• You are here: EPA Home
• National Dialogue on Access to Environmental Information
• Summary of Environmental and Community Groups Listening Session

Local Navigation

• National Dialogue Home
• Basic Information
• What We’ve Learned

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

Summary of Environmental and Community Groups Listening Session

National Dialogue on Access to Environmental Information
Bauman Foundation Building
Washington, D.C.
May 15, 2008

A key component of the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Dialogue on Access to Environmental Information is a series of facilitated listening sessions to elicit input on the types of environmental information that EPA’s stakeholders use, how they use it, and their preferred formats, channels, and venues for obtaining this information. This report summarizes inputs from a National Dialogue Listening Session with nonprofit environmental and community group representatives from the Washington, D.C. area. The Appendix at the end of this document provides information about the participants, including their job titles, affiliations, job descriptions, and how they use environmental information in their work.

Initial Comments

Representatives of industry and trade associations identified the types of environmental information and specific topics that are most important in their work. Overall, the participants are especially interested in easy access to clear, up-to-date, and relevant regulatory information. Another key concern is the quality of EPA’s data and information. They are also interested in accessing databases, product safety information, educational and background materials on select environmental issues, and EPA operational information, and would like easier access to EPA staff.

Representatives of the environmental community raised several issues with EPA at the beginning of the listening session. The lack of participation in this session by most NGO's demonstrated a lack of confidence in EPA and the overall process.  One of the environmental respondents who did participate questioned why the environmental community should take EPA’s National Dialogue on Access to Environmental Information seriously.  He and other environmental representatives are concerned that EPA has not listened to them regarding other issues (e.g., TRI rulemakings and the closing of some EPA libraries) and wonders if this initiative will be any different. Other environmental participants responded that while they agree that EPA has not been as responsive as they would like in recent years, they hope that the National Dialogue will be a catalyst around which they can begin a new dialogue with EPA and pave the way for improved response from the next Administration – they would be “surprised and impressed” if significant changes occur during the current Administration. They stated that the challenge to EPA will be to restore their reputation for providing a balance between the environmental community and industry, and to convince the environmental community that access is a priority. One respondent noted that “the last time there was a good change in access was when ECHO came out, five years ago.” Another participant added that transparency is equally as important as access.

Another issue raised by the environmental community respondents was whether EPA scientists are being included in the National Dialogue. A recent survey conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests that scientists at EPA feel they do not have a voice within the Agency and that they cannot openly express concerns about problems inside the Agency with EPA management. They are living a “culture of fear and intimidation, …afraid they’ll be put in an office with no supplies.” The participant asked how the National Dialogue will work with EPA scientists to create a safe space to provide this input.

Types of Environmental and Public Health Information that Participants Use

Representatives of the environmental community identified several types of environmental information that are of particular interest to them. They also discussed numerous characteristics of environmental information and EPA’s handling of the information that they believe are critical to ensuring that environmental and community groups, and the public at large, can achieve access to this information.

In terms of environmental topics, the representatives who attended this listening session are especially interested in the following:

• Information on EPA’s meetings and conversations with non-EPA individuals and organizations. EPA should make as much information (of all types) available as possible. The public and others should know who the Administrator is talking to and what the issues are. During his two terms, William Ruckelshaus executed an open, or “fishbowl,” operational mandate – EPA would be transparent and make as much information available as possible. He made his appointment book public; and the environmental representatives suggested that EPA post, in a database, every meeting they have with people outside the Agency (FCC has done this for several years). This approach should be codified – it shouldn’t have to be renewed by each Administrator.

• Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure. The environmental representatives would like to see full disclosure of conflicts of interest by EPA staff and appointees.

• Transparent rulemakings. The representatives stated that EPA has not been sufficiently forthcoming in the release of information about rulemakings in recent years. They requested that pre-decisional draft documents be released after certain period of time. Their goal is for informational documents to be made available before they go to OMB – i.e., once EPA comes to its final analysis, this information should be public.

• Transparency in how information is being used. The environmental representatives would like information on how information is being used, collected, and disseminated. This includes making draft documents of reports (not just those involved in rulemakings) available.

• Publication policy. EPA needs a publication policy that includes a scientific peer review process that does not constitute a de facto policy review. “Peer review is one of the pillars of the scientific method, policy review is not.”

• Common data keys are required to facilitate data integration. A federal “Facility ID Number” and a “Corporate ID Number” should be mandated by law to accompany data collected by any regulated entity. Such keys will enable government representatives, NGO's, and industry to collate data on any regulated facility or respondent across all federal and state agencies. In addition, such keys could reduce reporting burden by enabling respondents to report data only a single time and rely on inter-agency data transfers to reduce multiple redundant data reporting.

• Disclosure of the scientific basis of policy decisions. The environmental representatives want to see a summary statement characterizing the scientific basis of EPA decisions and actions informed by science. This should include data, information on peer review, a minority report from scientists with dissenting opinions (if applicable), and a description of how the agency addressed differences of opinion. The name of each official and employee who participated in the decision should also be included. This is critical to showing how information is used. This policy should apply to contractors as well as EPA staff, since it is even harder to assess the scientific integrity of contractor work.

• Access to work published by EPA scientists, even when published outside of the Agency. The environmental representatives are concerned that EPA scientists are prohibited from publishing certain papers, that their names have been kept off the papers, clearance processes are too long, and that policy reviews (not just scientific peer reviews) are conducted on these papers. A survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists highlights additional concerns about science and politics at the Agency (see http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/interference-at-the-epa.html).

• A clear media policy. The environmental representatives requested a comprehensive media policy that is consistent across all Program and Regional Offices. Currently, each office has its own media policy and scientists aren’t sure what they can say and who they can say it to. Policies are very unclear on interactions between scientists and the media, and to the extent they are clear, don’t ensure access to EPA scientists. To increase access and ensure scientists can speak freely, there should be a Scientist Bill of Rights that states that:
  a) Scientists should have the right to speak freely about issues as long as they say they are speaking for themselves.
  b) Scientists should be able to respond to requests from the press in a time-sensitive manner without having someone on phone checking on what they say.
  c) EPA should hold training sessions to clarify policies and clearly explain rights of employees.
  

• Facility information and risk data. One representative noted that he is using risk management plan (RMP) information. However, this information is only “semi-public” and can be very difficult to find. On-line access to this information was taken down after September 11, 2001, but OMBWatch was able to get a copy to put on its site. EPA needs to take a more proactive approach in ensuring that facility data be kept up-to-date and accurate.

• Report on the Environment (ROE) and indicators information. Representatives find the ROE to be useful, since it shows trends in pollutant levels. They would like more compatible indicators data across time and at federal and state levels. One participant stated that EPA should make a wholesale commitment to collecting data, and suggested looking to Canada and Mexico for examples of committing to collecting comprehensive data. Indicators information on school environments was called out as an important issue. EPA should position itself to be the primary portal for all federal environmental indicators information and to be actively engaged with other federal agencies to develop a complete ROE and turn it into an on-going, real-time mechanism.

  We have islands of information on a sea of ignorance.

• Information on EPA enforcement actions. Representatives mentioned that they want to know what EPA is doing regarding enforcement actions. One representative is particularly interested in EPA’s enforcement actions against schools that have environmental problems (e.g., asbestos, PCBs, Superfund and Brownfield site remediations)

• Information on what to do in emergencies. Responding to emergencies usually requires an interagency approach. More information is needed on who is responsible for pushing out information to the public on what to do in emergencies and who to go to for assistance. More coordination is needed among agencies, and a task force or working group should be established to develop an action plan for the next emergency. One representative stated that the lessons learned from New York after September 11th were not carried forward to New Orleans, and that it is especially important to address child health issues during emergencies.

• Data on GHG, air emissions, chemical emissions. One representative uses these data for a climate ecosystems program.

• Indoor environmental/air quality. One environmental representative is involved with children’s health at schools and is particularly concerned about indoor air quality, and linking environmental data with health data; that person emphasized that there are zero data sets on Indoor Air Quality/Indoor Environmental Quality, and only a very few data sets on kids' health; there is room for a great deal more work in this area. EPA hasn’t explored this area very deeply and has only recently begun to reach out to other agencies. Issues to be explored include: What data are needed? Which agency should go out and get it? How do you create basic data sets? This representative has called for an interagency task force on school environments and also stated that there is a need to share more information on this issue within EPA.

• Data comparisons across states. Representatives stated that EPA can and should do more to assure that data collected from states are comparable, even though states don’t like to see these comparisons. This could increase the amount of enforcements and site inspection data. It is especially important that EPA require all states to use the same facility IDs.

• Provide realistic data interpretations. In the ROE and other publications, some participants argue that EPA tends to emphasize progress made over time. For example, even when pollution levels are increasing, EPA might attribute this to improvements in data collection. People expect EPA to define and find the problems, otherwise they think that “no news is good news.” EPA has to be more aggressive in acknowledging problems and finding solutions without worrying about political problems and stepping on toes.

• Information itself is a form of environmental protection…this needs to become ingrained into the EPA philosophy.

  Information on, and improvements to, the FOIA process. Several participants noted that EPA’s FOIA process has gone from moderate to poor in recent years. It is more formal than in the past, and it is more difficult to get through it smoothly. The process used to seem more cooperative, easier to get through; now it feels more like a legal process. While organizations such as OMB Watch can deal with this, individuals and less experienced groups may see it as a roadblock.

While discussing the need for the information listed above, the environmental group participants described a number of characteristics required to make environmental and public health information truly useful.  These characteristics include:

• Transparency. EPA needs to make both its actions and its data more transparent so that all constituents can understand its decisions and use the data developed by EPA. This is a key to access to environmental information.

• Scientific integrity. They indicated that part of this problem relates to OMB’s control over EPA decisions.

• Data quality. Respondents believe that facility information has declined, there have been no improvements to Envirofacts, and that there is a huge gap in EPA’s ability to deliver information to other agencies and to develop a better environmental picture across federal agencies.

To help address these issues, respondents suggested:

• Engage in a process to come up with access indicators by which EPA measures its performance, and reports on them publicly. 

• Transparency – come up with Agency-wide expectations and standard operating procedures.

• Develop a panel of internal and external reviewers who can provide a critique of the Agency – this would be a more subjective review of perceptions about EPA and how to address these perceptions. The review could be institutionalized and be conducted on a regular time schedule.

• Timeliness of data – EPA has to get information relevant to environmental and health concerns out to the public more quickly than it does now, perhaps in stages that separate an initial release from the quality assurance and analytical activities needed to address Agency mission objectives. This goes for TRI, scientific reports, and other data and information products.

• Improve the transparency of processes by opening connections with other agencies (e.g., OMB) to show how decisions are being made. Make drafts available to clarify how issues are addressed and thereby increase faith in what EPA is doing.

• Open databases to search engines such as Google, so users can find the data inside the pages of TRI and other EPA databases.

• Make data available in XML formats; open databases to programmers who can take different pieces of data and integrate them with information collected by other agencies, such as Census data, and do things EPA hasn’t had the time or inclination to do.

Formats for Environmental and Public Health Information

The environmental representatives made few comments regarding preferred formats for environmental information. However, there was consensus that all EPA databases be made available on-line in a single-integrated database whereby all separate databases could be simultaneously queried.  Such a query would also permit unlimited data extraction from these databases in any of several standard data formats, such as spreadsheets, SQL, ASCII, and so forth.  A generalized report writer, including program performance measure sample queries and broad statistical tools, should be provided to facilitate research.

In addition, one representative noted that in the area of children’s health in schools, short publications would be useful to help parents and school personnel negotiate on environmental issues in their schools. It would also be helpful for agencies to work together to create advisories specific to children’s health.

Channels and Venues for Delivery of Environmental and Public Health Information

The environmental representatives mentioned several ways that EPA can ensure that its stakeholders have access to environmental information.  These are summarized below.

• EPA Federal Data Portal. EPA should provide a means of assembling and publishing environmental data from all federal and state agencies.  For example, EPA should develop a federal-wide virtual geospatial data repository whereby all federal data are identifiable through a meta-data dictionary and a virtual data query mechanism can obtain and present data from all such data sources.

• Federal Agency Data Jurisdictions. EPA should work with other federal agencies and the CIO Council to reorganize federal “data jurisdictions” and optimize data collection among federal agencies.  Redundant data collection would be eliminated and high-value “data gaps” would be identified for appropriate attainment.

  EPA hasn’t made an investment in training librarians who can guide potential users. Training librarians can multiply their usefulness both inside and outside the Agency.

• Libraries. The environmental representatives stated that “the highest user satisfaction comes from librarian services,” and felt strongly that EPA should reinstate all of its libraries, collections, and librarians….and not “just add back a couple work stations and a storage cabinet.” One participant stated that the core mission of EPA libraries is to serve as a resource and tool for its own staff. The key issues are who controls the information and what information is available. This individual argued that in recent years EPA has adopted a centralized model of management over its libraries, whereas in the past, libraries were managed by particular Regional or Program Offices. He further suggested that EPA should create an advisory committee with heavy representation from internal and external users. The committee should provide guidance to EPA without fear of retribution, and help EPA ensure that its decisions about librarians/libraries are not made in a black box. EPA librarians should also be trained so that they can guide potential users of environmental information.

• Information outreach. The environmental representatives encouraged EPA to develop proactive policies to ensure the Agency gets the right information out to the right stakeholders and that they understand how the information is relevant and how to use it. EPA should put more information out to the public, rather than expecting that the public will come to EPA or its Web site to find the information they need. Suggestions included: posting information in places where audiences are located, being cognizant of the digital divide issue (the Internet is good but not the only way to disseminate information), build demand for information – help the public understand how they can use environmental information and also instruct others (i.e., information intermediaries) how to educate the public. Specific topics where information needs to be pushed out include children’s health in schools, and how to respond and react in emergencies.

• Build constituencies. EPA should be using information to build constituencies for its activities and empower those outside of the government process to become involved in environmental issues before they become large problems that the government must solve. In the past few years, EPA hasn’t done this adequately; they’ve asked for stakeholder input [e.g., on TRI and the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)] but don’t use this information in decision-making.

• Coordination with businesses. It is important for EPA to keep a dialogue going with businesses – one of EPA’s constituencies – in order to help them understand how they are dependent on ecosystem services.

• Be an information advocate. OEI has to be an advocate about why access to information is important and how information is used. OEI can educate others in EPA and change the culture within the Agency to show what transparency of information really means, and to increase awareness of the importance of transparency within the Agency. OEI could consider establishing indicators to measure information access. With that mission in mind, OEI should develop an intra-agency information dissemination initiative that builds information dissemination mechanisms into each program; additionally, EPA should work with the CIO Council to develop and participate in a similar effort across all federal agencies.

Appendix
Participant Summary
Group I: Environmental and Community Groups

The information in the following table, compiled from participant sign-in sheets, summarizes key data about the participants. As shown, the seven environmental and community group participants work at Washington, DC, based advocacy organizations. They include researchers, program managers, executive directors, and policy analysts.

Summary of Environmental & Community Group Representatives
Organization	Job Title	Job Description
Union of Concerned Scientists	Program Manager, Scientific Integrity Program	Works to prevent political interference in science and to improve government use of scientific information.
OMB Watch	Director, Federal Information Policy	Advocate for greater transparency in federal government.
OMB Watch	Environmental RTK Network Coordinator	Conducts policy analysis regarding access to environmental information. Coordinates nationwide network of public information (PI) groups interested in environmental information.
World Resources Institute (WRI)	Program Coordinator, Institutions & Governance	Empowers citizens and supports institutions to promote environmentally sound and socially just decision making.
Not applicable	Consultant (former Director of the Working Group on Community RTK)	Consults on reports on community chemical hazards.
Healthy Schools Network	Executive Director	Works on non-profit environmental health information, education, research, and advocacy for children.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility	Executive Director	Not provided.

 

Types of Environmental Information

The environmental and community participants provided the following information about the types of environmental information they use:

• Community Right-to-Know (RTK) information (e.g., toxic releases, risk management, Brownfields)

• EPA databases [e.g., TRI Explorer, Biennial Reporting System (BRS), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo), ECHO, Risk Management Plan (RMP)]

• State of the Environment Reports [e.g., Report on the Environment (ROE)]

• Environmental trend information

• Synthesis reports and fact sheets

• Indoor air pollution

• Children’s health information

Uses of Environmental Information

The environmental and community representatives indicated that they use environmental information in the following ways:

• Develop and administer web sites that provide access to government information, including environmental information.

• Manage networks of environmental advocates interested in greater access to environmental information.

• Provide enhanced public access to environmental information by providing context for EPA databases.

• Conduct environmental trend analyses.

• Help institutions and states establish public access policies to reach all relevant constituents. Support civil society organizations (CSOs) to assess the state of access to environmental information.

• Produce reports that document opportunities for safer and more secure chemicals and processes to reduce chemical hazards in communities [e.g., Preventing Toxic Terrorism and Toxic Trains and the Terrorist Threat, both through the Center for American Progress.

• Gather additional data on indoor air pollution and children’s health.

• Translate complex environmental information to parents, personnel, schools / day care owners, operators, and users.

• Use science to drive new policy for creating healthier, greener schools nationwide.

 

• EPA Home
• Privacy and Security Notice
• Contact Us