Air Act require the States to fashion regulatory programs that will meet
ambient air standards rather than impose requirements on small entities. Given that these rules
do not establish requirements applicable to small entities, they do not afford an opportunity for
EPA to consider or fashion regulatory alternatives for small entities. Notwithstanding these
difficulties and consistent with EPA's policy to minimize burdens on small entities to the extent
feasible, EPA has attempted to address potential small entity concerns in the context of these
rules by working with small entity representatives and States to provide information and
guidance on how States could address small entity concerns. For example, EPA convened
outreach meetings modeled on the Panel process to solicit small entities' concerns with EPA's
proposed standards and to convey those concerns to the States. EPA also has undertaken a
number of activities to encourage States to be sensitive to small entity impacts as they develop
and implement their regulatory programs.
FACILITATORS/ ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Use Neutral Facilitators
Harvev M. Sheldon. P.C:
I do think the Policy should explicitly indicate that EPA will undertake the use of neutral facilitators
on specific projects where there may be benefit from attempting to define and refine the
concerns of various constituencies on an issue early on. The result could be a specific
suggestion to the EPA of a preferred approach or regulation that respects the needs of a diverse
public, including, e.g. business, local government, environmental justice and the environmental
action communities. Without such an affirmative program to facilitate development of ideas,
EPA will too often be left with the strictures of "notice and comment" procedures...and the better
mousetrap will never be invented.
Response: The "Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section of the Policy
recommends the use of neutral facilitators or third parties (new language in bold italics):
"Consider the appropriate use of third parties (neutral facilitators or mediators) in the
development and implementation of programs, projects and activities." This section of the Policy
also discusses the use of facilitation and Alternative Dispute Resolution, "Facilitation and
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) are tools that the Agency may use to convene and
conduct activities or to seek to resolve differences among various stakeholders during
information exchange and collaborative processes. For ADR, EPA obtains the services
of neutral, trained facilitators and mediators who manage discussions between the
Agency and a set of well defined stakeholders. ADR is most effective when there are a
few highly involved and informed stakeholder groups who agree to participate in a
dialogue through which they raise their concerns and seek to resolve a particular issue
115
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
by consensus." Groups that EPA establishes or utilizes to obtain advice and
recommendations are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements.
Recommend Appropriate Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
Finally, the Club's other specific comments within this section must include a simple suggestion
that ADR should not be a substitute for serious scrutiny and judicial review.
Response: The Policy does not consider Alternative Dispute Resolution as a substitute for
serious scrutiny and judicial review. In all cases EPA should follow standard administrative
procedures through which decisions are subjected to scrutiny by the Agency and the public, and
decisions are still potentially subject to judicial review.
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
For example, alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") may be appropriate where the agency is
considering issuing a permit or approving a remediation plan in a community that is active and
has already organized itself around and informed itself about the proposed action; ADR would
not be appropriate where the community has only recently learned of the environmental issue
being considered, is split on the appropriate resolution of the issue or is simply not organized.
Response: EPA agrees the Agency should use alternative dispute resolution only in appropriate
situations, and will strive to include such considerations in public involvement training for EPA
staff.
Support Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. Environment Division:
One of the more important tools included in the draft policy was ADR. In my experience, ADR
can create and maintain a dialogue between parties who disagree on a controversial issue. It
can also cut down on courts costs and be a quicker instrument in reaching consensus, or at the
least, understanding of the other sides' perspectives.
Response: EPA agrees that the use of alternative dispute resolution can promote dialogue and
understanding, reduce court costs and result in general agreement.
Don't Overemphasize Alternative Dispute Resolution
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
...under Methods (p. 82341-82342), why has EPA put alternative dispute resolution (ADR) up
front? Public involvement strives to avoid entrenched disputes through early involvement of all
interests. ADR is one method of getting to agreements and should appear in the list of
agreement activities (bottom of column one on p. 82342) as one consultation technique as
opposed to being highlighted in the beginning of the methods discussion.
International Association for Public Participation:
We are perplexed that your discussion of public consultation and involvement methods begins
with Alternative Dispute Resolution. While ADR and its techniques can be useful in policy
development or conflict resolution, it is not the same as public participation nor is it sufficient. In
fact, many processes such as regulatory negotiation and policy dialogues, while extremely
valuable in the right context, do not normally involve "the public" at all. They are representative
collaborative processes that are seldom utilized. (Many would argue that they should be used
116
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
more!) The placement of the paragraph on ADR in your Policy should be changed in recognition
that it is a policy about public participation, not ADR.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees, and changed that section of the Policy to
indicate that ADR is clearly one tool among many that EPA may use.
AGREEMENT - CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING
Use Existing Consensus-Based Projects as Public Involvement Baseline
Environmental Defense:
Consensus-building is more likely to occur in local projects because all the sectors and
stakeholders can feel the direct impacts of the decision and outcomes. EPA should look at its
existing consensus-based projects, which can be used as a baseline for developing public
participation activities.
Response: Such a baseline study is outlined in EPA's evaluation strategy presented in the
Agency's Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy, released in conjunction
with the Policy. See http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf to view the
document.
Clarify Binding Nature of Consensus Agreements
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
Some governmental stakeholder processes move towards achieving consensus and the
agreements made among the stakeholders at the table may produce binding interim guidance,
final guidance, or draft rules or regulations to be proposed by the agency for formal adoption as
long as they conform with statutory requirements. The binding nature of the negotiated
agreements made at the table must be clear to all participants.
Response: The operating ground rules of Negotiated Rulemaking Committees and Policy
Dialogue Committees have a section which discusses (1) the way decisions will be made
(consensus, voting etc), and (2) the promises (if any) that EPA makes with regard to use of the
results of the negotiation, (3) the promises (if any) that the outside public members make with
regard to support of the results of the negotiation (what the agency expects of the parties to the
negotiation with regard to signing an agreement, with regard to commenting on a regulation or
filing lawsuits on a regulation.) For a discussion of groundrules, see "Best Practices for
Government Agencies: Guidelines for Using Collaborative Agreement-Seeking Processes,"
1997, Association for Conflict Resolution, Washington, DC. (Appendix 3) (now available on their
website at
http://www.acresolution.org/research.nsf/articles/83896A1 F61068A6B85256B73005D9954 .
Facilitators and agency representatives at the table discuss what is and is not possible. All of
the members of the committee discuss and approve the ground rules before starting the
negotiations. It is not unusual for members of a committee to seek clarification of the ground
rules as the committee approaches completion of its work.
The Policy's "Conduct public consultation and involvement activities" section recommends that
EPA clarify the following (new language shown in bold italics): "Agency officials should clearly
identify the issues for discussion, negotiation or decision prior to and during a public
involvement process, so that participants understand on which issues they should
comment EPA officials should describe clearly the type of public involvement process
planned, the schedule, EPA's expectations for the outcomes of the process and the timing
117
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
and type of feedback that EPA will provide." If possible, the public should be Involved In
determining the design of the processes." In step 5, Consultation, the Policy states under the
purposes of Agreement processes: "To reach a mutually acceptable decision between EPA
and selected stakeholder representatives, in a written agreement. In some cases, such
agreements are not legally enforceable, but do represent a good faith commitment by
EPA and the other parties."
Support Collaborative Methods for Land Use Decisions
Michigan Environmental Council:
Especially in the area of land use decision making, we feel that the agency should adopt more
collaborative methods for securing public input. Citizens should be directly involved in evaluating
the problems as well as formulating creative solutions. This should reach beyond traditional
hearings and meetings, providing competing interests - for example developers and
environmentalists - the opportunity to deepen their mutual understanding. Often collaborative
methods result in win-win solutions where the interests of each party are substantively
addressed.
Response: EPA agrees that collaborative methods can be very effective, and the Policy
supports these ideas.
Science in Decisions and Peer Review
Idaho Cattle Association:
ICA supports decisions based upon sound science and not a "one size fits all" approach to
implementing regulations.
National Cattlemen's Beef Association:
NCBA supports decisions based upon sound science and not a "one size fits all" approach to
implementing regulations.
American Chemistry Council:
Consideration of Scientific Information. In EPA's September 2000 Strategic Plan, the Agency
notes: "Science is the foundation that supports all of EPA's work, providing us with knowledge
and technologies to detect, abate, and avoid environmental problems."(p7) As the Agency
increasingly relies on science as the foundation of its decisions, the question of how best to
make sure science is sufficiently represented in stakeholder processes has emerged as a vital
issue. Recognizing this fact, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) last year initiated an
evaluation of how best to promote "a full and careful consideration of all available science" in
stakeholder-based environmental decisions. We strongly urge EPA to address in the draft policy
the need for assuring the use of scientific information, underscoring the fundamental place of
science in EPA decision making.
As noted by the SAB in its Oct. 7, 1999, letter to then-Administrator Carol Browner, the concept
of the general public interest "lies at the heart of many of our most cherished democratic
institutions," and the Agency would best serve this interest when it carefully considers all
available science as well as addressing stakeholder needs and interests. We strongly second
this SAB position, and urge the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation to incorporate both
the Oct. 7 letter and any SAB findings on the subject in its final policy. The Public Involvement
Policy should clearly describe the importance of credible scientific information in Agency
deliberations and provide the best guidance possible on how to ensure that such science plays
118
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
an appropriate role in stakeholder involvement processes.
The Council fully understands that uncertainty will always be part of the scientific process and
that science alone cannot provide definitive, unambiguous answers to the complex decisions
EPA faces. Nevertheless, as the Agency itself has indicated in its Strategic Plan, and as
Congress has recognized in numerous environmental statutes, scientific information is an
indispensable foundation for defining environmental problems and crafting effective solutions.
Scientific uncertainty cannot be eliminated from many Agency decisions, but it should not be an
excuse either for needless delays in addressing real problems or for overly hasty (as well as
costly and misdirected) regulatory actions motivated by what former EPA Administrator William
Reilly characterized as a "Ready, Fire, Aim" mentality. Addressing scientific uncertainty, and
diligently working to reduce it through research and the use of all available data, must be a
central component of Agency decision making. Informing stakeholders as accurately as possible
about what the Agency knows, does not know, and assumes in the face of limited data must be
central to its public outreach efforts... The Agency must strictly adhere to a policy of using the
best available science in its decision making. Science reflects society's best understanding of
how the world is - not how some wish it to be.
Response to above three comments: The Public Involvement Policy is not the appropriate
vehicle for addressing the Agency's use of sound science in its deliberations. However, EPA
agrees public participants should have full access to and understanding of the relevant scientific
issues that are integral to EPA's decision making. Please see the following new language in the
Policy (in bold italics):
1. In the "Plan and budget for public involvement" section: "Opportunities that help
participants gain an adequate understanding of relevant scientific, financial and technical
information relevant to the decision".
2. In the section on "Provide information and outreach to the public: "To the extent practicable,
develop information and educational programs so that all levels of government and the public
have an opportunity to become familiar with the issues, technical data and relevant science
behind the issues".
3. In the section on "Conduct public consultation and involvement activities: "Provide guidance,
resources, training, and professional assistance to Agency staff and interested delegated
program partners, when feasible, to assist them in conducting or participating in public
consultation and involvement activities in an effective and credible manner. This includes
providing the technical, scientific, and background information in a manner that allows
the involved public to understand the relevant science for the issues under discussion".
Consultants in Toxicology. Risk Assessment and Product Safety:
EPA needs to decide whether the external scientific community is part of the "public" and what
role the external scientific community should play in developing science-based regulations and
policies.
Unless EPA wants to pretend that Agency scientists can credibly review their own work
products, external peer review of these products seems advisable. EPA occasionally uses its
own Science Advisory Board (SAB) or panels of the National Research Council to obtain peer
reviews, while independently soliciting public comments. CTRAPS agrees that this practice is
worthwhile. Some consider it essential. (See the National Environmental Policy Institute's
Enhancing the Quality of Science in the Regulatory Process, 1998 and Enhancing the Integrity
and Transparency of Science in the Regulatory Process, 1996). More recently, EPA has
extensively used Agency funded, contractor-run peer reviews. CTRAPS disagrees that these
Agency funded, contractor-run peer reviews are worthwhile. In particular, these reviews are
poor substitutes for SAB reviews.
119
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Problems remain, even with Agency organized and controlled peer reviews, namely that EPA
controls the selection of the SAB or National Research Council experts who participate, either
directly or indirectly. Other scientists, who EPA does not want on its panels, still have
opportunities to comment on the same scientific support documents, when EPA allows for
public comments. Even so, if a National Research Council or an Agency funded, contractor-run
peer review does not allow for public participation, public observation, and public access to the
documents used in the reviews, external scientists who seek to use the public comment
process will face an impediment.
While EPA controlled peer reviews are worthwhile, limiting external comments to selected, if
highly credentialed, experts seems questionable. So, the Agency should open the review
process to any scientist wishing to comment. To do so effectively, EPA needs to develop better
ways to notify the scientific community. Few scientists read the Federal Register. While
publication there does discharge a legal obligation, the Agency should develop additional
communication channels through widely read scientific journals.
EPA's peer review process has improved since the 1981 Public Participation Policy. Since June
7, 1994, EPA has had a formal Peer Review Policy, by which Administrator Browner required
peer reviews of all scientific work products related to major decisions. In response to
Congressional and General Accounting Office prodding, the Agency has extended peer reviews
of scientific work products to programs that previously did not understand this process or its
desirability. [See General Accounting Office, Federal Advisory Committee Act: Views of
Committee Members and Agencies on Federal Advisory Committee Issues. (GAO/GGD-98-147)
Washington, DC (1998)]. EPA officials less frequently confuse notice and comment with
scientific peer review. The Office of Research and Development (ORD) now provides a
mechanism for Agency-wide coordination, oversight and planning of peer reviews. ORD's
Science Policy Council has generated a Peer Review Handbook, which provides guidance to
Agency officials...
EPA needs to decide whether meetings with external scientific experts for purposes of soliciting
advice (peer reviews) fall within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and
whether FACA meetings improve public participation. If so, the Agency needs to seek reversal
of a Clinton administration policy that limited the number of FACA meetings each year...
Both President Bush and Administrator Whitman have recently called for more emphasis on
sound science in federal regulations and policies. CTRAPS strongly supports this call. [See
Daniel M. Byrd and C. Richard Cothern, Introduction to Risk Analysis: A Systematic Approach to
Science-Based Decision Making. (ISBN 0-86587-696-7) Government Institutes, Dallas, TX
(2000)]. However, for it to succeed, EPA must engage the external scientific community
through the public comment process, apply FACA to meetings with external scientists, and use
normative scientific procedures of peer review and communication. In particular, EPA staff must
explain to President Bush and Administrator Whitman that they need to overturn Clinton
administration policies to improve participation of the external scientific community in peer
reviews...
Response: Comments relating to the use of sound science and peer review are outside of the
scope of the Policy except as noted in the previous response. These comments were shared
with the Science Advisory Board, the EPA Office of Research and Development, and the EPA
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. The Policy's definition of "the public" includes
scientific and professional representatives and societies; as well as research, university,
education, and governmental organizations and associations. As also noted in the Policy's
"Identify the interested and affected public" section, EPA uses mailing lists of interested
members of the public as a means of reaching people and supplementing Federal Register
120
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
notices.
American Chemistry Council:
As a related matter, we believe that EPA must ensure the integrity of the scientific peer review
process as a function that is distinct from stakeholder involvement processes. As the name
suggests, peer review is a process whereby those with technical expertise critique the technical
soundness of scientific analysis and conclusions. While public comments are an established
part of scientific advisory board deliberations, the technical quality of comments and review is
the focus of scientific peer review and should remain so. Council members were disturbed by a
Nov. 1-2, 2000, SAB meeting during which activist stakeholders sought to intimidate dioxin peer
review panelists by taking their photographs and holding up accusatory signs when panelists
tried to speak. While some might characterize this incident as a "mild disturbance" brought on
by a stakeholder group exercising its right to protest, the Council regards it as an inappropriate
attempt to intimidate and disrupt scientists conducting peer review. A sound public involvement
process must ensure that all participants can make their case without intimidation, and a sound
peer review process must ensure that science - not the protest activities of ideologues - is the
final arbiter of whether a scientific conclusion is technically well-founded or not. Whether in a
stakeholder process or a peer review process, basic ground rules of respect for others' rights to
express their views must be observed, and those ground rules should be explicitly articulated in
the Agency's draft policy.
Response: The peer review process is not within the scope of the Policy. EPA, however,
agrees that during any public participation process participants should be able to state their
concerns, views, etc. without intimidation. The Policy supports this position and encourages
EPA staff to develop and use procedures that allow everyone an equal opportunity to participate.
See the above two responses.
Improve Data Quality/Implement New Requirements
National Association Of Home Builders:
In addition, NAHB recommends that EPA endeavor to make data more accessible to the public
at large. For example, EPA should ensure that highly technical data are presented in
understandable form so that the broadest possible public involvement in regulatory decision
making is allowed. Impediments to data access such as the inadequate explanation of
background and technical materials, inadequate meeting summaries, and overwhelming
amounts of reading materials should also be minimized in order to maximize public participation
and reduce frustration in the process.
National Association Of Home Builders:
EPA Must Ensure Data Quality, Access, and Credibility. Data quality, access, and credibility are
the cornerstones of public trust for EPA actions, and no amount of public involvement will
overcome a perception that a given regulation is based on deficient science or faulty technical
analysis. Congress recently enacted a new data quality law that will bolster the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 by adding new data quality requirements on EPA. Under the new data
quality provisions, EPA will be required to promulgate regulations that define data "quality,"
"objectivity," "utility," and "integrity" as well to set thresholds on how information can be used and
disseminated. NAHB believes this new data quality requirement will have a significant impact
on public participation and recommends that EPA takes this upcoming process very seriously.
NAHB believes this will be a significant opportunity to improve regulatory process and instill
121
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
confidence in the credibility of data being used as the foundation of governmental regulation.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees with the commenter's assertion that there is
a relationship between public participation and information quality. EPA recently finalized
Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/. The Guidelines articulate the Agency's policy and
procedural guidance for ensuring quality and hearing from the public about the quality of
information disseminated by EPA.
10. FUNCTION (NOW STEP) 6. REVIEW AND USE INPUT, AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK
TO THE PUBLIC
WEIGHT GIVEN TO STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Public Should be Equal Stakeholder in Decisions
ACES. Inc.:
The importance of including the public as an equal stockholder in discussing environmental
matters is not only fundamentally sound, but vital to obtaining satisfactory and common-sense
solutions.
CLEANUP:
The only technique we would recommend to create public involvement in agency decisions is; to
treat concerned citizens with as much respect and interest as EPA gives a polluting entity.
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators:
Some stakeholder groups may not reflect the interests of the public at large. Their agendas for
change may advocate a much narrower perspective. The Federal program for public
involvement seems to provide these groups with a disproportionate voice in the development of
new regulations.
Environmental Defense:
The Agency needs to ensure that it pays equal attention to all comments, and not to let only the
loudest or best connected interests guide its decisions.
Response to above four comments: EPA agrees that public input is vitally important to good
decision making, and the Policy supports fairness and equal access. The "What Are the
Purposes, Goals and Objectives of This Policy" section of the Policy states: "foster, to the
extent possible, equal and open access to the regulatory process for all interested and affected
parties" and strive to: identify, communicate with and listen to aii affected sectors of the
public (Agency officials should plan and conduct public involvement activities that provide
equal opportunity for all individuals and groups to be heard". One overarching goal of the Policy
is: "To foster a spirit of mutual trust, confidence, and openness between the Agency and the
public." EPA intends to reinforce this issue in public involvement training for EPA staff.
Give Greater Weight to State Input
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators:
ASDWA recommends that the proposed policy expand on the definition of "public" to reflect the
122
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
unique role of state governments and to correct the missperception that state input into the
regulatory decision making process carries no greater weight or value than other interested
parties.
Response: EPA agrees that the Policy needs to clarify the role of state governments and their
input into the regulatory decision-making process. See new language in "What are the Roles of
States, Tribes and Local Governments?" This section states: "State agencies, tribes and
some local governments have unique roles regarding EPA's programs and decisions:
1. State agencies, tribes and some local governments may be co-regulators with EPA. In
some cases, they implement authorized, approved or delegated Federal programs. In
other cases, they run independent, but closely related programs. In both cases they
work closely with EPA as regulatory partners. In addition, they may have expertise that
can be valuable to EPA in designing public involvement activities.
2. State agencies, tribes and local governments also may be regulated parties when they
undertake activities that are subject to Federal laws and regulations. As regulated
parties, they are also members of the community of regulated stakeholders.
3. Whether they are partners helping EPA implement a program or members of the
regulated community affected by EPA regulations, state agencies, tribes and local
governments often play an active role in making recommendations on policy, rules,
plans and recommendations under development, and providing input on EPA's
decisions."
Give Greater Weight to Environmental and Public Health Advocates' Input
Golden Gate University. Environmental Law and Justice Clinic:
Therefore it would seem that those members of the public that are advocating on behalf of the
environment and public health concerns, should receive increased deference, even as the EPA
"remain[s] open to all points of view."
Response: EPA disagrees. The Policy promotes equal access and opportunity for
involvement. For instance, in the "What Are the Purposes, Goals and Objectives of the Policy?"
section, the Policy states:"foster, to the extent possible, equal and open access to the
regulatory process for all interested and affected parties " and strive to: identify, communicate
with and listen to all affected sectors of the public (Agency officials should plan and
conduct public involvement activities that provide equal opportunity for all individuals and groups
to be heard".
Give Appropriate Weight to Trade Associations' Input
Idaho Cattle Association:
The Agency should give appropriate weight to comments from trade associations like ICA and
NCBA that represent affected individuals.
Response: EPA agrees that all comments should be given appropriate consideration.
However, EPA does not believe that more weight should be given to comments of particular
groups.
FEEDBACK TO PARTICIPANTS
Explain EPA's Final Decisions to Commenters
Los Anaeles County Sanitation District
123
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
In particular we believe that a follow-up conference call should be scheduled by the staff or EPA
consultants in the situation where detailed comment letters have been prepared. During this
conference call, EPA should state the issue as they believe it is framed in the comment letter
and then describe the agency's logic in developing decisions, explaining the effect the
comments had on the Agency's decision and why the Agency either accepted, or rejected all or
part of the proposal or position.
Response: Because of the volume of comments that EPA generally receives on its proposals,
EPA does not respond to each one individually. However, the suggestion to consider follow-up
with those providing detailed comments can be included as a recommendation in EPA's best
practices data base and public involvement training. See new language in the Policy's "Conduct
public consultation and involvement activities" section (new language in bold italics): "Agency
officials should clearly identify the issues for discussion, negotiation or decision prior to and
during a public involvement process, so that participants understand on which issues
they should comment EPA officials should describe clearly the type of public
involvement process planned, the schedule, EPA's expectations for the outcomes of the
process and the timing and type of feedback that EPA will provide. If possible, the public
should be involved in determining the design of the processes."
U.S. Department of Interior. Office of Surface Mining:
On page 82338 of the draft document, EPA lists six basic functions for effective public
involvement in any decision or activity, including the need to "assimilate information and provide
feedback to the public." Then, on page 82343, EPA describes the key elements of good agency
summaries of public participation. Elsewhere in the document, EPA refers to the importance of
sound agency analyses. EPA may want to consider linking references to sound analytical
methods with the importance of using good science in evaluating information and providing
feedback to the public. Such an approach helps to validate agency determinations about the
effect of a proposed action on public health or environmental quality.
Response: EPA appreciates this suggestion. See new language in the Policy's "Review and
use input, and provide feedback to the public" section (new language in bold italics): "Gathering
and using public viewpoints and preferences involves examining and analyzing public input in
relation to scientific and other information relevant to the decision, considering if and how
to incorporate that input into final program decisions, and carefully considering public views
when making or modifying decisions."
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators:
Later, EPA should get back to the community (both people who solicited comments and the
public at large) explaining how the public comments affected the policy or project and how it is
helping to improve the (local) environment. The feedback should be widely accessible (via
newspapers, radio, letters) and easy to understand, and can also include action items and
meeting minutes. If it is clear that the public's feedback is having a real impact, the community
will be more likely to continue to participate in other environmental activities.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should explain how the public's input affected its
decision. In the "Review and use input, and provide feedback to the public" section, see new
language (in bold italics):"Agency officials should briefly and clearly document consideration of
the public's views in responsiveness summaries, regulatory preambles, environmental impact
statements or other appropriate documents. This should occur at key decision points."
Following this section are a number of specific actions that should be included in any responses.
EPA will strive to include the additional suggestions in the comment in public involvement
124
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
training and a best practices data base for EPA staff.
California Department of Toxic Substance Control:
One of the most challenging areas in the public involvement is including public input into the final
decision by agency staff. It is valuable when the public understands the weight that public
comment has on agency decisions, and we encourage efforts to make response to comments
documents a useful communications tool with our communities, clearly demonstrating where
public comment had (or did not have) an impact on a decision.
Response: EPA agrees that response to comments documents should be useful
communication tools that describe the effects of the comments on the decision. The Policy
supports these ideas in the section, "Review and use input, and provide feedback to the public"
which describes information that should be contained in Responsiveness Summaries and other
feedback documents. EPA will strive to include discussions on providing feedback in public
involvement training for EPA staff.
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
...this section is very important to successful continuing public participation. In most cases, the
public hearing process is a bureaucratic affair, with the purpose only to get the miscellany of
comments on record according to the statutory requirements with responses, if any, coming
well after the fact. As this section recognizes, it is important that the agency address the public's
comments directly, explaining the agency's logic, explaining how the decision was reached,
what role the public comments played, and why public comments and suggestions were
rejected, if indeed they were. Yet it should be clear that assimilating information and providing
feedback is not merely an exercise in drafting excuses. The feedback should be honest, clear,
and subject to review. More to the point, however, the process should be flexible enough to allow
the public to participate in more collaborative decision making.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should address the public's comments directly and
provide clear feedback about how the decision was made. EPA also agrees that providing
feedback should not be an "exercise in drafting excuses." In certain cases, as mentioned in the
section on "Conduct public consultation and involvement," collaborative decision making is
appropriate and effective. EPA will strive to include the above ideas in public involvement
training for EPA staff.
International Association for Public Participation:
Decision makers should distinguish between agreement with comments from the public and
demonstrating an understanding. Feedback that merely says "we don't agree" is not as
accountable as feedback that demonstrates an understanding of the person's advice with an
explanation of why it was not incorporated.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency's responses should explain why comments were or
were not incorporated in the decision. In the "Review and use input, and provide feedback to the
public" section, see new language:""Agency officials should briefly and clearly document
consideration of the public's views in responsiveness summaries, regulatory preambles,
environmental impact statements or other appropriate documents. This should occur at
key decision points." Following this section are a number of specific actions that should be
included in any responses.
Provide Feedback to Participants
125
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. Environment Division:
Other actions that can be imperative in public participation are providing timely feedback to the
public. The public can become frustrated when agencies don't get back to them when they've
participated in a specific project, study, or have provided comments to a document. Therefore,
giving back to the community in terms of study results or results of comments they've provided
is a way to keep the public involved in the future.
Response: EPA agrees that informing participants about the feedback process and providing
feedback is important. The Policy suggests in the "Conduct public consultation and involvement
activities" section: "Agency officials should clearly identify the issues for discussion,
negotiation or decision prior to and during a public involvement process, so that
participants understand on which issues they should comment EPA officials should
describe clearly the type of public involvement process planned, the schedule, EPA's
expectations for the outcomes of the process and the timing and type of feedback that EPA
will provide. Also see previous response.
University of Michigan - Dearborn. Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory:
Many [Dialogue] participants agreed on the need for continuous feedback and continuous
attention to feedback. There seemed to be implicit agreement that EPA needs to pay attention to
feedback early in any decision making process, and at least fine-tune goals accordingly.
International Association for Public Participation:
We applaud your call for accountability in Function Six to " information and provide feedback to
the public." As mentioned above, this should be done throughout the policy process and not just
at the end.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees in principle with the benefits of providing
continuous feedback throughout a decision-making process. However, EPA's resource
constraints frequently do not allow for this to occur. EPA will seek to include in public
involvement training for EPA staff the need to address the public's interest in receiving more
frequent feedback.
Citizen #61:
This [Recommended Actions (a) under 6. Assimilate information and provide feedback to the
public] is an excellent proposal which state cooperators have been promised many times in the
past but have never seen in practice even when MOA's, etc. have been signed by both parties.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The EPA Public Involvement Policy, public
involvement training and the best practices data base for EPA staff will provide guidance, training
and information that will make it easier for EPA staff to give the public feedback. This comment
was shared with EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Los Angeles County Sanitation District:
LACSD's experience is that EPA's embracing of this goal merits improvement and we welcome
the listing of this important outreach program element. We have two significant general
comments.
LACSD often provides detailed written comments on proposed EPA rulemaking, draft policies
and guidance documents. Many times these are lengthy letters and represent a composite of
the viewpoints from both the wastewater and solid waste management sides of our organization
as well as inputs, at times, from our sister agencies. All of the time however, these comment
126
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
letters represent a substantial investment of LACSD staff and Board time because the issues
are significant to the ratepayers we serve. For the most part, we do not receive
acknowledgment of the receipt of these comments from EPA and most importantly, there is no
indication that the contents have been read and understood. While we would like to think that
our comment letters are so well written that they require no additional discussion or clarification,
in reality we think that this is not always the case and that indeed there are misconceptions and
misunderstandings over what is being said.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. Due to time and resource constraints, EPA
typically does not send an acknowledgment of receipt of comments, although some programs
offer it to commenters who request it. EPA will strive to include suggestions regarding
contacting commenters for additional discussion or clarification in public involvement training
materials and a best practices data base for EPA staff.
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
In addition, regular e-mails, personal letters and a detailed, written Responsiveness Summary
should be prepared. These steps allow a commenter to see that it was heard. Unfortunately,
the sense of what occurs at EPA during rulemaking, in particular, is that all information goes into
a "black hole" so to speak and little or no information seeps out.
Response: EPA agrees that detailed Responsiveness Summaries are important. They are
prepared routinely. However, because of the volume of comments that EPA generally receives,
EPA does not have the time or resources to correspond with commenters during its
deliberations.
Describe all Sources that Influenced Decision
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
[applaud EPA's commitment to] providing a clear explanation of its ultimate decision once those
comments are processed... However, we believe that the EPA should go even farther in detailing
the reasons for and influences on its decision-making process. In particular, we urge the EPA to
include informal comments, conversations and meetings with members of the public, industry
representatives, outside consultants and permit applicants in its accounting of the influences on
and reasons for its final decision.
...want to stress that the EPA should be sure that any explanation of its decisions include an
accounting of informal comments or contacts that influenced the outcome, particularly contacts
with the regulated community or permit applicant. Failure to do so will create a serious
credibility problem. By explaining the relative importance of this informal, pre-comment
information, the EPA could minimize such problematic perceptions. Thus, if the agency relied
most heavily on technical data supplied by a permit applicant or on information that it found
independently, its explanation of its decision should include a detailed account of these
influences/bases for decision.
Response: It is a long-standing policy of EPA to include in the public record new information or
data that are likely to affect the decision. This policy was stated in a 1993 memorandum from
the EPA Administrator to all employees requesting that "A brief memorandum summarizing any
significant new data or information likely to affect the final decision that is received during a
meeting or other conversation is placed in the public record." EPA intends to emphasize this
127
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
policy through public involvement training for EPA staff.
Explain Background Issues in Responsiveness Summary
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:
In the Policy, on FR page 82343, 1st column, (regarding assimilating information and providing
feedback to the public), subitem a, "Recommended actions", there is a list of things EPA should
report to the public in a [public participation] responsiveness summary. The MPCA believes that
this list should include a proactive statement of "what action the EPA initially proposed and why
EPA determined such an action was needed." Just stating what action was taken and public
involvement does not allow readers to adequately understand the scope of influence derived
from public involvement.
Response: In the "Review and use input, and provide feedback to the public" section, see
new language for the content of responsiveness summaries:"Describe briefly the action that
EPA initiaiiy proposed and why EPA determined such an action was needed." Also note
in preceding paragraphs:"The Agency should demonstrate, in its decisions and actions, that it
has understood and fully considered public concerns. Finally, the Agency should communicate
the decision to the public and discuss how the public's input influenced the final decision."
Respond to All Comments
Maryland Department of the Environment. Technical and Regulatory Services Administration:
However, we have found, and we suggest to EPA, that the key to the effectiveness of a public
involvement strategy is to be most proactive in letting the public know that their comments have
been considered, even if the Agency did not agree. MDE often provides detailed comment
response documents, addressing comments point-by- point, and we have found this to be very
helpful. The Department does synthesize similar questions, but often attempts to address all of
the comments that have been made. When feasible, we suggest that EPA attempt to do the
same, particularly with respect to technical comments provided by States and co-regulators.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Water SuppIv Section:
At the State level, we are required to address every comment made during the public comment
period (written and oral), in a responsiveness summary that is presented with the final rule to the
commission that approves the drinking water rules. The summary is also sent to every
individual that made the effort to comment. The federal government needs to also present such
a summary to those who comment on their rules and policies. We realize that a summary is
presented in the preamble of the final rules, but it does not always either satisfactorily address
comments that have been made, or address all of the comments that have been made.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees in principle that the Agency ideally should
respond substantively to all significant issues addressed in the comments. However, EPA is not
required to draft an individual response to every comment, nor are such responses necessary to
enable the public, including the commenters, to identify the issues that were considered and
EPA's resolution of those issues in making its ultimate decision. In some instances, EPA has
responded to all comments in a Response to Comments document. Usually, however, EPA
summarizes or categorizes the comments as mentioned in the Policy. How EPA responds to
comments may differ due to the requirements of a particular statute, the applicable regulations
or the needs of the program office. In the "Review and use input, and provide feedback to the
public" section, see "Agency officials should briefly and clearly document consideration of the
128
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
public's views in responsiveness summaries, regulatory preambles, environmental impact
statements or other appropriate documents. This should occur at key decision points." Also
see new language "The Agency should demonstrate, in its decisions and actions, that it
has understood and fully considered public concerns. Finally, the Agency should
communicate the decision to the public and discuss how the public's input influenced
the final decision." Following this section is a list of specific actions that should be included in
any responses.
Describe How EPA Will Integrate Public Input in Decisions
Kansas Department of Agriculture:
The draft policy omits how EPA plans to integrate public input in decision making. The draft
seems to pay mere lip service to the integration issue- the issue determined by the Common
Sense Initiative Council's Stakeholder Involvement Workgroup to be the area of greatest need. In
1998, the workgroup presented its report to EPA and recommended in part, "EPA stakeholder
involvement needs to be clearly linked to decision making not simply an end in itself." The draft
policy makes only a veiled reference to the integration concept by stating that the sixth step in
effective public involvement is "assimilating information." In other words, the draft talks about
what EPA needs to do, but not how EPA plans to integrate public input in the decision making
process.
Response: EPA disagrees that considerable additional details regarding how to integrate public
input should be added to the Policy. See above response.
Public Input Should Affect EPA's Decisions
Citizens #13-15. 17. 18. 20-22. 28. 31. 33. 36-38. 40-43. 46. 48-50. 53. 54. 57 (same comment
provided bv 25 citizens)
I want a public involvement policy that will recognize and respect public's knowledge... The
public's contribution should influence the decision.
Response: EPA appreciates this comment. The EPA Public Involvement Policy supports the
ideas of recognizing and respecting the knowledge that the public can provide, and allowing the
public's input to influence the decision: "The Agency should demonstrate, in its decisions
and actions, that it has understood and fully considered public concerns. Finally, the
Agency should communicate the decision to the public and discuss how the public's
input influenced the final decision." EPA will strive to reinforce these issues through public
involvement training for EPA staff.
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators:
Frequently, the perception exists that submitting comments rarely results in change.
Response: EPA appreciates this comment. EPA expects that when the Public Involvement
Policy is implemented, that perception will be reduced.
Environmental Defense:
People will only be willing to continue participating in Agency decisions if they believe that their
ideas are seriously being considered and can have an effect on the outcome.
129
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. Enforcement Subcommittee:
Kudos to the workgroup for recognizing the importance of "assimilation of input" [p. 4] - what
must be emphasized is that public participation does not stop at outreach and risk
communication. This is one-way communication. True participation requires that residents'
knowledge and concerns influence the Agency's decisions. If they don't feel they're being heard,
the public will cease participating.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should provide feedback
that allows people to know that their input is considered and used in EPA's decisions. In step 6,
the Public Involvement Policy supports these ideas: "The Agency should demonstrate, in its
decisions and actions, that it has understood and fully considered public concerns.
Finally, the Agency should communicate the decision to the public and discuss how the
public's input influenced the final decision." EPA will strive to reinforce these issues
through public involvement training for EPA staff.
Golden Gate University. Environmental Law and Justice Clinic:
To foster continued involvement in the public participation process, it is crucial for members of
the public to know that the contributions they offer actually make a difference. It is not enough to
give citizens a forum to air their grievances, if ultimately their input is not accounted for. The
Draft Policy addresses this in section 6, under the heading of What Should EPA do to Ensure
Full and Meaningful Public Involvement? It suggests, "[the Agency should demonstrate in its
decision and its actions, that is has understood and fully considered public concerns,"
and..."should communicate the decision and discuss the influence of the public's input in the
final decision." It goes on to detail a series of recommendations that if adopted, would effectively
inform the public of how their input played into the decision. Nonetheless, there is
still an issue as to how heavily the public's influence is actually weighed in the decision making
process. Presumably this balancing would occur on a case by case basis, however there are
some general concepts that would be helpful to consider. [EJ considerations follow]
Response: See new language in the Policy's "Review and use input, and provide feedback to
the public" section, which replaces the Assimilating information language. "Gathering and
using public viewpoints and preferences involves examining and analyzing public input in
relation to scientific and other information relevant to the decision, considering if and how
to incorporate that input into final program decisions, and carefully considering public views
when making or modifying decisions. For each decision, EPA officials should attempt to
find a balance that enables the Agency to consider both relevant scientific and other
information and expressed public values in determining how best to protect the public's
health and the environment. The Agency should demonstrate, in its decisions and
actions, that it has understood and fully considered public concerns. Finally, the Agency
should communicate the decision to the public and discuss how the public's input
influenced the final decision." Following this section are a number of specific actions that
should be included in any responses to commenters which should provide ample explanation.
EPA agrees that the Agency should balance the public's input along with technical and other
considerations on a case-by-case basis.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Water Supply Section:
There is a perception from the public on State rules and policies, and from the State on federal
rules and policies, that there is no point in commenting, because their comments will not result
130
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
in any change - so why make the effort.
Response: EPA appreciates this comment. EPA expects that when the Public Involvement
Policy is implemented, that perception will be reduced.
National Association Of Home Builders:
While NAHB generally supports the goals and objectives EPA has laid out in its proposal, such
as fostering a spirit of mutual trust and ensuring agency consultation with the public, NAHB
seriously doubts the policy will ensure that all interested parties have a meaningful opportunity to
participate in EPA decisions. In fact, NAHB routinely finds that its public comments, suggestions,
and preferences are not addressed or are ignored in EPA final publications and_actions. For
instance, while NAHB submitted over 80 pages of comments on EPA's draft Phase II storm
water rule, we could find scant evidence that our concerns were considered at all in the final
rule.
Citizen #60:
The community wants to feel that their participation bears fruit -that you truly do listen and that
there is a positive result because of our input. This is POWER. If people don't see that
participation, commenting, protesting, etc., yield some result, they won't become involved, or
they will stop whatever involvement they have had. If there's nothing to show for their effort, they
won't come back. You have a group here I see all around. They may be losing hope. They
must feel they can make a difference. They won't bother if you keep asking for input but then
you don't listen or go on with business as usual.
Response to above two comments: EPA appreciates this comment. EPA expects that when
the Public Involvement Policy is implemented, dissatisfaction with the Agency's decision-making
and feedback processes should be reduced. EPA will strive to address these issues in public
involvement training for EPA staff.
Columbia River Crab Fishermen's Association:
The EPA needs to be responsive to public input if public trust is ever to be accomplished.
Responsiveness to public input should not be driven by threat of lawsuit.
Response: EPA agrees that it is important to be responsive to public input, and the Policy
reflects this issue in its sections on "Purposes, goals and objectives" and "Review and use
input, and provide feedback to the public."
Share Decision Making with Stakeholders
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators:
We've learned that real public engagement is not just a matter of more meetings or hearings, but
of creating a climate in which the public feels its views are respected. To that end, we urge the
Agency to maintain an open process for feedback and a willingness to share decision making
with stakeholders.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should use transparent decision-making processes
that help build trust and mutual respect. However, the ultimate responsibility for decisions rests
with the Agency.
See revised language in the "Introduction" section of the Policy (new language in bold italics):
"EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment To achieve that
mission, EPA needs to integrate, in a meaningful way, the knowledge and opinions of
others into its decision-making processes. Effective public involvement can both
improve the content of the Agency's decisions and enhance the deliberative process."
131
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
See also the revised language in step 6, Review and use input, and provide feedback to the
public.
Include and Consider all Sectors of the Economy in EPA's Decisions
American Chemistry Council:
Importance of All Affected Sectors of the Economy
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman recently noted that EPA decisions never occur in a
vacuum; they affect the nation's agriculture, trade, defense, energy, transportation, urban
development, and other interests. These "stakeholder" interests need to be a key part of the
Agency's deliberations, and as appropriate the Agency should seek to understand the impacts of
its decisions on these sectors.
Response: EPA agrees that all stakeholders, including those representing affected sectors of
the economy, should have the opportunity to provide input into EPA's decision-making process
so that EPA decision makers can understand the impact the decision may have on all
stakeholders.
11. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY
Draft Policy's Description of EPA Management Responsibilities-Statements in Support
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services:
A section of EPA's policy that is particularly notable, located on page 82343, is the one entitled
"Who is responsible for ensuring that the draft policy is applied appropriately?" One can
conclude that such assignment of responsibility, set forth in substantial hierarchical detail, will
help facilitate the policy's successful implementation.
Response: EPA agrees that the Policy's assignment of responsibilities should facilitate
successful implementation.
Delaware Nature Society:
Accountability is crucial for effective policy implementation. Identifying officials specifically
responsible for carrying out the public involvement policies ensures its success.
Response: EPA agrees that the identification of the officials responsible for carrying out the
Policy should facilitate successful implementation.
Specify Project Managers' Public Involvement Responsibilities
City of Phoenix. Arizona. Office of Environmental Programs:
The mandate to implement this Policy needs to be at the Project Manager or Section Chief level,
as well as the Administrator or Assistant/Associate Administrator levels. While the Policy
indicates that managers "should" ensure that personnel are trained and that adequate public
involvement funding needs are addressed (Page 82343), there are no specific instructions or
plan on how that will be done, nor is there a requirement to develop instructions for a plan. While
132
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
upper management can "consider resources" to ensure Policy implementation in performance
standards, they are not required to ensure that resources are available. The Policy should
specify what Project Managers are required to do with respect to public involvement and also
specify that this critical duty will be in staff performance standards.
Response: This Public Involvement Policy is a guidance document for EPA, not a rule and,
therefore, contains no requirements. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public
Involvement Policy, released concurrently with this Policy, lists specific actions EPA intends to
take to carry out the Policy. Please see http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf for
this document. Regarding responsibilities below the senior.EPA levels, see new language in the
"Who manages the application of this Policy? section of the Policy: "Managers should
encourage and facilitate the proper training, support and counseling of staff, and,
recognizing overall budgetary constraints, should plan for and provide adequate funding
for training or other needs in their specific budgets." Also see in Appendix 1 Guidance:
"Deputy Administrators, Deputy Regional Administrators, Office and Division Directors
and other appropriate supervisors: Ensure that they adequately support and recognize
the public involvement efforts of their staff."
EPA Administrator Should Ensure Adequate Public Involvement Resources and Staffing
Levels
Washington State Department of Ecology. Toxics Cleanup Program:
In the list of Administrator responsibilities in columns 2 and 3, the addition of ensuring adequate
staffing levels is critical.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Water Supply Section:
Page 82343: Item 1: "..the Administrator will:" Comment: We suggest a fourth item, "d. dedicate
resources to this effort" be added to this list. Without resource commitment from the top
administration, it will be difficult to implement any of these ideas.
Response to above two comments: EPA agrees that adequate staffing and resources are
critical to successful implementation of the Policy. See new language in the "Plan and budget
for public involvement activities" section (new language in bold italics): "When preparing budget
and planning documents for regulatory and non-regulatory programs, Agency officials should
make provision for resources and staff time dedicated to public involvement activities;
time for conducting and evaluating public involvement activities; and staff and resources to
provide technical assistance to the involved public where appropriate (see the Policy's
Step 3, "Consider providing technical or financial assistance to the public")."
EPA Managers Must Support and Invest in Public Involvement
International Association for Public Participation:
The policy acknowledges heavy reliance on "the sound use of discretion by Agency officials."
Discretion is certainly called for, but it is not sufficient. Desire for good public process must be
accompanied by training, mentoring, an explicit reward system, and resources for outside
consultation. Too few decision makers or project managers are experts in public participation.
133
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Just as they would not hesitate to obtain outside assistance with legal, financial or scientific
questions, the EPA culture must also support excellence and investment in public process.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should support and invest in effective public
involvement processes. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy
released concurrently with this Policy lists specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the
Policy, including training, mentoring, rewards, and contractor resources. Please see
http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf for this document.
Rutgers University. Cook College. Center for Environmental Communication:
EPA will need to institutionalize public involvement. For PI to succeed it needs to be
incorporated into agency activities, as opposed to implemented largely by a few PI "experts."
This will require a great deal of commitment, including funding support, of senior agency
administrators.
Response: EPA agrees that public involvement should be an integral part of agency activities,
and that EPA should to provide funding support for effective public involvement activities. The
Policy supports this suggestion in the section on "Who manages the application of this Policy?"
that states the leadership of EPA will be: "Encouraging effective public involvement by
providing their staff and managers guidance, technical assistance, resources, training
and incentives, as appropriate."
EPA Management Must Adopt the Policy and Ensure that Staff Implement It
Citizen #62:
I encourage top EPA administrators and management to adopt it [the Policy} and ensure that all
EPA staff follow its tenets, especially those on projects which ADEQ and EPA work closely.
Response: The Policy contains guidelines that should be used by all EPA managers and staff.
EPA appreciates this comment, and has released its Framework for Implementing EPA's Public
Involvement Policy that lists specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the Policy, including
training and evaluation. Please see http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdfforthis
document.
Integrate Public Involvement in All Programs
American Chemistry Council:
With respect to the question, "Who is responsible for ensuring this draft policy is applied
appropriately?" the Council strongly endorses the position that public involvement is an integral
part of any program and should not be treated as a separate or subordinate function.
Response: EPA agrees that public involvement should be an integral part of the Agency's
programs and so states in the Introduction of the Policy: "EPA's mission is to protect human
health and the environment To achieve that mission, EPA needs to integrate, in a
meaningful way, the knowledge and opinions of others into its decision-making
processes. Effective public involvement can both improve the content of the Agency's
decisions and enhance the deliberative process." and in the section noted in your comment:
"Public involvement should be an integral part of any Agency program, routinely
included in decision making processes."
National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. Enforcement Subcommittee:
There is the Agency-wide issue of coordination across agency offices/divisions/programs, with
134
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
some workgroups integrally involved in the charge for greater participation, and others
completely unaware of Executive Order 12898 or of the Agency's public participation policy.
Involving individuals from the major EPA program offices and regions is a good first step [as
you've done]. It seems key to continue "spreading the word" about the role and methods of
inclusion to familiarize EPA employees with your recommendations.
Response: EPA agrees that the Agency should continuously "spread the word" about effective
public involvement when implementing the Policy. Internal communication, training and sharing
best practices that support the Policy are part of the Framework for Implementing EPA's Public
Involvement Policy released concurrently with this Policy. Please see
http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf for this document.
Draft Policy Contains Too Much Redundant Administrative Reviews and Requirements
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Water Resource Management:
The draft Policy provides a perception that the process as a whole is "top heavy" in
administrative review and requirements. There are too many responsibilities and layers of
administrative review required throughout the document. In addition, to the extent certain
responsibilities and review are necessary, they are repeated throughout the document. Overall,
this redundancy makes it difficult to clearly see the exact requirements and reviews that are
essential for implementing an effective public review.
Response: This Public Involvement Policy is not a rule, and therefore does not contain any
requirements. While it contains numerous recommendations for conducting public involvement
activities, none are required. EPA has restructured the Policy to include details on
recommended responsibilities in the Appendix 1 Guidance.
Implement the Policy
Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition:
This Policy needs to be held up as the way everyone who works for the EPA will treat the public.
It must be consistently implemented, conducted and enforced throughout the Agency, starting
with the Administrator.
There is a high level of emphasis on creating opportunities for public input in this Policy. That
needs to be maintained within the Agency.
Above all, this Policy should not be used as patronization of the public. It has to be the "must-
read" document for all Agency employees and the "gospel" for Agency management.
Response: EPA appreciates this comment. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public
Involvement Policy released concurrently with this Policy includes training, sharing of public
involvement information among EPA staff, and evaluation of EPA public involvement activities.
Please see http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdffor this document.
National Association Of Home Builders:
EPA's public outreach and involvement efforts are not merely some beneficial service that EPA
is offering to the public. Rather, this movement is being compelled by a host of Congressional
mandates and Executive Orders that stem from deep-seated public frustration over the
deficiencies of EPA's public involvement process. Appendix I of the Draft Public Involvement
Policy contains the extensive list of the Laws, Executive Orders, and Presidential Memoranda
which require EPA to conduct public involvement activities. EPA should recognize that these
mandates are driven by public frustration over the ineffectiveness and lack of implementation of
135
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
EPA's prior policy, and the list will continue to grow unless serious attention is paid to EPA's
public involvement efforts.
Response: EPA takes seriously the public involvement requirements set forth in applicable
statutes, Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda. EPA is committed to providing earlier
and more meaningful opportunities for public involvement than are required statutorily. EPA
believes that the revised Policy will further strengthen EPA's longstanding commitment to
involving the public and will improve the consistency and quality of EPA's already extensive
public involvement activities. The commenter misunderstood the content of Appendix I of the
Draft Policy. Appendix I did not list statutes, Executive Orders, and Presidential Memoranda that
contain public involvement requirements, rather it attempted to list all authorities under which
EPA acts.
National Association Of Home Builders:
NAHB suggests that EPA's new Public Involvement Policy will not be effective if it is simply the
documented theories of an agency working group. It must translate into the practical opportunity
for the public to influence agency decision making in a real sense. EPA should.ensure that its
new policy is fully and efficiently implemented to achieve maximum effectiveness.
Response: EPA appreciates this comment. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public
Involvement Policy released concurrently with this Policy lists specific actions EPA intends to
take to carry out the Policy, including training, sharing of public involvement information among
EPA staff, and evaluation of EPA public involvement activities. Please see
http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf for this document.
Skeptical that EPA Will Implement the Policy
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
And finally, we see nothing particularly compelling in the Policy to provide the hope that the
Policy will result in more meaningful involvement of the public. The Policy, in all the right words,
suggests how things should work better while providing no guarantees that the climate of the
more common decision making approach of "decide, announce and defend" can be changed...
The purposes, goals and objectives listed in the proposed Policy reflect this dual importance, yet
the Sierra Club is somewhat skeptical that the proposed Policy will meet the stated objectives.
Response: The Policy is a guidance document for EPA, not a rule and therefore does not
contain requirements. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy
released concurrently with this Policy lists specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the
Policy, including training, sharing of public involvement information among EPA staff, and
evaluation of EPA public involvement activities. Please see
http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf for this document.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
Generally the Draft Public Involvement Policy is sound; however, because the policy "is not
legally enforceable," its impact is completely dependent on the seriousness of an ongoing strong
commitment and effort by EPA. Will EPA, at all levels, embrace the policy and the philosophy
within it? That will be a real measure of the success of this effort.
National Association Of Home Builders:
EPA's Public Involvement Policy Has Not Translated Into Public Satisfaction. EPA is proposing
to replace its "five basic functions" of the 1981 Public Participation Policy with a new "six basic
136
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
function" process outlined in the Draft Public Involvement Policy. NAHB does not so much
question the validity of the proposed process, but is rather concerned with its implementation.
Given the fact that EPA's prior 1981 policy was never fully implemented or consistently followed,
NAHB is concerned the new policy will suffer the same fate and be equally ineffectual. This will
only lead to further public dissatisfaction with EPA's public involvement efforts.
New York City Environmental Justice Alliance:
As is the case with the other potentially positive measures enumerated in the draft policy, any
efforts to bolster participation by those in traditionally under served communities will only be
successful if they are fully implemented by agency staff, across the board. Thus, while the
stated goals and proposed measures set forth in the draft are certainly encouraging, it is the
implementation of those goals and measures that will truly determine the success of the new
policy.
Response to above three comments: EPA appreciates the comments. The Framework for
Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released concurrently with this Policy lists
specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the Policy, including training, sharing of public
involvement information among EPA staff, and evaluation of EPA public involvement activities.
Please see http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf for this document.
Create Accountability/Performance Evaluation System for EPA Employees' Public
Involvement Efforts
Citizens for Responsible Water Management:
Occasional critiques by peers at each level might help those few [EPA staff] whose bias or
intolerance is visible.
Response: EPA appreciates this comment. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public
Involvement Policy lists specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the Policy, including
human resource systems of reward and personnel performance standards and assessment.
Please see http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf for this document.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Earth Island Institute:
Compliance with the draft Policy [should] be assessed as a line item in annual performance
appraisals of staff and management. In addition to any other strategies under consideration by
the Public Involvement Policy Implementation Workgroup, PETA and EEI believe it is critical
that annual performance appraisals specifically evaluate staff and management's compliance
with the Public Involvement Policy. EPA management must demonstrate a serious
commitment to implementing this policy; otherwise, it will remain only words on paper.
Rutgers University. Cook College. Center for Environmental Communication:
Other organizational changes will also be required. For example, the agency will need to
incorporate public involvement skills and experience into job descriptions and evaluations of
program staff.
Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition:
Our concern is that it is not going to be made a rule of conduct, but merely a suggestion of
behavior. In order for this policy to work, the Agency must enforce it and develop
consequences for employees who do not follow it.
137
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Children's Environmental Health Network:
Additionally, a key consideration not discussed in the policy is in its enforcement. The Network
urges the Agency to describe how, or if, officials who do not do an adequate job following this
guidance will be sanctioned. What is their incentive to follow both the letter and spirit of this
policy?
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
The EPA notes that the Draft Policy is applicable to most decisions made by the agency, but
that "[agency officials must have the flexibility to determine appropriate public involvement, and
will be accountable for those decisions." Draft Policy, 65 Fed. Reg. at 82338. However, the
EPA also states that "[the Draft Policy is not a rule, is not legally enforceable, and does not
confer legal rights or impose legal obligations upon any member of the public, EPA or any other
agency." Id. Given these limits on enforceability, the GLC and the MEJC are concerned that
agency officials will not be held accountable for their decisions in applying this Policy.
Response to above five comments: EPA appreciates these comments. The Framework
for Implementing EPA Public Involvement Policy released concurrently with the final Policy lists
actions EPA intends to take to carry out the Policy. The "Evaluation and Accountability" section
of the Framework adopts a five-year framework with a list of public involvement activities
expected to be performed by staff and managers. Please see
http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf for the Framework.
International Association for Public Participation:
While we understand why you included a statement that the Policy is not legally enforceable,
we also understand why this statement raises a red flag for many members of the public. One
mechanism we endorse is to include public participation as a requirement for all EPA work
plans and decision makers, not just the responsibility of a community relations staff, and that
performance in the realm of public participation be an explicit part of project management and
senior management performance/salary evaluations. As long as implementation of the Policy
is seen as someone else's responsibility, the actual decision makers will be less likely to
embrace it. Its inclusion can also mitigate political pressure that could contravene a public
process.
Response: The Public Involvement Policy and Framework for Implementing EPA Public
Involvement Policy provide guidance for all who work at EPA, not just the "community relations
staff' of the Superfund program. Also see above response.
National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. Enforcement Subcommittee:
Differences between a recommendation and a requirement - the former does not have any
teeth in terms of holding Agency employees to any minimal standards of participation. Again,
this is an Agency-wide question, but has the workgroup thought about ways the EPA could hold
industry, risk assessors, and other stakeholders accountable for including the public in a
meaningful way?
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. However, the Policy applies only to EPA. EPA
cannot impose requirements on industry, risk assessors, and other stakeholders through the
Policy. Using the Policy, EPA hopes to persuade and lead by modeling best practices and
showcasing the best of others.
Golden Gate University. Environmental Law and Justice Clinic:
138
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
In conclusion the Draft Policy does an excellent job of detailing the need for increased efforts on
the part of EPA to elicit and incorporate public participation. It also lays out creative and
effective strategies for enacting positive change. However, all these intentions are only
meaningful if the Policy is actually implemented and enforced. Therefore provisions should be
made to hold the EPA accountable to the public, in addition to itself.
Response: The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released
concurrently with the final Policy has evaluation as an integral part, and includes opportunities
for participants to evaluate the Agency's public involvement performance. Please see
http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf for the Framework.
Create a Public Involvement Complaint Process
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
We believe that the EPA must, at minimum, establish an informal method for making
complaints about failure to provide adequate opportunities for public participation. This process
could be as simple as listing a person on each Public Notice who will accept and review citizen
complaints about the public participation process. The reviewing official should be authorized
to direct agency officials to expand public participation opportunities and to reprimand those
officials who consistently fail to apply the Draft Policy appropriately. Without some complaint
process, we believe that many public participation problems may never come to the EPA's
attention. If the agency is making a serious commitment to meaningful public participation, it
must provide some process for critiquing its efforts and holding its officials accountable for their
decisions in this area.
Children's Environmental Health Network:
The Agency also needs to outline what steps citizens can take if they are not satisfied with the
response of the "Agency officials involved" to the concerns they may raise.
Salado Creek:
You must have accountability. When communicating with the public, you should include your
boss's name so the public can go higher if necessary. EPA must have independence from
other agencies.
Response to above three comments: Though EPA has no centralized public involvement
complaint process, there usually is a contact person listed in notices, fact sheets, etc.
Individuals should contact this individual first. If this does not resolve the issue, then in the
"Who manages the application of this Policy?" section, the Policy states that EPA's
Administrator, Assistant and Regional Administrators should provide leadership and direction
for their managers and staff,"Ensuring that effective public involvement is a cornerstone
of all decisions, activities, plans and pilots, and fully complies with all applicable legal
requirements". The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy, released
concurrently with the Policy has evaluation as an integral part, and includes opportunities for
participants to evaluate the Agency's public involvement performance. Please see
http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf for the Framework.
Create a Process to Evaluate EPA's Public Involvement Activities
Rutgers University. Cook College. Center for Environmental Communication:
EPA should consider including eliciting feedback or conducting formal evaluation as a basic
139
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
function of effective public involvement. This would make it a seventh basic function. Other
researchers and I have written about the importance of evaluation and an EPA task force is
doing an admirable job of increasing the amount and effectiveness of agency evaluation of PI.
While evaluation is in the text of the policy, some form of feedback (particularly for mid course
corrections) is critical to success and therefore deserves to be elevated to a "basic function."
Response: EPA agrees that evaluation should be added to the basic function steps listed in
the Policy, and EPA plans to make evaluation an integral part of implementing the Policy. EPA
added a new step 7 to the Policy (new language in bold italics): "Evaluate public involvement
activities. Goal: To evaluate the effectiveness of this Policy and of public involvement
activities. Actions in this section include: Agency officials should evaluate and measure,
on a continuing basis, both the effectiveness of the Policy to improve public
involvement in regulatory and non-regulatory processes, and the effectiveness of public
involvement activities." Please see http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf for
the Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy.
Doctoral Student. University of Washington Geography Department:
Although the need for performance metrics were mentioned, no actual metrics were provided in
the policy. I recommend adding a more detailed discussion of performance metrics. The
Hanford Openness Panel - a broadly representative group of active Hanford Stakeholders and
Tribal Representatives - developed recommendations in this regard that might be useful to the
agency. Please see Appendix 14 of the 1999 Hanford Openness Workshop Report
http://www.hanford.gov/boards/openness/trac-0828/pdf/appendix14.pdf for details. The full
report is on line at http://www.hanford.gov/boards/openness/trac-0828/index.html.
Response: EPA appreciates this information, and will include it in the Agency's efforts to
collect public involvement best practices and evaluation information. Evaluation measures are
intended to be developed as part of the evaluation framework that EPA plans to support
implementation of the Policy. See above response.
National Association Of Home Builders:
NAHB also believes that EPA should mandate strict annual reporting requirements to gauge the
effectiveness of the program. The annual reporting requirements should include more clearly
defined evaluation criteria as well as performance measures that would allow EPA and the
public to assess the agency's progress.
Response: EPA plans to make evaluation an integral part of implementing the Policy, and has
developed an overall evaluation framework that EPA plans to use to support implementation of
the Policy. This framework does not include annual reporting as suggested, since it would be
too resource intensive, but it does recommend periodic reporting to the Administrator on EPA's
implementation of the Policy. Evaluation measures should be developed as part of the
evaluation framework. See the Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy
at http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf.
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
Finally, members of the public should be full participants in the evaluation process. The public
participation process can only be improved if all the participants continue to learn what works
and what doesn't.
Response: EPA agrees that members of the public should also be involved in EPA's public
involvement evaluation processes. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement
Policy released concurrently with the new Policy has evaluation as an integral part, and
140
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
includes opportunities for participants to evaluate the Agency's public involvement
performance. Please see http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf for this
Framework.
National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. Enforcement Subcommittee:
As with all programs and interventions, it is important to track the application and efficacy of the
recommendations as they're carried out in practice [e.g., "in the field"]. It would be wise to set
up a means of evaluating and revising, as necessary, the recommendations, dissemination
techniques, consistency of their application and results of participation techniques.
St. Regis Tribe. Environment Division:
As environmental programs go, we know that public involvement is an integral part of making
them successful. However, just as important is evaluating our efforts with public involvement in
environmental issues and policy.
Oregon Hanford Waste Board and the Oregon Office of Energy:
The Draft Policy also fails to provide performance measures to evaluate the quality of EPA
public involvement activities even though it mentions the need for evaluation criteria... The
Board and Oregon Energy strongly encourage EPA to strengthen this section by adding
specific performance measures to determine whether or not Headquarters, the Regions, or
individual programs took the appropriate actions to achieve the desired goal of each one of the
six basic functions. Stakeholders should also be involved in determining whether or not EPA
has achieved its goals using the performance measures provided.
In the combined sections discussing how and who is responsible for ensuring effective and
meaningful public involvement, EPA should describe:
- The consequences for Headquarters, the Regions, or individual programs that fail to
satisfactorily achieve the goals of the six basic functions.
- The incentives for Headquarters, the Regions, or individual programs that successfully
achieve the six basic functions.
The Board and Oregon Energy strongly believe that if EPA is truly committed to conducting
effective public involvement, the Draft Policy must include performance measures to judge
whether the public involvement activities conducted are meaningful and productive. The Board
and Oregon Energy also believe the only way to ensure public involvement occurs and to hold
program administrators and managers accountable is to identify consequences for failure.
Without this additional detail, this Guidance merely perpetuates the status quo: inconsistent,
often times ineffective, and occasionally token public involvement.
Response to above three comments: EPA agrees that the Agency should evaluate EPA's
public involvement activities as they are "carried out in practice," and EPA agrees that
evaluation is a critical element in ensuring the success of EPA's public involvement activities.
EPA plans to make evaluation an integral part of implementing the Policy, and has developed
an overall evaluation framework that EPA intends to use to support implementation of the
Policy. Evaluation measures should be developed as part of the evaluation framework, as
shown in the Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy, which can be seen
at http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf. EPA has also added a new step 7 to
the Policy (new language in bold italics): "Evaluate public involvement activities. Goal: To
evaluate the effectiveness of this Policy and of public involvement activities. Actions in
this section include: Agency officials should evaluate and measure, on a continuing
basis, both the effectiveness of the Policy to improve public involvement in regulatory
and non-regulatory processes, and the effectiveness of public involvement activities.
141
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Develop and use a broad-based Agency-wide internal survey to evaluate how well the
Agency performs its public involvement activities, and to determine if EPA is using the
Public Involvement Policy to improve related activities..."
12. COMMENTS RECOMMENDING EDITORIAL CHANGES TO THE POLICY
EPA Should Streamline Draft Policy
Minnesota Pollution Control Aaencv:
The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) has a Community Involvement Policy Statement on the
Web. This is a 1-page document. Still, it clearly conveys key goals for its public involvement
program that are strikingly similar to those expressed by EPA in approximately 30-pages. The
greatly improved clarity provided by the much more succinct FAA policy makes it easier for
both staff and the public to understand the goals and when they've been achieved. Please
consider making the EPA policy similarly clear and succinct. If necessary, EPA can always
publish preamble to support a more succinct statement of policy.
McNultv Group:
What needs to be in the Policy is the concept, not necessarily the detailed "how to."
Response to above two comments: EPA restructured and streamlined the document to
place details of the seven steps in Appendix 1 Guidelines. The Policy's main function is to
provide recommendations and guidelines to EPA staff and managers across the Agency, and
to be applicable to the wide spectrum of EPA activities that involve the public. It is meant to be
comprehensive and to provide some of the more basic "how to" details.
Minnesota Pollution Control Aaencv: (the following 7 comments are responded to individually):
1. While this Policy is comprehensive, for a variety of reasons, it is also difficult to
comprehend. The MPCA believes that comprehension is directly related to success in
implementing a policy. The MPCA is concerned that this Policy may face implementation
hurdles related to its complexity.
Response: EPA disagrees that the Policy may face implementation hurdles related to its
complexity. The Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released
concurrently with the final Policy lists specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the
Policy, including mechanisms to share information among staff about the Policy, and public
involvement training. Please see http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf for this
document.
2. A concise Policy supported by a separate preamble discussion would be clearer. EPA uses
this approach when it proposes rules in the Federal Register (FR). When someone wants to
understand reasoning behind a rule provision, they research the associated FR
preamble. A Policy should clearly state broad goals. EPA could then use FR preamble to
support those goals. Another approach used in rule publications is to provide an index in the
FR that outlines the proposed language (this would make the Policy even longer than 9 pages
and may be lost in another publication format).
Response: EPA agrees that a concise summary would be useful, but disagrees that much of
the existing Policy text should be located in a preamble. The final Policy is separated into the
Policy and Appendix 1 Guidelines which further details the seven steps.
142
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
3. The EPA should consider using a policy template to lend a consistent format to its policies.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Policy. It was shared with EPA's Office
of Communications.
4. EPA should clarify both its writing voice and its intended audience. EPA appears to have
written the Policy to apply to both the EPA and to other agencies (the Policy advocates that
local authorities implement similar policy, it even discusses how local units of government
should run Local Advisory Committees). The MPCA believes this may contribute to EPA using
a "passive writing voice" in the Policy in lieu of a clearer "active writing voice". It also adds to
Policy length. The EPA should write its Policy to apply to itself. A clear policy provides a better
model for other agencies to emulate.
Response: EPA agrees that the "passive voice" text should be changed and that the intended
audience should be clarified. Please see new language throughout the document that clarifies
that this Policy applies only to EPA, and not to other agencies (although it can be used as a
model for other agencies). EPA has removed many of the uses of "passive voice" throughout
the document. The only discussions of advisory committees in the Policy refer to those subject
to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
5. The Policy loses clarity due to its draft format. As an example, EPA normally proposes
rules in a final form, seeks comments, and then publishes any resulting modifications. In the
proposed Policy, EPA uses the term "draft policy" throughout. EPA also includes extra
explanations that seem inappropriate to a final Policy (see FR p82341, column 3, 3rd paragraph
in brackets).
Response: The term "draft" was used to clearly indicate that the version of the Policy
published for comment. EPA has removed all references to the "draft" Policy in the final Policy,
as well as requests for specific information in public comments, as noted in the comment.
EPA will make the full final Policy available.
6. The Policy repeats many 'disclaimer statements' that EPA might better state once as a
general goal or in a preamble. Examples include such themes as "choose the right [action] for
the occasion," "the public should be involved to the extent possible," "[EPA] must comply with
all applicable requirements," and "[EPA] should provide early advance notice [of action] when
appropriate."
Response: EPA disagrees that general "disclaimers" should be stated once up front. Since
the Policy contains general recommendations that are applicable to the variety of EPA activities
that involve the public and is not prescriptive, it contains many such "disclaimer sentences."
Discretion is necessary when applying the Policy to very diverse situations.
7. EPA should provide the Appendices to the Policy as preamble in the FR.
Response: EPA does not agree that the information from the appendices should be included
in the Policy's preamble. EPA believes that information of a more general and summary
nature should precede the Policy in the FRN.
Doctoral Student. University of Washington Department of Geography:
The heart of the policy appears in the section that outlines the six basic functions for effective
public involvement. This section should be moved closer to the beginning so that the
information is easy to find and access.
Response: EPA agrees that the basic steps were difficult to find in the draft Policy. The final
143
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Policy FRN lists the steps in the second paragraph of Supplemental information, and explains
those steps in Appendix 1: Guidance.
Don't Just Provide Opportunity for Communication, but Actually Communicate
McNultv Group:
References to providing opportunity for involvement There are at least a few phrases saying
essentially this in the draft Policy. ...providing an opportunity to participate is not sufficient.
Sooner or later those affected by an action *will* have something to say. Any project manager
should want to hear from these people early in the project, when it is easy and less expensive
to accommodate their concerns and incorporate their ideas. Therefore all these references
should change to communicating with those affected rather than just providing opportunities for
communication.
Response: EPA agrees that the Policy's text should emphasize communicating with the
public. Please see new language in the Policy to address this issue: Under the Policy's "What
Are the Purposes, Goals and Objectives of the Policy?" section, see revised purpose (new
language in bold italics): Promote the use of a wide variety of techniques to create early
and, when appropriate, continuing opportunity for public involvement in Agency", and
also "Identify, communicate with and listen to all affected sectors of the public
Include Reference to Public Involvement Requirements in Clean Water Act
Kansas Department of Agriculture:
The draft under-emphasizes the mandatory nature of public participation in administration of
the federal Clean Water Act. While the draft says that one of the goals is to ensure fulfillment of
legal requirements imposed by statute and to involve members of the public "when possible," it
fails to mention that under the Clean Water Act, public involvement is not optional. 33 US C §
125 J (e ) states:
Public participation in the development, revision, and enforcement of any regulation,
standard, effluent limitation, plan, or program established by the Administrator or any
State under this chapter shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the
Administrator and the States.
Id. emphasis added. Public participation under the Clean Water Act is not a matter of
convenience or discretion. Public participation is mandated. Furthermore, it is insufficient under
the Clean Water Act simply to provide notice.
The law plainly states that the public shall participate in the "development, revision and
enforcement" of the act. We would like to see a direct reference in the policy to EPA's
commitment to public participation in Clean Water Act matters.
Response: EPA disagrees that the Policy should specifically reference the EPA's
commitment to public participation in Clean Water Act matters. The Policy is meant to
supplement public involvement requirements in all of EPA's programs, including administration
of the Clean Water Act and other statutes. The What Are the Purposes, goals and objectives
of the Policy?" section states: "This policy supports EPA in meeting statutory and
regulatory requirements regarding public participation, particularly in environmental
permitting programs and enforcement activities." (Regulations, such as those found at 40
CFR Part 25 "Public Participation in Programs Under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act." (See Part 25 at
144
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/pdf/part25.pdf.))
Include Overview of Paperwork Reduction Act in Preamble
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Water Resource Management:
Finally, as part of the preamble to this policy, we suggest the EPA provide a brief overview of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). It is mentioned throughout the Draft Public Policy.
Clarification should be provided so the public clearly understands that the PRA is in effect to
reduce the paperwork burden on the public.
Response: EPA disagrees that the Policy should contain an overview of the Paperwork
Reduction Act in the preamble. However, EPA agrees that the Policy should contain more
references to this Act. See new clarifying language in several sections of the Policy that refer
to the Paperwork Reduction Act in "Plan and budget for public involvement" under "a. Actions:",
under "Identifying the interested and affected public", "b. Methods:" and several more times
throughout the Policy.
Include References to Other EPA Public Involvement Guidance Documents
California Department of Toxic Substance Control:
While it is understood that this draft is intended to provide a broad brush approach to public
participation, it may give the mistaken impression that guidance documents such as
Community Relations in Superfund, Public Involvement in Environmental Permits, and the
RCRA Public Involvement Manual are superceded. These documents provide a much more
"nuts and bolts" approach to public involvement and the lack of any reference to them in the
draft policy statement should be corrected. Staff, responsible parties, contractors and the
public should be directed to these documents for specific information on how U.S. EPA will
respond to the public's need for information at key points in the process.
Response: EPA agrees that the existence of these other documents should be referenced in
the Policy. See new language in the Policy's "Provide information and outreach to the public"
section, "a. Actions:" (new language in bold italics, new bullet): "Use EPA's existing public
involvement manuals, which contain helpful advice for involving the public in specific
EPA programs." This includes a reference to the website as well, at
http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/involvework.htm#manuals. Further, an addendum to the
Policy provides a list of references.
Describe Changes from 1981 Policy
Washington State University:
There is very little, if at all, any apparent change in the Draft 2000 Policy from the 1981 policy.
A description of specific changes would have been extremely useful.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment. The Draft Policy made numerous changes to the
1981 Policy. In discussing the changes, the Preamble of the draft 2000 Policy groups changes
by type and describes each one.
145
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
13. GENERAL COMMENTS
EPA received many public comments that support the Draft Public Involvement Policy. These
supportive statements are shown below in the categories of "Support the draft policy," "Support
EPA's effort to revise the Policy," "Partially support the draft Policy," and "Support EPA's
commitment to public involvement." EPA appreciates these statements of support. EPA did
not prepare individual responses to the following comments; however, EPA responded to all of
the substantive recommendations from these organizations in other sections of this document.
Citizens' Advisory Panel of the Oak Ridae Reservation Local Oversight Committee. Inc.:
This document is clearly written and promotes appropriate and acceptable values and activities
regarding public participation. The CAP strongly supports this policy...
New York City Environmental Justice Alliance:
On behalf of the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, I am writing to express my
support for the EPA Draft 2000 Public Involvement Policy as published at 65 Fed. Reg. 82,335.
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services:
In reviewing the Draft Policy, it is apparent that substantial thought and effort went into its
development. It is well written, organized, and thorough. Further, it espouses a tone of
openness and a commitment to ensuring that the public be involved in agency decision making.
the N.H. Department of Environmental Services has also developed a public participation
policy, adopted on December 12, 2000 and available on line at www.des.state.nh.us/ppp.htm,
and it is gratifying to observe that the two federal and state policies are remarkably consistent,
both in content and approach.
Michigan Environmental Council:
The Michigan Environmental Council has read the draft proposal on public involvement and is
pleased with the progress thus far. As we gain access to new technology and science the
needs of the public as well as the policy that sets standards for the health and safety of future
generations must continue to evolve. We understand the USEPA is adjusting policy to
adequately meet these challenges.
We have appreciated the accessibility offered by the EPA when complicated problems arise,
but also acknowledge that a twenty-year-old public participation policy has inadequately
addressed many challenges presented by more intensely technical and scientific jargon, a
more polarized society in terms of race and economic status, and dramatic changes in
communications technology. Fortunately, the EPA has recognized the need for a living policy to
keep citizens involved in decision making for a living Earth. We believe that the amendments
proposed to the EPA's 1981 Public Participation Policy represent a fair and genuine effort to
modernize citizen involvement opportunities.
Harvev M. Sheldon. P.C.:
Generally the Policy is certainly acceptable, since it pretty much tries to promise everything to
everyone, i.e. it's hard to fault.
146
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Rocky Flats Oversight Unit,
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division:
Overall, this policy reflects needed improvements to the EPA's approach to public involvement.
Of particular note is the emphasis on mechanisms appropriate for given circumstances. The
use of the Internet, electronic documents, email and tailored technical meetings will accomplish
much greater public understanding and awareness than traditional means.
The Groundwater Foundation:
The Groundwater Foundation was founded on the idea that informed and motivated citizens are
the basis of sustainable environmental stewardship including groundwater protection. As a
result, we are very pleased to see EPA developing such detailed plans to promote involvement
by citizens. I was especially pleased to see the agency's emphasis on audiences with limited
access or traditional links to EPA rule making, enforcement actions, and regulatory and
pollution prevention programs.
Professor. San Jacinto College South - Houston. TX:
I have read and support the draft of the public involvement policy. I have participated in the Brio
Superfund for 11 years. I remember a time when our community had to go through GAO to get
EPA to listen to us. EPA has made advances in soliciting comments from the public that must
live with the environmental regulations and policies that the agency proposes. This policy will
go a long way in continuing that progress.
International Association for Public Participation:
Overall, the policy is commendable and covers most of the areas we believe are important.
Staff. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality:
The policy is comprehensive and stands as a model for public involvement in EPA decision
making on complicated, and often sensitive and controversial matters. I encourage my fellow
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality staff to follow its general principles and specific
points which are appropriate to our dealing with the public.
National Farm*A*Svst Program:
I am very impressed by the Policy's thoroughness and integrity, and the scope of suggested
activities and responsibilities, particularly in the description of the "six basic functions for
effective public involvement in any decision or activity" (to which I gave most of my attention). I
am glad to see the discussion about "identifying the interested and affected public" as this is
key to the whole process. I applaud all your efforts in drafting this policy, and I look forward to
its implementation! I wish all of you the best of luck, and encourage you to take advantage of
the wisdom and services of facilitators/educators/public participation organizers in public or
private organizations dedicated to these functions.
Citv of Austin. Texas Water and Wastewater Utility:
We value the Public Involvement Policy because stakeholder meetings are an important
opportunity for us to provide meaningful information to the EPA.
147
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Office of Administration:
We agree that the required activities covered in the Draft Policy (p. 82338) should be
considered the minimum level of public involvement and additional activities should always be
considered whenever appropriate.
Citizens for Responsible Water Management:
This draft policy statement properly deals with all critical elements of interaction between the
public and government, a model other agencies would do well to emulate.
Lake County Health Department. Waukeaan. Illinois:
Overall, the policy as drafted is comprehensive and if implemented as written should improve
public participation in EPA program/policy development process.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Water Resource Management:
The policy provides avenues for an increase in the public's knowledge and understanding of
federal environmental issues that may affect them. It ensures adequate opportunity for citizens
to take part in planning and decision processes. Overall, we find the policy and the supporting
documents explicitly set the stage for further involvement of the public in developing and
adjusting procedures of the federal government that affect them. This policy provides for a
mutual exchange of valuable information for the benefits of the agencies involved and the
general public.
New York State Department of Health. Center for Environmental Health:
Overall the draft Policy is well thought out and provides a practical approach to conducting
public involvement. The draft policy is not overly prescriptive and continues to allow flexibility in
how public involvement is actually conducted. We use many of the same approaches and
techniques and find them effective. We understand that any policy is only as useful as the
agency's ability to implement it and, like you, we continue to work at making involvement an
active part of our outreach activities.
Rutgers University. Cook College Center for Environmental Communication:
The EPA is to be commended for its investment in updating its public involvement (PI) policy.
The policy reflects considerable insight into the importance of PI and the ways to increase its
effectiveness. There is also much useful guidance about the "nuts and bolts" of PI while also
providing a framework the allows for necessary flexibility in implementation... The draft policy is
a good example of the state of the art of public involvement. I hope the agency not only
endorses the policy but also implements it.
Doctoral student. University of Washington Department of Geography:
In general I think the policy includes several major elements of a sound and pro-active public
involvement strategy. The Agency should be commended for updating this policy.
Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition:
148
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
The Draft Public Involvement Policy is excellent. Its emphasis and detail center on good
communication and building plans with the communities being affected by any Agency work. It
shows respect for the public the EPA is supposed to be SERVING. It should be made the rule-
of-the-road for EVERY Agency employee, right down to the mail clerk!
American Chemistry Council:
We commend the EPA for developing this draft policy and welcomes future occasions to
continue this and related dialogues with the Agency. Democratic decision making requires
government officials to engage with and understand the views of various concerned
stakeholders and the public at large. The Agency's draft Public Involvement Policy will greatly
contribute to the achievement of this goal.
Environmental Defense:
On the whole, we are pleased with the Draft Public Involvement Policy and are happy that we
had the opportunity to comment on it.
California Department of Toxic Substance Control:
We have reviewed the draft policy, and find it gives a good, general foundation for public
involvement. It provides an excellent credo for federal and state agencies, and gives the
communities we serve the assurance that public involvement is a priority.
Antioch New England Graduate School. Department of Environmental Studies:
I wanted to indicate my enthusiastic support for the Draft Public Involvement Policy EPA is
presently considering. First, I agree that recent progress in our understanding and experience
with the practice of public involvement in environmental decision making makes a revision of
the 1981 policy necessary. Second, I feel that the present draft as published in the Federal
Register does an excellent job of incorporating the comments received from the 1999 comment
period. This is truly a policy of which EPA can be proud As a researcher who works in this
field, I am very pleased to see EPA bringing this knowledge into practice. I firmly believe that
such a policy will improve the quality of environmental decisions while also building in citizens a
renewed sense of confidence in EPA's commitment to democratic policy making. I
congratulate EPA on this exceptional draft policy and encourage it be accepted as a Final
Policy as well.
Western States Water Council:
The Council agrees that the concepts outlined in the Draft Public Participation Policy are good
policy for public participation.
Citizen #56:
Overall, I think that the Draft PIP is a good policy that represents a balance of competing
interests. If EPA officials actually try to comply with the Draft PIP, they will necessarily have to
invest much effort. It could lead to better decisions, it could lead to more people having the
perception that EPA is actually concerned about what they think on particular issues, but it will
not be easy.
149
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. Environment Division:
All in all, EPA through this draft policy identified, comprehensively, the components necessary
to engage the public to become part of environmental solutions within their respective
communities. It is the hope within Indian Country that EPA remains committed to reaching out
to minority communities across the board. It will take a more concentrated effort on EPA's part
to make this draft policy a reality within these smaller communities. ...Overall, this draft policy
covers all the possible mechanisms that can be utilized to involve the public.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality:
...the LDEQ offers no substantive objections to the draft policy and supports EPA's effort to
modernize its public involvement policy.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
I commend the agency for developing the draft policy and its sincere desire to respect the
public's legitimate role in the development of policy and environmental protection decisions.
McNultv Group:
Certainly the original EPA Public Involvement Policy and related procedures served the EPA,
the states, and the public well. Much of what we did in the eighties and nineties with public
involvement in New York State was based on the principles of the EPA public involvement
program. I concur with the decision to build upon the foundation you have in place rather than
start "from the ground up."
Sierra Club. Three Rivers Project. Piasa Palisades Group:
We are supportive of the initiative of the Environmental Protection Agency to involve the public
in the updating of policy that will provide guidance for the Agency to more thoroughly involve the
public in their regulatory and program decisions.
Citv of Dallas. Texas Department of Environmental and Health Services:
USEPA is to be commended for implementation of the 1981 Public Participation Policy and the
current revision of that policy. The draft Public Involvement Policy is a very detailed document
which wisely states its purposes and sets specific goals to enhance and encourage public
involvement.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Policy Office:
supports updating the Policy and commends EPA's commitment to promote meaningful public
involvement in its decision making.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Water Resource Management:
The Policy reflects much time and consideration on EPA's part towards accomplishing the
statutory mandate for public involvement. EPA deserves commendations for a thorough review
of the needs and processes for public involvement and the forward movement of this updated
initiative.
American Waterworks Association:
150
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
AWWA supports EPA revising its Public Involvement Policy as detailed in the December 28,
2000 Federal Register notice (65 FR 82335). The 19-year old policy clearly needs updating.
We value the Public Involvement Policy because stakeholder meetings are an important
opportunity for us to provide meaningful information to the EPA.
Environmental Defense:
While we commend EPA for re-evaluating its Public Participation Policy, and its increased
commitment to effectively enact it throughout the Agency and in the States, ....
Citizen #53:
I am very excited to hear that the EPA is working to draft a public involvement policy. An
effective policy will promote the most functional solutions to environmental degradation,
because the citizens most invested in their environment will be able to provide their
perspective, voice their concerns, and propose the most practical solutions.
Georgetown University. Government Department:
First, overall this is a thorough and vital attempt at further institutionalizing public involvement in
EPA's environmental decision making. I applaud the efforts.
Sierra Club. Committee on Environmental Justice:
Nevertheless, in a most general way, the Sierra Club applauds the effort to establish guidance
on such an important component of environmental decision making.
Several of the comments below raised concerns about EPA's implementation and enforcement
of the Policy. These and other such concerns are addressed specifically in the section on
"Responsibilities for Implementing the Policy" of this response document. The Framework for
Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy released concurrently with the final Policy lists
specific actions EPA intends to take to carry out the Policy. Please see
http://www.epa.aov/publicinvolvement/framework.pdf for this Framework. In addition, the Final
Policy clarifies the roles of regulatory partners involved with EPA's decisions, addressing
issues such as those raised in some of the following comments.
Golden Gate University. Environmental Law and Justice Clinic:
We would like to begin by commending you on the thorough and comprehensive nature of the
Draft Policy. We are pleased to see that the EPA recognizes so many of the environmental
justice concerns that can arise throughout the public participation process, and is taking active
steps to address the situation. There are a number excellent strategies set forth in the Draft
Policy, that if implemented, would truly benefit the public.
....In conclusion the Draft Policy does an excellent job of detailing the need for increased efforts
on the part of EPA to elicit and incorporate public participation. It also lays out creative and
effective strategies for enacting positive change. However, all these intentions are only
meaningful if the Policy is actually implemented and enforced.
As it stands now the Draft Policy is not legally enforceable, but is instead, "the EPA's statement
of its strong commitment to full and meaningful public involvement in Agency activities."
However, because the policy does not, "confer any legal rights or impose legal obligations on
151
-------
EPA's Response to Comments on the 2000 Draft Public Involvement Policy
any member of the public, EPA or any other agency," the EPA is not actually being held
accountable to the public. Unfortunately, in our experience, a strong commitment to the public
is not always enough.
WPI:
I can't imagine adding anything to the policy. It seems very comprehensive and well thought
out. My only concerns are related to "enforcement" of public involvement activities and
emphasizing "plain language" versions of everything.
Columbia River Crab Fisherman's Association:
Overall policy is good, but how will this policy be implemented at the regional and local level?
Oak Ridae Site Specific Advisory Board:
The policy is extremely well written and sufficiently detailed to be useful; however, in the
Board's opinion, EPA has made only limited implementation of its public participation policy in
the Oak Ridge area.
Kansas Department of Agriculture:
EPA's policy promotes the concepts we hold dear at the Kansas Department of Agriculture.
...We agree that these are important commitments for EPA to make. We applaud EPA's draft
language with some important caveats.
Guild Law Center and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition:
While the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has taken some important steps toward
ensuring broad public participation with this policy guidance, more could be done.
National Governors Association:
NGA supports the purposes of the Draft Policy to ensure that environmental decisions are
made with an understanding of the interests and concerns of affected people and entities, and
believe it is appropriate that EPA adopt the Draft Policy for its internal procedures. However,
NGA takes issue with the characterization in the Draft Report of state regulatory agencies as
merely "stakeholders who provide input into EPA's decisions."
City of York Wastewater Treatment Plant. York Pennsylvania:
Implementation of the proposed policy should increase public awareness of Agency actions
and improve public participation. A major concern and objection is that the policy fails to state a
specific role for municipalities as part of the public.
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators:
In general, ASDWA finds that the proposed policy is well organized and places the issue of
public participation within a reasonable set of parameters since it must be applied broadly
across a number of environmental regulatory programs. However, ASDWA has identified
several areas of key concern.
American Petroleum Institute:
We thank you for the opportunity to express our support of EPA's commitment to involve the
152
------- |