United
States
Office
of
Policy,
EPA­
233­
B­
03­
001
Environmental
Protection
Economics,
and
May
2003
Agency
Innovation
(
1807T)
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
publicinvolvement/
responsetocomments.
pdf
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
May
2003
.
Disclaimer:

The
statutory
provisions
described
in
this
response
to
comments
contain
legally
binding
requirements.
As
indicated
by
the
use
of
non­
mandatory
language
such
as
"
may,"
"
should"
and
"
can,"
this
response
to
comments
describes
recommended
procedures
and
approaches
for
conducting
public
involvement.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
May
2003
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
ii
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
iv
20.
ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.226
iii
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
1
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
2
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
3
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
4
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,
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
5
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
6
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."

City
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
7
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
8
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."
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
9
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
10
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
11
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
12
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
precommitment
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
13
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
14
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
timeconsuming
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
"
timeconsuming
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
15
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.
gov/
publicinvolvement/
policy2003
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
decisionmaking
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
16
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
McNulty
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
17
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
18
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
19
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
20
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,
straight
forward
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
21
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
22
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
23
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
24
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
25
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?
Without
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
26
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
27
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
0f
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
28
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,
local
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
29
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
potentially
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
30
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
31
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,
local
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
32
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,
local
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
33
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
Agency:
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
34
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
35
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
/
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
36
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
socalled
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
37
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
38
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.
toscprogram.
org.

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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
39
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.
govshared
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
"[
c]
ollection
and
dissemination
of
information
on
outside
sources
of
funding
or
technical
assistance"
and
to
"[
c]
ollaboration
with
nongovernmental
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
40
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
topicspecific
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.
gov/
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.
gov/
clearinghouse/
preview.
cfm?
ResourceID=
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
under
development."
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
41
Funding
for
organizations:
This
is
especially
alarming
when
many
advocacy
groups
are
as
wellfunded
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
42
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
43
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
Agency:
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.
gov/
oeca/
main/
ej/
grants.
html.
For
information
about
EJ
small
grants,
see
http://
es.
epa.
gov/
oeca/
oej/
grlink1.
html
.

Financial
Assistance
Criteria
Should
Include
Local
Governments
as
Eligible
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
44
City
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
("
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(
l),
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
45
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
46
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
nonessential
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
47
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
clearly
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
VI'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
EPAassisted
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
EPAassisted
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
48
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
VI'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
EPAassisted
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
49
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
Lakotalanguage
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
50
Provide
Guidance
for
Multi­
Lingual
Outreach
American
Water
Works
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
51
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
0f
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/
early.
pdf
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.
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
52
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.
gov/
superfund/
resources/
5year/
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.
gov/
ipbpages/

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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
53
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
54
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.
gov/
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
locallybased
groups
 
to
help
organize
and
publicize
public
meetings;
these
groups
can
reach
a
larger
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
55
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,
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.
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
56
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
57
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.
gov/
publicinvolvement/
policy.
htm#
engaging]
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
58
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
59
"
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
60
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
61
National
Farm*
A*
Syst:
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
62
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
63
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,
online
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"
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
64
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
preapplication
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
Agency:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
65
The
Policy
should
direct
EPA
to
make
electronic
documents
available
in
multiple
or
moreuniversally
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
66
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
67
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
laborintensive
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
68
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.
gov/
RightSite/
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
69
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,
wellformatted
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,
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
70
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
egovernment
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
71
"
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
italics0:
"
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
72
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
online
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
Supply
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
decisionmaking
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
73
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/
RightSite/
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
74
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
75
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
mail
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
socioeconomic
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
76
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
City
of
Austin,
Texas
Water
and
Wastewater
Utility
and
also
the
American
Water
Works
Association:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
77
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
78
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
79
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
80
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
81
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.
If
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:"
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
82
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
83
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
84
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
McNulty
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
85
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
86
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
87
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
democracy.
org/
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
88
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
democracy.
org/
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
democracy.
org/
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
89
(
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(
l),
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
90
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
EMPACT
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
EMPACT.
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
91
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
noticeand
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
92
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.
gov/
publicinvolvement/
policy.
htm#
engaging
University
of
Calgary,
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
Calgary,
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
93
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
McNulty
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
94
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."

McNulty
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
95
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
96
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.
gov/
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.
gov/
permits/
publicguide.
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
97
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
98
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.

McNulty
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
decisionmaking
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
99
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
decisionmaking
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
100
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
­
I
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.

McNulty
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
101
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
102
­
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,
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.

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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
103
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
104
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
selfrecognized
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.

McNulty
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
105
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
onone
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
106
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)
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
107
Meetings
should
be
held
at
a
time
and
day
that
accommodates
working
people.

American
Water
Works
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
Water
Works
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
108
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
Agency:
Also,
many
attendees
don't
qualify
for
federal
air
fare
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
Water
Works
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
Supply
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
109
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
Water
Works
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
Water
Works
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.

City
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
110
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
111
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
112
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*
Syst
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
Water
Works
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.

City
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
113
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
114
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
115
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
Harvey
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
116
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
117
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.
gov/
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/
83896A1F61068A6B85256B73005D9954
.

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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
118
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
119
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
120
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
121
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
122
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
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".
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
123
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
Angeles
County
Sanitation
District:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
124
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
125
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
126
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
127
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
128
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
initially
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
Supply
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
129
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
by
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
130
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
131
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."
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
132
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
133
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
134
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.
pdf
for
this
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
135
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
"
mustread
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.
pdf
for
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
136
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.
gov/
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.
gov/
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
137
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.
gov/
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.
gov/
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
138
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.
gov/
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
139
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.
gov/
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.
gov/
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
140
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.
gov/
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
141
includes
opportunities
for
participants
to
evaluate
the
Agency's
public
involvement
performance.
Please
see
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
142
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
Agency:
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.

McNulty
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
Agency:
(
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.
gov/
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
143
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
144
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
McNulty
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.
ld.
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
145
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.
gov/
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
146
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
Ridge
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.

Harvey
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
147
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*
Syst
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.

City
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
148
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,
Waukegan,
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:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
149
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
ruleof
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.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
150
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.

McNulty
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.

City
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
Water
Works
Association:
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
151
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.
gov/
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
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
on
the
2000
Draft
Public
Involvement
Policy
152
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
Ridge
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
