Discussion Summary: July 18, 2001

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' contributions relating to today's topics, more comprehensive information may be found in the individual postings.

Katherine Carlitz, Reporter