EPA Dialogue Summary: Local Issues/Superfund

[Katherine Carlitz <kcarlitz+@pitt.edu>]

Dialogue Day 8 Agenda: Local Issues/Superfund

Dialogue moderator Bob Carlitz and hosts Denise Battaglia 
and Briana Bill, from EPA's Region 5 (Chicago), introduced 
today's topics: Local Issues/Superfund.  Denise Battaglia, 
head of the Region 5 Community Involvement Section, asked 
participants to share their experience of EPA and local 
involvement at Superfund sites.  Briana Bill is a community 
involvement coordinator who works primarily with the 
Superfund program, and since Community Advisory Groups 
(CAG's) are frequently formed to deal with Superfund 
issues, Bill asked participants about their experience with 
CAG's.  Bob Carlitz invited responses to the Day 8 agenda 
topics:
  * Superfund sites-involving the public
  * EPA as a facilitator for local problems
  * Improving risk communication
  * Involving stakeholders/partners in risk communication.

In order to accommodate postings from Hawaii, messages 
appearing by midnight Eastern time appear in today's 
summary.

Rather than focusing specifically on the four agenda 
topics, messages clustered around two broader areas: first, 
communication and interaction on local issues (including 
Superfund); and second, issues of risk definition, 
assessment, and communication.

LOCAL ISSUES: COMMUNICATION AND INVOLVEMENT

* Panelist Jerry Filbin opened the discussion by saying that 
EPA has moved in the last 20 years from top-down 
communication to a "two-way street" model, listening to the 
community as well as talking to it.

* This prompted a number of suggestions for making two-way 
communication more effective.  Echoing themes heard in the 
Day 6 Collaboration discussion, participants called for 
open and inclusive discussions, involving all segments of 
the community and giving them equal weight.  (High schools 
should be brought into the process.)  Again it was 
emphasized that the public must be brought in at the 
beginning of rulemaking and permit processes, so that their 
input has a chance to shape the outcome.  In conflict 
resolution, one panelist emphasized the need for reasonable 
coercive powers to back up agreements, and another 
emphasized that the aim of meetings should not just be to 
make participants happy, but to transmit information that 
could lead to actual change.  One panelist did point out 
that the meeting process shouldn't be abused-Superfund 
sites need speedy cleanup, and industry can use 
"collaborative processes" to delay.

* Successful experiences included partnerships between EPA 
staff and citizens' advisory boards, where EPA staff was 
able to interpret "legalese" to the board, and a number of 
positive experiences with CAG's.  For one participant, 
CAG's build better citizens through mentoring and peer 
tutoring, and for another, CAG's are a way to partner 
effectively with many units of local government.  The 
Hudson River Valley was cited as a model for Agency-
community interaction.

* Several participants, however, saw potential problems in 
the use of CAG's, which can hamper broad public involvement 
if they make people feel that the CAG is the "in-group."  A 
number of messages pointed out that there are problems in 
trying to partner with local government, via CAG's or 
otherwise.  Local governments may want to avoid rather than 
solve problems (why bring down real-estate values by 
talking about a Superfund site?)  Local governments that 
derive tax revenues from polluters may not want to confront 
them.  (One panelist suggested requiring CAG's to disclose 
any affiliation with industry.)  Inclusivity may be 
difficult to achieve if local governments tend to 
marginalize minorities.  On the other hand, local 
governments brought into the loop early can help shape 
regulatory practices that will fit the specific community.

* Two participants brought up a more serious problem with 
the entire public participation model.  The model is skewed 
toward literate, articulate people who catch on quickly 
when presented with information.  EPA must think how it can 
effectively reach those groups or residents who might need 
a week of education (though they might have trouble finding 
a free week), rather than a one-day workshop.

* Participants voiced specific complaints about EPA 
behavior in San Antonio, Cape Cod, the Coeur D'Alene 
valley, and Hawaii.  A state environmental agency staffer 
from Massachusetts reports that in her EPA region, public 
participation is still trivialized as a "dog and pony 
show." (Her state agency, by contrast, respects 
participation).  The participant from Hawaii observes that 
you can't get to know a whole community on a 2-day visit; 
he and others stress that only long-term involvement shows 
you the many facets of a community.  

RISK DEFINITION, ASSESSMENT, AND COMMUNICATION

* One EPA host pointed out that "People are very capable of 
understanding risk definitions if given enough 
information."  People want risk information; one 
participant noted that when documents were available at her 
Superfund site, it was the health-related materials that 
got the most use.  (She urges EPA and CAG's to partner with 
local health officials.)  EPA is often the only likely 
source of risk information-in the Hawaii case, developers 
were simply burying a history of contamination until local 
activists worked with EPA to uncover the history.

* One problem is the inherent uncertainty in risk data.  
Since absolute risk can't be defined, one participant 
suggested focusing on risk reduction rather than risk 
elimination.  An EPA staffer replied that EPA does in 
effect practice risk reduction, since laws and regulations 
limit but don't eliminate pollution, and EPA has to 
consider costs when trying to push pollution below the 
regulatory limits.

* Risk communication is therefore inherently difficult.  In 
order to be honest, EPA must communicate some uncertainty, 
but this uncertainty makes it hard to gain public trust.  
And in the real world, risk communication can get tied up 
with local economics-if EPA tones down the description of 
local risks in order to avoid economic harm to a local 
polluter (or to avoid legal action by the polluter), then 
the public may not take the risk seriously.

* Different segments of the community will respond 
differently to risk information.  What looks like a small 
added risk to people who feel in control of their lives may 
feel intolerable to others who are facing bigger economic 
and social pressures.  A long posting described the "Risk 
Mapping" that is being carried out in EPA Region 5, whereby 
groups in the community are differentiated from each other 
on the basis of their risk perception and tolerance.  This 
kind of mapping lets EPA develop different risk 
communication models for different groups.

Each day's summary is intended to capture the essence of 
the conversation.  While this summary contains the 
highlights of participants' comments relating to today's 
topics, more comprehensive information may be found in the 
individual postings.  This and all daily summaries are 
available from the agenda page of the web site

http://www.info-ren.org/network-democracy/epa-pip/join/agenda.shtml

The dialogue on this topic is available at

http://www.info-ren.org/network-democracy/epa-pip/archive/date-g1.html

Katherine Carlitz
Reporter