United States 

Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Moving Towards

Collaborative Problem-Solving:

Business and Industry Perspectives and

Practices on Environmental Justice 
United States Enforcement and EPA/300-R-03-003 

Environmental Protection Compliance Assurance July 2003 

Agency (2201A) http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/index.html 

Office of Environmental Justice 

To Obtain Copies 

Copies of this report may be obtained by writing or calling: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP)

P.O. Box 42419

Cincinnati, OH 45242

Telephone: 513-489-8190

and requesting Report No. EPA/300-R-03-003. 

You may also review it, along with other reports by the Office of Environmental Justice, on the web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/index.html 
Moving Towards


Collaborative Problem-Solving:


Business and Industry Perspectives and


Practices on Environmental Justice


July 2003


Prepared for:


Office of Environmental Justice


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


Prepared by:


Marasco Newton Group,


an SRA International Company


Timothy Fields, Jr.


Tetra Tech EM, Inc.


Michael Steinberg,


Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

– This Page Intentionally Left Blank – 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary........................................................................................................... i


1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1


1.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1


1.2 Report Organization .......................................................................................... 1


2. Methodology.................................................................................................................3


2.1 Identifying Companies ...................................................................................... 3


2.2 Conducting In-Depth Interviews ...................................................................... 4


2.3 Selecting and Preparing Case Studies............................................................... 4


3. Respondent Views on Environmental Justice ........................................................... 5


3.1 Awareness of Environmental Justice................................................................. 5


3.2 Opinions About Environmental Justice ............................................................ 7


3.3 Other Environmental Justice Concerns in the Siting


and/or Permitting of Facilities ....................................................................... 9


4. Respondent Approaches to Environmental Justice................................................ 13


4.1 Respondent Approaches that Help to Achieve Siting and 

Permitting Goals........................................................................................... 13


4.2 Respondent Approaches to Effective Community Involvement .................... 16


4.3 Benefits Resulting from Early and Meaningful Community


Involvement................................................................................................. 18


4.4 Case Studies of Facility-Specific Approaches ................................................ 19


5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 57


Appendix A: Sample Questions Posed to Companies Interviewed .............................. A-1


Appendix B: Sample Questions Posed to Community Groups and


Other Organizations Interviewed ......................................................................... B-1

– This Page Intentionally Left Blank – 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report presents the results of a study conducted on business and industry’s views of environmental 

justice and companies’ practices when siting or obtaining permits for facilities located in minority and/or 

low-income communities. This study is based on a series of in-depth discussions with executives and 

front-line managers of 15 companies operating across seven business sectors. This report summarizes the 

views and perspectives of these companies, and presents practical information on the approaches they have 

taken to address environmental justice concerns during the siting and permitting processes. Included are 

five case studies that document successful approaches that companies have taken and the lessons they 

learned when working with minority and/or low-income communities. 

In general, the results of the study suggest that companies across a variety of industry sectors are aware of 

environmental justice, and are employing a variety of techniques to involve and address the needs of 

communities affected by the siting or permitting of facilities, regardless of the racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic makeup of those communities. However, many of these firms do not distinguish 

environmental justice as an issue separate from their corporate responsibilities for encouraging sound 

community involvement practices and promoting sustainable development. Because these companies 

believe the term is inherently biased, they prefer not to characterize a facility siting or permitting issue as 

being an environmental justice issue. Moreover, their experience suggests that framing an issue within the 

environmental justice context tends to polarize stakeholders and limit constructive dialogue. 

Most of the companies interviewed are familiar with the term “environmental justice” and its associated 

concepts. However, many of these companies also find that terms used to define or frame environmental 

justice issues—such as minority or low-income communities, adverse or disproportionate impacts, and 

meaningful involvement—are unclear and ambiguous, leading to greater uncertainty in the siting or 

permitting of a facility. The companies that demonstrated the greatest familiarity with environmental 

justice were also more likely to have experience addressing environmental justice issues when siting or 

obtaining permits for one of their facilities. Interestingly, these same companies tended to be some of the 

more progressive companies in proactively addressing environmental justice concerns. In fact, one 

company interviewed has established a company-wide environmental justice policy that specifically 

addresses the needs of working with minority and/or low-income communities that are impacted by the 

company’s facilities. 

The companies that were interviewed employ a variety of community involvement and collaborative 

decision-making approaches that are used in communities regardless of their racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic composition. These approaches include distributing informational materials in different 

languages, holding public meetings, forming community advisory groups or panels for ongoing dialogue, 

using neutral, third-party facilitators, hiring and purchasing materials locally, holding open houses and 

keeping an open door policy, and implementing other “good neighbor” activities. The five case studies in 

this report provide real-world examples of how companies have successfully employed these approaches 

in minority and/or low-income communities to provide fair treatment and meaningful involvement in the 

siting or permitting process, benefitting both the company and the community. 

This report also documents how both industry and communities can benefit from the community 

involvement and collaborative decision-making approaches that many of these companies are employing. 

Communities benefit from greater awareness of facility operations, from having their environmental and 

other concerns addressed, and from the positive local economic impacts that are often associated with a 

i 
facility. Businesses benefit from greater predictability in the siting and permitting process at their 

facilities, which lessens the time and costs often associated with these processes. 

The expectation is that this report will help to inform a variety of stakeholders about industry’s 

perspectives on environmental justice, and the issues companies face in addressing communities’ 

environmental justice concerns. The report is also intended to provide examples of successes and lessons 

learned in addressing environmental justice in the siting and permitting processes for other companies to 

learn from and emulate, where helpful. 

ii 
1. INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the results of a study conducted on business and industry’s views of environmental 

justice and companies’ practices when siting or obtaining permits for facilities located in minority and/or 

low-income communities. EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) commissioned this study, which 

represents one of the first efforts to capture the views and practices of industry regarding environmental 

justice in the context of the environmental permitting and siting of facilities. This study provides 

companies that have addressed environmental justice matters when siting or obtaining permits for a facility 

an opportunity to share their views, experiences, approaches, and lessons learned on the topic. An 

underlying goal of the study is, therefore, to help educate officials in other companies on the issues 

surrounding environmental justice and the measures they can take to avoid or mitigate them. 

1.1 PURPOSE 

The purpose of this report is twofold: 

•	 To share the perspectives on environmental justice of companies operating in 

different industry sectors in the context of facility siting and permitting; and 

•	 To document approaches that companies have adopted to address a community’s 

environmental justice concerns when siting or obtaining permits for their facilities, 

including providing detailed, real-world examples of how companies have 

undertaken community involvement and collaborative decision-making efforts at 

their facilities. 

Sharing industry’s views of environmental justice is important for other environmental justice stakeholders 

to better understand industry’s perspectives and the issues that businesses face when siting or obtaining 

permits for a facility that potentially affects a disadvantaged community. Likewise, documenting approaches 

that have been successfully used by companies to address communities’ environmental justice concerns 

can help industry learn from these experiences, and help other companies to fashion similar approaches 

that are tailored to the specific community needs at their own facilities. 

1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION 

The remainder of this report is organized into four sections, as follows: 

•	 Section 2, Methodology. This section outlines the approach used to discern industry’s 

perspectives and practices regarding environmental justice, and to identify and 

document successful approaches in addressing environmental justice concerns. 

•	 Section 3, Respondent Views on Environmental Justice. This section presents the 

perspectives on environmental justice of those companies that were interviewed, 

including companies’ awareness of environmental justice, their opinions of 

1

environmental justice (including issues with the definition and associated concepts), 

and other environmental justice concerns that may arise during the siting and 

permitting processes. 

•	 Section 4, Respondent Approaches to Environmental Justice. This section highlights 

some of the community involvement practices employed by the companies 

interviewed for this study that have proven to be effective. This section also 

presents case studies that provide an in-depth look at five different companies’ 

experiences in addressing the needs of disadvantaged communities. 

•	 Section 5, Conclusion. This section provides a summary of where business and 

industry stand with respect to environmental justice, and identifies a few lessons 

learned and other opportunities to advance stakeholder awareness and 

collaboration. 

Two appendices are included in this report to show readers the types of issues and topic areas that were 

discussed with stakeholders during this study. Appendix A provides examples of the types of questions 

posed during the in-depth interviews with company officials and facility managers, and Appendix B 

provides sample questions posed to those community members who were involved at facilities documented 

in the case studies.

2

2. METHODOLOGY 

The objective behind the research design for this study was to obtain detail on the views and approaches of 

those companies that have addressed environmental justice issues in the siting and permitting of their 

facilities. Therefore, a qualitative approach based on in-depth interviews with company officials was used 

in carrying out this study. While the companies interviewed for this study reflect a wide range of industry 

sectors, geographic locations, and facility sizes, the study group does not reflect a statistically 

representative sample that can be extrapolated to specific industry sectors or to industry as a whole. The 

approach in carrying out this study involved the following activities: 

•	 Identifying companies that have, or potentially have, encountered environmental 

justice issues in the siting or permitting of their facilities; 

•	 Conducting in-depth interviews with company executives and front-line managers 

to better understand their views and perspectives on environmental justice; 

•	 Identifying representative facilities in which the companies employed successful 

approaches or learned valuable lessons in addressing environmental justice issues; 

•	 Conducting research and preparing case studies of the successful approaches used, 

interviewing numerous stakeholders involved in the cases, and documenting the 

circumstances, approaches, and lessons learned in each case; and 

• Analyzing and presenting the results of the interviews and case studies in this report. 

The following provides additional information on specific aspects of this approach. 

2.1 IDENTIFYING COMPANIES 

The contractor team worked with the Business Network for Environmental Justice (BNEJ), the National 

Association of Manufacturers (NAM), EPA officials, and environmental justice organizations to identify 

companies to be interviewed in the following industry sectors: 

• Automotive/Steel Manufacturing; 

• Energy/Utility Providers; 

• Chemical Production/Processing; 

• Light Industrial; 

• Mining; 

• Petroleum Production/Refining; 

• Retail Stores; and 

• Waste Management/Disposal Operations. 

To identify individual companies for the study, BNEJ sent letters to its approximately 160 members 

notifying them of the study effort and requesting their participation or assistance in identifying potential 

facilities that would represent “successful” approaches or “lessons learned” regarding environmental 

justice in the facility siting or permitting context. Additionally, the study team contacted officials in EPA 

Headquarters and the ten EPA Regions to determine specific facility siting or permitting examples with an 

3

environmental justice component. The team also worked with NAM representatives and more than 20 

environmental justice organizations and nationally respected environmental justice activists—including 

some advocates serving on the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)—to find these 

examples. In addition to seeking participants in each of the previously listed industrial sectors, efforts were 

made to identify respondents that were geographically dispersed and that included small, medium, and 

large companies. 

2.2 CONDUCTING IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS 

Companies that were identified through the means described above were contacted for telephone 

interviews. All participants were offered anonymity as a condition for participating in the study, or they 

could be identified if they chose. Those agreeing to participate were interviewed on their experiences with 

environmental justice and community involvement at a general, “corporate” level and at a facility-specific 

level as feasible. If needed, the study team conducted multiple interviews with company officials. 

Interviews were tailored for the interviewees based on company-specific information and individual 

facility siting and permitting situations. 

The study team attempted to contact 27 companies identified by stakeholders as having addressed 

environmental justice issues in the context of facility siting or permitting. Fifteen companies agreed to 

participate in the study and six companies declined to participate. The circumstances surrounding facilities 

of the other six companies led the study group to determine that they were not appropriate for inclusion in 

the study. It is important to note that many firms voiced concern about the possible repercussions of being 

linked publicly with environmental justice issues, including some of those who agreed to participate. 

Ultimately, approximately 75 percent of the companies contacted agreed to participate in the study, and the 

study team was able to secure participation from representatives in each of the target industrial sectors, 

with the exception of the mining sector. Participants also represent a range of geographic locations and 

company sizes. 

2.3 SELECTING AND PREPARING CASE STUDIES 

Through the interview process, the study team selected five facility siting or permitting examples to serve 

as case studies. Selection criteria included: (1) companies whose approaches to environmental justice/ 

community involvement were unique, successful, or demonstrated lessons learned; and (2) companies who 

used constructive engagement and collaborative problem-solving and response that went beyond standard 

public participation requirements. In addition, the study team selected case studies that represented 

different approaches to “fair treatment” and “meaningful involvement,” to maximize the examples 

provided for industry to learn from or emulate. 

The study team conducted interviews with company officials and facility managers to discuss the specific 

aspects of each case. To obtain a 360-degree perspective in the case studies, the study team worked with 

members of the environmental justice activist community, EPA Headquarters and Regional officials, and 

the companies involved to identify affected community members and other stakeholders. The team then 

conducted interviews with these stakeholders, including representatives of community groups and other 

grassroots organizations, as well as state and federal permitting officials. The results of these interviews 

are documented in the case studies that are included in Section 4 of this report. 

4

3. RESPONDENT VIEWS ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

One of the primary objectives of this study is to better understand how industry views environmental 

justice in the context of facility siting and permitting. Discussions with industry interviewees focused on 

their companies’ awareness of, and attitudes toward, environmental justice, and whether and how they 

address environmental justice in their policies and processes. Particular attention was given to the 

challenges that companies face when addressing environmental justice issues while attempting to site or 

obtain a new or renewed permit for their facilities. 

In this section, the views and perspectives of the participating companies are organized into three sections: 

(1) awareness of environmental justice; (2) opinions about environmental justice; and (3) other 

environmental justice concerns when siting and/or obtaining permits for their facilities. 

3.1 AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Most Companies Interviewed Are Familiar with Environmental Justice 

The majority of companies participating in this study are aware of the term environmental justice and are 

familiar with the concepts and the issues that often surround the topic. However, as described in Section 

3.2, being aware of environmental justice does not necessarily mean that companies accept it as a real or 

distinct concept that they need to address apart from their broader community outreach policies and 

activities. Officials from only two of the fifteen companies participating in the study stated that they were 

not familiar with the term, although subsequent discussions suggest that their companies’ community 

involvement activities are adapted to meet the specific needs of a particular community. One official 

indicated that her company not only recognizes environmental justice, but has established a company-wide 

policy that specifically addresses environmental justice in all of its business practices. While other 

companies participating in the study may employ comparable community involvement efforts, this company’s 

efforts to embrace environmental justice clearly represent a departure from the majority of views of other 

companies in the study group. 

A noteworthy observation is that, for the most part, those companies that demonstrated the greatest 

familiarity with environmental justice also tended to be those companies that had previously encountered 

significant environmental justice issues when siting or obtaining permits for one of their facilities. In 

several cases, these companies had a difficult and negative experience in attempting to work with those 

communities where they were either planning to locate a new facility or renew a permit at an existing 

facility. These companies tended to be more knowledgeable about the environmental justice movement, 

and also appeared to be the more progressive companies in proactively addressing environmental justice 

issues. In many cases, their prior experience has led these companies to recognize the importance of 

adopting business practices that ensure fair treatment and meaningful community involvement to avoid 

stakeholder issues and the possibility of lengthy delays and increased costs. These practices are discussed 

in Section 4 of this report. 

Many Companies Interviewed Have Difficulty Understanding Several Environmental Justice Concepts 

Part of the challenge that many of the companies interviewed face when addressing environmental justice 

is understanding how the term is defined and measured, and the legal responsibilities that companies have 

in addressing environmental justice. To most of the participating companies, environmental justice, in 

5

concept and in practice, is vague and unclear. As discussed below, many companies interviewed have 

difficulties in: (1) determining whether their facility impacts a community with an environmental justice 

concern; (2) understanding and applying such concepts as adverse and disproportionate impacts; and (3) 

ensuring they are meaningfully involving communities in their decision-making processes without clear 

standards or guidance. 

Many companies point to the ambiguous nature of the terms used in defining environmental justice as the 

major source of confusion and apprehension about the topic among industry. Such ambiguity, according to 

several respondents, leads to uncertainty and unpredictability that negatively affects their business 

operations in terms of time, resources, and other costs. One interviewee noted that national-level 

environmental justice criteria are crucial, because there is a “lack of education on EJ and what it means and 

what it can and can’t do.” However, the interviewee recognized that because environmental justice issues 

are community-specific, they will usually require a local (as opposed to a national) solution. 

The following highlights specific terms that are often used in the environmental justice context, and that 

study participants noted as a source of confusion or uncertainty: 

•	 Minority or low-income community. According to several of the companies interviewed, a 

question that frequently arises in the environmental justice context concerns the definition of a 

“minority” or “low-income” population, and the geographic boundaries to which that standard can 

be held. Several companies indicated that these terms are often associated with environmental 

justice and are, by their nature, relative, vary by situation, and are not defined well enough to give 

companies the certainty they need to know whether and how to adequately address the needs of 

such communities. Specifically, one interviewee asked whether a community located near a 

facility is considered a minority community if it has the same racial, ethnic, or economic make-up 

as that of the surrounding region. For example, this person asked whether the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico (where the environmental and civil rights laws of the United States apply) would be 

considered a minority community because most of its citizens are Hispanic. Or is it not a minority 

community because Hispanics represent the majority of the population? Similarly, can a 

community with higher-than-national-average incomes be considered “low income” when situated 

in a larger community of multi-million-dollar incomes? This variability and lack of precision cause 

concerns for several of the companies interviewed. 

•	 Defining adverse/disproportionate impact. The scope of these terms concern several study 

participants. For example, one interviewee noted that once you have brought an impact down to 

less than significant, “is a little bit of discrimination enough [to trigger an EJ complaint]?” The 

qualitative nature of the EJ concept makes it hard to measure progress, and there is no satisfactory 

“test” or standard for determining how many or what type of facilities purport a disproportionate 

impact on a community. In addition, several respondents noted that there are no standards to know 

when a company has adequately addressed adverse or disproportionate impacts on a community. 

Another concern for several of the companies interviewed is the fact that a facility can be in full 

compliance with its environmental permits, yet still be charged with contributing to a 

“disproportionate” impact on a minority community. In this situation, the government has 

approved a facility’s operations as being environmentally sound; however, it may be the additive 

6

effects of multiple facilities that result in a disproportionate impact on a minority and/or lowincome community. According to one respondent, this is not the fault of the company, but rather 

stems from local zoning in which properties around a facility are cleared for residential uses. This 

representative indicated that the company is willing to work with the community and the local 

government to address such situations, but also noted that frequently the dialogue becomes adversarial 

when put into the environmental justice context. 

•	 Defining meaningful community involvement. According to several companies, what is 

“meaningful” to the community may not correlate to what is “meaningful” to industry. Newspaper 

notices, public meetings, and permit reviews may be all that are required by local and/or state 

community involvement regulations. Several companies have difficulty with the fact that there are 

no standards or guidelines as to what constitutes meaningful involvement in the environmental 

justice context, and note that their experiences suggest that the minimum requirements in 

regulations or permit provisions are inadequate to address environmental justice concerns. As one 

company official said, “...you read the regulations and do what they say, but get slapped in the face 

by the community for it.” Several companies have learned to employ comprehensive and proactive 

community involvement activities to meaningfully involve affected communities, regardless of 

what they are legally required to do. However, some companies believe, in general, that there will 

always be a few individuals or groups who do not believe their interests are being served. 

Another source of ongoing difficulty and concern for many companies is determining who 

represents or speaks for an affected community. Companies may reach out to numerous 

community leaders who represent a large portion of the community to share information and 

include them in the company’s decision-making processes, but small portions of the community 

may not be included and feel left out. 

3.2 OPINIONS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Companies participating in the study have differing opinions about environmental justice. A few firms 

have either adopted an environmental justice policy or recognize that environmental justice is reflected in 

their corporate community involvement or sustainable development policies. However, their opinions 

about environmental justice are markedly different from many of the companies participating in the study; 

that is, most of the interviewed firms do not recognize or do not have explicit policies and practices that 

treat environmental justice communities differently. Nonetheless, the majority of the companies 

interviewed believe that industry has a responsibility to all communities to avoid intentional environmental 

discrimination and provide opportunities for meaningful participation. Establishing clear standards in 

order to work toward a common understanding of all aspects of environmental justice is the hurdle that 

many study participants believe needs to be overcome. 

Further, many interviewees believe that industry is misunderstood and that environmental justice generally 

causes a negative perception of a company. These companies maintain that environmental justice casts 

them as the “bad guy,” when in fact the companies view themselves as helping communities in many 

different ways. For example, several interviewees view their facilities as a source of jobs and other 

economic benefits to the communities in which they are located; one interviewee noted that as a result of 

the economic stimulus that the facility provides the community, education, health care, and other qualityof-life benefits in the area have improved dramatically. 

7

Most Interviewees Do Not Distinguish Between Environmental Justice and Community Involvement 

Most of the companies interviewed do not distinguish environmental justice from their corporate 

responsibilities to the communities in which they are located. Several interviewees recognize the 

distinction, but feel it is an unnecessary one because social responsibility is one of their core business 

principles. In their view, sharing information and ensuring meaningful involvement are an integral part of 

their corporate philosophy. Two firms noted that they seek to balance their economic objectives with social 

and environmental objectives as part of their companies’ “triple bottom line” philosophy. Several other 

companies maintain progressive sustainable development policies and practices that address many of the 

issues and concerns that arise in the environmental justice context. As discussed below, these firms are 

adamant in characterizing their facility siting and permitting issues in the language of sustainable 

development and not environmental justice; for these firms, semantics are vitally important. 

Many Interviewees Believe the Term “Environmental Justice” is Inherently Biased 

Practically all of the companies that expressed familiarity with environmental justice are clear that they do 

not view or define their activities in terms of environmental justice, and several companies adamantly 

opposed placing their firms’ activities in the context of environmental justice. Many of these companies 

believe that the term “environmental justice” is biased and misleading, and that use of the term is often an 

oversimplification of the community issues that may be present at a facility. Most of these companies do 

not see the need to distinguish environmental justice from the comprehensive community involvement or 

sustainable development activities that they routinely undertake. Instead, these companies maintain that 

their community involvement activities ensure open communication and dialogue with all affected 

communities, regardless of racial, socioeconomic, or other considerations. Thus, while many of the firms 

interviewed for this study were identified by outside stakeholders as having successfully addressed 

environmental justice concerns at at least one of their facilities, these companies were more inclined to 

view these examples as community involvement or sustainable development, rather than environmental 

justice, successes. 

Many of the companies participating in the study took issue with the term “environmental justice.” As one 

company noted, while the term “environmental justice” is preferred over “environmental racism,” many 

companies maintain that the former term still is inherently biased and places facility issues in an overly 

negative context. Several company respondents also suggested that the term implies that there is an 

environmental “injustice” that needs to be remedied or fixed. Many of these companies indicated that 

calling a facility dispute an environmental justice issue has the effect of polarizing stakeholders, limiting 

constructive dialogue, and stigmatizing the company. This concept is particularly problematic for 

companies who feel that even if they are in full compliance with all of the regulatory requirements and 

conditions of their permit, including community involvement requirements, framing the issue as 

environmental justice changes the dynamics of the issue and creates negative publicity 

The reluctance of companies to view their facility siting and permitting successes in an environmental 

justice context is further demonstrated by the unwillingness of several companies to participate in this 

study. Approximately 25 percent of the companies contacted declined to participate in the study, even 

though they were specifically recommended by others because of their successful approaches to working 

with communities on environmental justice issues. The reason most often cited for not participating was 

their refusal to characterize their situation in an environmental justice context or to participate in a study 

that uses the term “environmental justice.” 

8

Several Interviewees Believe Environmental Justice Can be Misused by Stakeholders 

Several companies pointed out that environmental justice is a term and a concept that is misused in order to 

achieve the particular objectives of stakeholders. These companies suggested that in many cases, the 

majority of community stakeholders do not oppose a company’s plans for its facility; rather, an individual 

stakeholder or group of stakeholders object to the siting of the facility or the terms of the facility’s permit, 

and these individuals or groups will characterize the issue as an environmental justice issue in order to slow 

or stop the regulatory process. 

One company official suggested that organizations that otherwise have no interests at a facility will become 

involved in siting or permitting issues if they believe that there is an environmental justice issue present. 

According to this study participant, these groups will label a local issue as an environmental justice issue as 

a means of bringing their political agenda into the national spotlight. In this respondent’s view, when 

outside groups become involved, they tend to foment unrest by polarizing the stakeholders and turning 

workable problems into controversies. Thus, some companies believe that environmental justice is a tool 

for some stakeholders to further their own agendas at the risk of distorting the real issues at the facility and 

marginalizing the affected parties. As one company official put it, environmental justice is viewed as an 

“unsubstantiated obstruction” to his company’s operations. 

Several of the participating companies also addressed their frustration with what one official referred to as 

the “knee jerk” reaction to issues characterized as environmental justice on the part of communities and 

government regulators. These companies maintain that this reaction, and the automatic assumption that a 

company is guilty of wrongdoing, has resulted in people misusing the concepts and mis-characterizing the 

real issues at a facility. They believe the net effect is that characterizing an issue as environmental justice 

may have a broader negative impact of undermining the legitimate concerns and issues that community 

members may have at a facility. 

3.3	 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS IN THE SITING AND/ 

OR PERMITTING OF FACILITIES 

Interviewees Cite Several Objectives in the Siting and Permitting of Facilities 

An important aspect in understanding companies’ views of environmental justice in the context of siting 

and obtaining permits for their facilities is to understand their objectives in this process. The primary 

concern for many of the companies interviewed is their responsibility to the shareholders to ensure 

profitability. Interviewees noted that achieving this goal depends on their ability to remain competitive, 

and to encounter minimal disruptions to their operations. To that end, siting and permitting decisions are 

based on a number of factors; for instance, several companies noted the importance of siting their facilities 

in proximity to other facilities that use their products to minimize transportation and operational costs. 

Others noted that they seek proximity to resources such as raw materials or a suitable work force. 

Many of the companies interviewed also said that they seek to become an integral part of the community in 

which they operate, and strive to be good neighbors. Several participating companies adopt a “good 

neighbor” policy in which they, for example, promote open and ongoing dialogue with the community, hire 

workers locally, ensure facility managers live in the community, and purchase materials locally. In doing 

so, they indirectly support their bottom line and enhance the predictability in facility operations by building 

trust with the community and avoiding negative publicity and issues with the community. One 

participating company noted that because it has the trust of the neighboring community with respect to 

9

environmental matters, the company and the community focus their time on working together to address 

local economic concerns. 

It is within the context of these objectives that the companies interviewed operate and have come to 

understand environmental justice and the implications it may have on their operations. For many of the 

companies interviewed, environmental justice can present problems in their ability to meet their 

objectives. According to these companies, with ambiguous concepts, few guidelines and standards, and 

the potential involvement of outside groups with different agendas, companies often have uncertainty in 

the costs, timing, and ultimately the outcome of the siting and/or permitting process. As discussed in 

Section 4, many of the companies interviewed have adopted proactive approaches that seek early and 

meaningful community involvement to help offset this uncertainty. 

Several Companies Identified Other Environmental Justice Issues When Siting Facilities 

Several companies identified the criteria they use when siting a facility. Several firms noted the 

importance of proximity to such resources as raw materials or a suitable work force. However, many firms 

pointed out that local economic considerations often play an important role in siting facilities. For 

example, numerous participating companies focus on the economic impacts that their facilities have on 

local economies, and noted that debates within the community are often cast in economic, and not 

environmental, terms. As one company noted, the chief concern that community members raise when in 

discussions with the company is jobs. According to this official, “Most of the time the community is trying 

to keep a facility or actively compete for a new one.” 

Likewise, several companies noted that, because of the overriding concerns for economic development, 

local governments have pursued companies to locate a facility in their jurisdictions. Local governments 

will offer economic incentives to the companies, such as tax breaks and other financial incentives. For this 

reason, a few companies expressed the frustration they feel when attempting to locate their facilities in an 

area that the local government supports, only to encounter community resistance at a later date. In these 

cases, the companies believe that the local governments have not adequately involved the communities in 

the local zoning and decision-making processes. Instead, companies can be left to bear the brunt of 

criticism from community members as well as negative publicity. 

Similarly, a few companies point to local government zoning as a source of many environmental justice 

issues; in particular, the co-location of industrial facilities with low-income residential properties. For 

example, the low cost of the land surrounding one company’s facility enabled low-income housing to be 

built right up to the fence line. To avoid these situations, several companies have a policy of purchasing 

extra land around a facility to create buffer zones between their facility and other properties. 

While economic concerns are a dominant criterion, several companies also noted the importance of having 

a receptive populace that is eager to have the facility located within their community, or at least 

demonstrates flexibility in working with the company. At least two companies maintain a policy that 

provides that if a community does not want a facility, then they will look to a more receptive location. 

Many of the interviewees have learned that the time and resources needed to take on a community in order 

to locate a facility in that community can be significant, with an outcome that is far from certain. 

10

Several Companies Identified Other Environmental Justice Issues When Seeking Permits for Their Facilities 

According to the interviews, an important environmental justice issue for industry during the permitting of 

a facility is the timing and level of community involvement afforded to the community. Historically, many 

facilities have followed the minimum community involvement requirements established in regulations or 

their operating permits. Many of these same companies have learned that this may be inadequate when the 

facility is located in a community with an environmental justice concern. The companies that have had a 

negative experience addressing an environmental justice issue indicated that special measures are often 

needed to ensure meaningful community involvement when working on environmental justice issues with 

the community. 

As the next section demonstrates, many companies take a proactive position with respect to being a good 

community member and extensively involving the community in their operations and activities occurring 

at the facility. Several firms stressed the importance of building trust within the community and 

maintaining that trust on an ongoing basis so that as permitting issues or concerns arise, both sides are able 

to engage in a positive, constructive dialogue that can lead to a mutually beneficial outcome. While it 

appears that many respondent companies are increasingly opening their facility doors to the community 

and providing tours and other informational visits, one company expressed reluctance about such 

openness. According to the company official, his company understands that the pressure from the 

community will be increasing, but management is nervous about community access to its facilities because 

it threatens the “sovereignty” of their business. (To date, this company has not experienced what could be 

called an environmental justice issue at any of its facilities.) 

A situation that at least one company raised as a source of frustration occurs when a facility precedes the 

neighboring residents, who subsequently raise environmental justice issues during the permit renewal 

process. In these cases, the facility may have been operating for years without any issues. After people 

begin to purchase and move onto properties adjacent to or near the facility, they begin to complain about 

the facility and the environmental harm resulting. As previously discussed, local zoning decisions are 

viewed as the source of the problems and not the facility’s permitted operations. 

11

– This Page Intentionally Left Blank – 

12

4. RESPONDENT APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL 

JUSTICE 

Just as respondents’ views toward environmental justice vary, so do their approaches to working with 

communities in the siting and permitting processes. As noted in the previous section, most interviewees do 

not maintain separate policies and practices to address environmental justice communities; these same 

interviewees feel their community involvement activities are usually appropriate for all types of 

communities. Regardless of the demographics of the affected community, study respondents said they 

conduct their community outreach efforts with the goal of establishing trust and eventual partnerships with 

residents, the local government, and other area stakeholders. Recognizing that environmental justice is in 

large part a local issue, even those companies that do not address environmental justice specifically in their 

outreach plans support a local approach. Similarly, many interviewees stressed the need to tailor outreach 

activities for different siting or permitting efforts and different communities—as one interviewee noted, 

“Each situation is unique.” 

In conducting the interviews, several trends emerged regarding similar approaches used by different 

companies representing different industries to arrive at siting and permitting decisions. These companies 

give a good deal of credit to these approaches in achieving their siting and permitting goals. These 

approaches may be viewed as “guiding principles” in conducting outreach. 

This section describes the variety of outreach techniques employed by the participating companies. In 

addition to highlighting approaches used to achieve siting and permitting goals, a comprehensive list of 

community involvement/environmental justice activities deemed effective by interviewees is presented. 

Some of these practices are fairly common across companies, while others may represent innovative or 

unique approaches. The list is intended to present all of the approaches described by interviewees as being 

successful, and to provide examples for industry readers to learn from or emulate where helpful. Finally, 

case studies are included that provide in-depth discussions of the community involvement efforts of five 

different companies representing different industry sectors. 

4.1	 RESPONDENT APPROACHES THAT HELP TO ACHIEVE SITING AND 

PERMITTING GOALS 

Although the list in Section 4.2 presents all of the specific community outreach techniques noted by 

interviewees as being effective, several observations regarding company practices that helped lead to a 

desired outcome emerged across the interviews. 

Involving the Community Early in the Process 

Several interviewees stressed the importance of reaching out to the community early in the siting or 

permitting process; many allowed the community opportunities to affect final siting and permitting 

decisions. This practice was noted as being an effective means of preventing potential environmental 

justice issues from becoming a reality that companies may have to deal with in legal battles; it also is 

believed to help engender goodwill toward the companies’ facilities and operations. Some companies 

allowed affected communities to impact their siting decisions, while others worked with the community 

prior to applying for permits, allowing the resolution of communities’ concerns to be incorporated into 

their permits. Still other companies will not attempt to site where a community has expressed opposition to 

its plans. Specific examples of early community involvement cited by interviewees include: 

13

•	 One manufacturer said it made good business sense to involve the community early and make any 

changes while the facility was still “on paper,” rather than in the middle of construction. This 

allowed changes to easily be made that could potentially have cost millions of dollars once the 

facility had been built; the early involvement process also gave the community the opportunity to 

affect the actual facility design and surrounding landscaping. 

•	 One firm addressed community concerns by working to incorporate special conditions into its 

permit, such as a limit on its hydrochloric acid emission rate, limits on the concentrations of 

ammonia and formaldehyde in the hazardous waste tanks, and the implementation of specified 

emergency prevention and response measures (e.g., facility-wide third-party safety audits every 

two years, installation of hydrocarbon leak detection stations); the company believes this outcome 

was the biggest impact of its community involvement process. 

•	 One company said that by involving the community early in the process, it achieved nearly 100 

percent buy-in to its siting effort and may have saved money from a potential environmental justice 

legal battle had the company gone through with its original siting plans. The company said it 

obtained tremendous support for the siting effort by giving the community the opportunity to affect 

the final siting decision; the company in fact agreed to site its waste unit at the location selected by 

the community. 

•	 One interviewee emphasized that involving the community early in the process—even earlier than 

required by law—is a best practice to follow. 

•	 One firm prefers to involve communities early in the siting or permitting process to prevent 

environmental justice issues from ever arising. The company has found that the earlier the 

community is involved in the siting process, the easier the siting process is. The company 

announces its intention to do a feasibility study for a potential site through local newspapers, prior 

to any construction decision. The firm likes to do business in a climate where the community 

supports the facility and the company can support the local economy, and does not like to site a 

facility in an area where there has been resistence to such a facility. 

• One retailer says it does not try to force a store where it is not wanted by the community. 

Conducting Outreach Appropriate to the Affected Community 

As noted by more than one interviewee, building trust is integral to successful community relations. To 

build trust, companies must be able to communicate effectively with the communities of which they are a 

part. Elements of this approach include avoiding technical jargon in outreach materials, publishing 

materials in the language(s) spoken by the community, and providing translators at meetings. As one 

interviewee said, “You need to be able to communicate with your neighbor face to face, in the language 

they speak, even if it means standing there with a translator between you.” 

Going Beyond the Minimum Community Involvement Requirements 

Although a few companies said they only conduct the minimum outreach activities as required by law, 

many interviewees have found this may not be enough, especially when potential environmental justice 

issues may arise. One interviewee noted her firm “learned the lesson the hard way” after the company 

followed public participation regulations but still encountered significant community issues. The company 

14

now holds numerous public meetings moderated by a public relations consultant hired by the company to 

handle public notification requirements. The interviewee also suggested that it is a good idea to, at a 

minimum, mail something to everyone in the facility ZIP code to ask if they want to be on the notification 

list, and to “do it over and over again.” 

Another company feels that simply meeting state requirements for public notification and hearings with 

paperwork for review at the public library does not effectively involve the community—the company 

referred to this as the “old way” of conducting outreach. In this firm’s view, the “new way” to positively 

involve the community is to have personal visits with interested neighbors and hold open public meetings 

and information sessions. “In other words, get the community involved, not because they have to be but 

because they want to be.” 

Maintaining Ongoing Communication with the Community 

Several interviewees said they maintain open, ongoing communication with affected communities. Many 

companies make meeting summaries available, and distribute monthly newsletters apprising residents of 

progress at facilities. Others maintain an ongoing dialogue through community advisory panels (CAPs) 

and other forums. Still others maintain an “open door” policy that allows community members to approach 

company officials when they have questions or concerns. One energy company reported that in a 

community where it has had a facility for the past 50 years, it has built a strong-enough relationship with 

residents through participation in local planning and community group meetings that stakeholders bring 

complaints directly to the company rather than to regulatory agencies. As another interviewee noted, 

maintaining a good relationship through ongoing educational efforts and operational status reports not only 

helps to mitigate the risks associated with siting or permitting, but creates an informed stakeholder group 

with which the company can establish and sustain a mutually trusting and respectful relationship. 

Being a Good Neighbor—Giving Back to the Community 

Most of the interviewees cited some form of “good neighbor” policy employed by their companies, and 

many stressed it is important to their companies to provide benefits—economic and otherwise—to the 

communities of which they are a part. As some interviewees noted, by viewing the community as another 

corporate stakeholder rather than as an adversary, they are working not only to bring benefits to the 

communities in which they operate, but to establish or improve opportunities for creating corporate/ 

community partnerships. 

The following are examples of approaches used by interviewees to contribute to communities impacted by 

their facilities. 

•	 A manufacturing company bought the 700 acres surrounding its facility to create a buffer between 

the plant and surrounding residences. This greenspace effort has raised property values and 

addressed the community’s concern about the new facility’s appearance, and the company’s 

presence has contributed to the tax base as well as provided jobs for local residents. 

•	 One company showed its commitment to improving the community’s quality of life by establishing 

a foundation that helped leverage funding to build a family resource center (including daycare) and 

community hall. 

15

•	 An automobile manufacturer has worked not only to improve and expand on its existing facilities 

where needed, but partners with other companies to turn its unused factories into industrial or office 

parks, retail stores, or community colleges. 

•	 A manufacturer listened to community concerns about water usage and built a water reclamation 

unit as part of its facility so that resources were recycled on-site. 

•	 Two interviewees noted that their companies support employee volunteer efforts. One company’s 

employees helped build a baseball/softball field and cleared land for football and soccer fields for 

the local school to give back to the community’s children; a second company matches in dollar 

donations to schools the hours spent by its employees volunteering at those schools. 

One interesting community support activity occurs in a more indirect way for one company—this firm 

makes efforts to mentor other local businesses in community involvement, noting that, “if we don’t work 

together, we’re going to be unsuccessful.” And as mentioned by interviewees, being a good neighbor 

means listening not only to the community’s concerns, but responding to the community’s needs by 

respecting and working to enhance the culture created by the community. 

4.2 RESPONDENT APPROACHES TO EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 

Interviewees noted several approaches their companies have used to successfully involve community 

members and gain support for their siting or permitting efforts. Several of these approaches were used 

across different companies, suggesting their effectiveness. These approaches are designed to communicate 

and build trust with the community, which one interviewee said are essential components to a successful 

community involvement strategy. 

While only one company interviewed has a formal environmental justice policy in place, many implement 

“social responsibility,” “sustainable development,” or “good neighbor” policies that generally encompass 

environmental justice principles. One energy firm stated that not only does it make a distinction between 

environmental justice and general community involvement, it has adopted an environmental justice policy 

and its Environmental Affairs department has prepared a manual to provide managers in the firm’s utility 

division with background information on environmental justice, examples of potential environmental 

justice issues/situations of concern, and steps to follow to determine and address those concerns (see the 

case study in Section 4 of this report for more information). This discrete environmental justice policy was 

the exception among the companies interviewed for this study; however, most companies include 

environmental justice concerns as part of their general community outreach policies, and the “idea of EJ” 

is often folded into these companies’ community involvement approaches. Examples of specific 

community outreach techniques and approaches used by interviewees’ companies include: 

•	 Holding public meetings and information sessions, and inviting local and state regulators to 

participate when feasible. Keeping meeting formats flexible was also noted as being important, as 

was preparing and distributing meeting notes. 

•	 Creating or participating in existing CAPs to maintain a dialogue with the community; creating 

issue-specific panels or committees when a particularly contentious issue arises. One interviewee 

noted that allowing the community to pick its representatives for an advisory panel provided an 

advantage over the “typical CAP.” 

16

•	 Working with local officials to determine the best way to communicate with affected communities, 

and to determine who the appropriate community representatives are. 

•	 Using neutral, third-party facilitators. One company attributed the success of this approach to the 

fact that while the company paid for the facilitator’s services, the community chose the facilitator. 

The company also felt the facilitator established ground rules and kept the parties on track, as well 

as helped to adjust the parties’ expectations as needed. As another interviewee said, “We have a 

better project because of our use of facilitators and our community involvement.” 

•	 Providing multilingual outreach materials, and providing a translator at meetings to address 

language barriers. 

•	 Ensuring outreach materials are easy to understand to address varying education levels within a 

community. One interviewee was appreciative of a facilitator who was sensitive to a resident who 

could not read. 

•	 Holding open houses and sponsoring facility tours for community members and school groups; one 

company interviewed holds an annual “Kids Day.” Another company held an open house that was 

attended by the media; information booths and tables provided information about the facility’s 

plans related to its permits. The company representative noted that experts in environmental issues 

and human resources were on hand to discuss operational issues, job opportunities, and other 

matters. Community members were able to ask questions freely, which the interviewee thought 

was an advantage over more formal meetings, where people might feel inhibited from raising 

concerns. 

•	 Maintaining an “open door” policy, whereby community members can visit the plant manager or 

other facility officials to ask questions and raise concerns. 

•	 Living, hiring, and buying materials locally. One company felt it went a long way toward earning 

the community’s trust when it committed to having its plant managers live in the community. This 

step reassured residents that the facility would be run as safely and as cleanly as possible, since the 

families of the managers would be members of the community rather than being isolated from the 

area, and would be “going to the same grocery stores and baseball games.” Other interviewees also 

noted that they try to hire and obtain supplies and materials locally when possible. Some 

companies provide training and job opportunities for residents; it was noted that often, a community’s 

chief concern is not environmental impacts but economic benefits. One firm partnered with the 

local technical center to offer several rounds of training sessions to prepare potential employees 

from the community to work at the new facility. The interviewee felt these training sessions 

demonstrated the firm’s commitment to the community, and also provided the company the 

opportunity to preview prospective employees for the facility. Of the approximately two dozen 

community members who were hired by the facility, none had any prior experience in the industry. 

•	 Using existing public participation guidelines, such as those prepared by NEJAC or the chemical 

industry’s Responsible CareTM program, to help guide outreach efforts. 

•	 Bringing EPA in to provide support. One company worked with EPA OEJ to have officials provide 

an environmental justice workshop to community members and facility staff. 

17

•	 Supporting local community activities to be a “good neighbor.” Several interviewees noted their 

companies’ good neighbor policies that provide a variety of support to communities, including 

providing grants to community groups and funding to create greenspace and parks, community 

centers, and recreational facilities. These policies can also support employees’ volunteer efforts in 

the communities; in one company, employee hours spent volunteering in schools are matched by 

the company with dollars to those schools. 

4.3	 BENEFITS RESULTING FROM EARLY AND MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY 

INVOLVEMENT 

According to numerous companies interviewed, both the companies and communities affected by their 

facilities can benefit from the community involvement and collaborative decision-making approaches 

described in this report. For example, in addition to positive local economic impacts that are often 

associated with the presence of a commercial facility, communities have benefitted from greater 

involvement primarily in two ways: (1) increased awareness and knowledge of the facility’s operations, 

the environmental risks that may be present, and the company’s activities to mitigate such risks; and 

(2) having their environmental and other facility concerns heard and satisfactorily addressed. 

Companies noted that they, too, have benefitted from early and more meaningful involvement with 

communities potentially affected by their facilities, including: (1) greater predictability in the siting and 

permitting processes at their facilities; (2) reduced time and avoiding delays associated with the siting or 

permitting of facilities; and (3) reduced costs in terms of the predictability and timeliness of the siting and 

permitting processes, the ability to make changes to the facility and/or its operations before siting or 

obtaining permits for the facility, and the myriad of other costs that accompany public controversy and 

negative publicity. Perhaps the greatest benefit resulting from such efforts is the trust and support that 

companies receive from communities, a benefit that, while difficult to put a dollar value on, is 

tremendously valued by businesses. 

The following two examples, and the case studies that follow, demonstrate how companies have benefitted 

from early and meaningful community involvement efforts: 

•	 At one facility, community meetings held prior to seeking permits for the construction of the 

facility allowed for changes to the facility design and surrounding landscaping. Through a series of 

meetings with the community, the company agreed with the community’s suggestions to move the 

main entrance to the facility to another road to minimize traffic disruption. According to the 

interviewee, the company likely would have incurred millions of dollars in costs had those changes 

been implemented after the plant had been constructed. 

•	 At a facility in which a waste management unit was to be constructed, input from the community 

resulted in the siting of that unit in a new location. Had construction begun on the unit at the 

originally proposed location, the costs to the company to either defend itself against a legal action 

or to re-construct the unit at another location would have been significant. 

18

4.4 CASE STUDIES OF FACILITY-SPECIFIC APPROACHES


The following case studies demonstrate different community involvement and collaborative decisionmaking techniques used by five of the companies interviewed for this study. Not only do the case study 

subjects represent a cross-section of industry types and company sizes, but each employed a combination 

of the previously described approaches to achieve the goal of fostering a better relationship with 

community and other local stakeholders while moving forward with the siting or permitting of a company 

facility. In some cases, the companies may not make a distinction between addressing environmental 

justice concerns and addressing the general concerns of area stakeholders. While all of the case study 

subjects encountered challenges, each achieved a level of success after working with the community—in 

some cases, this meant employing lessons learned to turn poor community relations into positive ones. 

These case studies are not intended to represent “best practices” or “models”; rather, they are real-world 

examples that enable readers to decide whether employing similar techniques would benefit their own 

siting and/or permitting efforts. The case studies are presented in no particular order. In cases where 

companies wanted to remain anonymous, general information about the firm is provided. 

19

– This Page Intentionally Left Blank – 

20

Company Type: Chemical Manufacturer 

Geographic Region: South 

Community Information: Small community with low-to-moderate income and mix of 

Caucasian and minority population 

Case: Siting and permitting of a new facility 

Community Involvement Approach: Conducted community interviews; hired neutral facilitators 

to conduct meetings; developed “community response” 

documents; offered job training and hired locally; required 

plant managers to live in the community; utilized NEJAC public 

participation guidelines 

CASE STUDY: SITING AND PERMITTING 

OVERVIEW


A chemical manufacturer was seeking to locate a facility at a particular site in the 1990s, but following 

considerable community opposition, finally settled on an alternative location. This case study provides an 

example of a siting and permitting procedure augmented by a detailed facilitated community involvement 

process—the result of lessons learned following the initial failed siting attempt. The company adopted 

many of NEJAC’s guidelines on public participation, and gives a great deal of credit to those guidelines for 

the success of its subsequent siting efforts. The company employed the following techniques to engage the 

community: disseminating information to the community; obtaining feedback through facilitated 

meetings and interviews with community members; providing neutral facilitators to conduct meetings; 

developing “community response” documents; offering job training and hiring locally; and requiring plant 

managers to live in the community. 

BACKGROUND 

The company first encountered major environmental justice issues in its original attempt to site a new 

plant. The potential host county was not as racially diverse as the final site of the facility, with 80 percent of 

the population of the first location being African Americans living in poor economic conditions. The 

facility would also be located in an area with a high density of established chemical and petroleum refining 

facilities; consequently, there was concern about the negative publicity that building there would generate. 

In the failed attempt to site a plant in the first county, the company held more than 40 non-facilitated public 

meetings. After three years of attempts at securing permits and trying to reach an understanding with the 

community, the company abandoned efforts to site a plant in that county. 

One of the primary reasons for the siting of the facility in the new county was proximity to a chemical plant 

(the “partner”; see box, next page) across the street that produced the raw materials needed for the company’s 

manufacturing process. This proximity allowed for an underground pipe to be run under the highway 

connecting the two facilities, eliminating the need for and costs associated with transporting the raw 

products by truck or freighter. The arrangement with the partner also allowed the company to reduce its 

capital costs and reduce the overall environmental impact of the new plant. The company and partner 

21

agreed, prior to the company applying for a permit from the state, that the overall net pollution of the two 

plants once the new company facility had been built would be below that of the partner’s plant prior to the 

new construction. The company helped the partner pay for upgrading its emissions control equipment as 

part of their relationship. 

In its subsequent siting/permitting attempt in the new county, the company stated that it did not believe 

what it did is all that interesting from an environmental justice point of view, since there were not any 

environmental justice issues raised in siting that plant. The company also noted that, due to its low cost, 

land near the facility has increasingly been used to build high-end homes. 

Partnering with a Local Company: Lessons Learned and Shared 

The partner company understood that the negative publicity regarding the company’s siting efforts in 

the first county could undermine siting efforts in the second county. Consequently, the partner spent 

approximately two years designing a responsive process that would include consultations with officials 

from the state environmental department, the governor’s office, and EPA’s Office of Environmental 

Justice. 

Based on its considerable experience with facility siting and permitting, including the lessons learned 

from the company’s failed siting attempt in the first county, the partner has reinvented its own process. 

For instance, it has engaged in a community open house similar to the company’s process. Moreover, 

in this particular partnership effort, it did not submit the permits until after the listening process. 

COMPANY’S APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY 

INVOLVEMENT 

The company makes only a general distinction between environmental justice and overall community 

involvement because it does not believe there is a sharp dividing line between the two. It does not, 

therefore, have a formal environmental justice policy in place. In fact, the siting of the new plant was its 

first experience with potential environmental justice issues. 

Having had an excellent relationship with the community where the company was founded, it was 

unprepared and unaware of the problems that would arise when attempting to build its first facility in a 

neighboring state. 

Consistent with the guiding principles learned during the failed siting attempt in the 1990s, the company 

committed to having management live locally, hire locally when possible, and buy supplies locally in order 

to maximize community buy-in and goodwill toward its new facility. The difference between the initial 

siting attempt and the subsequent successful siting of the facility was the use of a detailed community 

involvement process, described further below. 

Community Concerns 

The community’s concerns revolved primarily around the appearance and location of the plant, and the 

pollution it would produce. Prior to construction of the plant, all of the industrial development in the area 

had occurred on one side of the state highway, and there was concern that the other side of the highway 

would begin to be similarly developed. In response to this concern, the company created an 8- to 10-foothigh forested berm around the site from the fill material that otherwise would have needed to be removed, 

22

blocking the facility from view. The money spent on the berm was actually less than what it would have 

cost to landscape around the facility without the berm, and was a direct response to community concerns. 

As for the concerns about emissions, this was addressed through the net reduction of emissions with the 

partner facility so that both plants would combine to produce less than the pre-company partner facility. 

The community also expressed concern about the facility’s management and employees being from the


local community, stating a distrust for “outsiders.” The company conveyed the close-knit nature of the


community as they often heard, “My grandfather lived here, my father lived here, I’ve lived here my whole


life, my son/daughter is graduating from high school this year, and there is nothing to keep them here.”


Community members hoped for employment opportunities for local people at the new plant. To achieve


this end, the company partnered with the local technical


center to offer five seven-week training sessions that


would prepare approximately 125 people to potentially


work at the new plant. Those training sessions, run by
 Unique Approaches 

• fering job training and hiring locally 

• 

the community 

Of

Requiring plant managers to live in 

the soon-to-be plant manager, demonstrated the 

company’s commitment to the community, and gave the 

company the opportunity to observe prospective plant 

employees. The pool of 125 was used to fill the 24–25 

positions that were created by the new plant. Of those 

hired, none had any prior experience in the industry. The 

first person hired was an African American woman who had been in the military, and had been working in 

a fast food restaurant prior to being hired. She is one of the best employees in the company, a company 

official noted. 

Since the work force of the area around the facility was “underemployed,” the key to making the training 

sessions successful was “getting the word out” to the local counties. The final local hiring created a work 

force with greater diversity than the surrounding community, with 14 African Americans, 11 Caucasians, 

and 1 Native American being hired. The company repeatedly stressed it wanted to part of the local community, and that if the company was not hiring locally and providing training, it would be hard to maintain a 

positive relationship with the community. 

Discussion of the Process 

Given the potential for controversy, the company consulted with its partner company that had been 

established in the area for a significant period of time. In addition, the company hired neutral facilitators to 

assess the viability of moving forward with the proposed project and to facilitate a dialogue with the 

community. The facilitators, in turn, developed a community involvement process with multiple 

components. 

A main factor in the success of the community involvement process was the effort to keep the process 

transparent through six neutrally facilitated public participation meetings. The meetings were all held prior 

to the company seeking state permits or purchasing land for its proposed facility. More than 900 questions/ 

comments were received from the community. The comments were recorded and subsequently addressed 

in “community response” documents drafted by the company. 

The early involvement approach also allowed the community the opportunity to affect the plant design and 

surrounding landscaping. An example given was the placement of the main entrance to the facility: the 

company originally had the main entrance on the highway that ran through town. During community 

meetings it was suggested that the entrance be moved to a side road to minimize the traffic disruption that 

23

turning tractor trailers would cause upon 

entering the plant from the highway. The 

company examined this suggestion and agreed 

to move the main entrance, a change that was 

easy to make as the project was still in the 

planning stages. The company is quick to point 

out that “we have a better project because of 

our use of facilitators and our community 

involvement.” Not only were they able to reach 

a greater level of consensus, but it made good 

business sense to involve the community and 

make any changes while the facility was still 

“on paper,” rather than during or after 

construction. 

Community Outreach Activities 

• any 

to the community, including developing 

“community response” documents 

• ators to conduct six 

public meetings 

• aining feedback at facilitated meetings and 

through confidential interviews with community 

members 

Disseminating information from the comp

Providing neutral facilit

Obt

According to the company, people are often surprised to hear about its proactive outreach that preceded its 

permit application and other efforts. Yet the approach seems to make sound business sense: “if the 

community doesn’t want the plant, the company shouldn’t build there, because if you fight a negative 

community opinion, you spend too much time and money defending yourself from the neighbor you are 

supposed to be working with.” 

In the future, the company would use a similar process, but not an identical one. The company 

representative interviewed for this study believed that the company would benefit from bringing in outside/ 

neutral facilitators again in the future, but not to the extent used in the second siting attempt, unless the 

situation was very similar. The representative also stated that the process used in the failed siting attempt 

had been too rigid and not transparent enough to gain community support for the plant. In addition, the 

company would highly recommend following the NEJAC guidelines to a company in a similar, fairly 

contentious, situation. 

The local governments were very helpful in helping to define the differences between the counties, as the 

plant would straddle county lines; in identifying community leaders and organizations that should be 

involved in community outreach efforts; and in helping the company understand the local community and 

its concerns. The state did little in the way of providing financial support for the siting effort, apart from 

the usual tax breaks and financial incentives received by new facilities to encourage development. 

Overall, the company thought that the siting, permitting, and community involvement aspects of its new 

facility were very successful, especially when compared to the earlier siting failure. According to the 

representative, community members, overall, have seemed happy with how the process went, but it was 

mentioned that there were still those who are unsatisfied with the outcome. The company feels that the 

majority of the community, however, including the low-income and minority populations, feels that it has had 

the opportunity to have its questions answered and make its feelings known, and since the managers and 

workers all live in the area, they feel better about the operations of the plant since they “are all in the same 

boat.” 

The company learned through this siting process that isolation from the community in which a plant is to be 

sited is a high hurdle for many companies to overcome. When the facility’s upper management does not 

live near the plant, as is common in this state, it sends a message to the community of disassociation and 

can foster a “plantation mentality.” The upwardly mobile positions in a large company require that 

employees have connections to the kinds of support staff (lawyers, accountants, etc.) that usually cannot be 

24

found when living in a small community by the plant. The company learned it was very important for 

people to know that the plant’s upper management are living beside them and “going to the same grocery 

stores and baseball games.” That knowledge assures the community that the plant will be run as safely and 

as cleanly as possible, since the families of the managers are members of the community. 

COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE 

According to the facilitators, there were a wide range of views regarding the project, the process utilized, 

and the results achieved through the process. The main issues discussed were the precise facility location, 

potential health effects, environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and emergency access (e.g., the 

creation of a road). The views of the stakeholders ranged from: 

• Full support for the siting and permitting of the facility; to 

•	 Conditional support for the project based on weighing the benefits of economic 

development and health and environmental concerns; to 

• Opposition to the facility. 

The following summaries of comments from community members illustrate the views listed above. 

Community Member #1—Supportive. The process was well-publicized from the outset and was fair. For 

instance, company representatives did an excellent job explaining the issues of concern. In addition, the 

facilitators did a good job of keeping the discussions on track. The creation of a community response 

document was a helpful way of ensuring issues were being documented and addressed. The process was 

innovative, especially compared to other companies, and should be repeated by other facilities attempting to 

site in the area. Overall, the process was a success. 

Community Member #2—Neutral. The process was publicized early and often. Although initially the 

facilitators were not neutral, the facilitation team was reconfigured, which showed a responsiveness on behalf 

of the company. The confidential interview process was a positive experience. The company did make an 

effort to address issues and concerns that were raised, but in the end the facilitated meetings were a “waste of 

time” since the company had a preordained outcome in mind—the facility would be built despite the 

objections of the community. If a company claims it is going to listen to people’s concerns, it should explain 

which issues are and are not negotiable from the outset. Moreover, the party stated that if the community were 

predominantly African American, then based on the negative history in its first siting attempt, the company 

would not have sited there. Despite some positive aspects, overall the project was not considered a success. 

Community Member #3—Opposed. This party was opposed to any new facilities in the area. Although the 

facilitators were quite professional and well organized, they were not neutral, which was obvious since they 

were paid for by the company. Moreover, since the process was created by the facilitators, it could not be 

modified; therefore, there was no way to change the breakout session format, which prevented people from 

rallying against the facility. Many questions by the community were not adequately answered. The 

emergency access road issue has not been resolved. (Other interviewees noted that the company has 

contributed to the road, but state funding that was assured by state officials was subsequently removed; 

consequently the company was stymied in its attempts to complete the road.) Doubts were expressed that air 

quality has improved, even though state officials believe that the facilities have fulfilled their permit 

obligations. The project’s process and results were a failure. 

25

OUTCOMES OF THE PROCESS


This case study illustrates a company’s use of a detailed community involvement process on a 

controversial project. It did take a negative experience in the first unsuccessful siting effort in the state to 

jump-start the company’s community involvement efforts at the second successful site. Despite strong 

initial opposition to the siting of its facility, the company benefitted from the exploration and utilization of 

a multifaceted outreach process. Most importantly, the community was involved early in the process and 

was able to recommend certain changes that were implemented by the company. Not only did this give the 

community the assurance that its concerns were heard and opinions mattered, but the dialogue created an 

atmosphere of congenial relations and buy-in not enjoyed by many other companies. This is not to say that 

the process was viewed favorably by all stakeholders—opinions varied on whether the facilitation was 

truly neutral (note that the company reconfigured its facilitation team to address these concerns) and if the 

input from the community was actually used to inform the end result. While not everyone thought the end 

result was just, most agreed the process was a unique approach to engaging the community. The company 

learned that community involvement efforts may uncover issues that are best addressed in a proactive 

manner, and that such an approach can make economic sense. 

26

Company Type: Energy/Utility 

Geographic Region: West 

Community Information: Minority, economically disadvantaged 

Case: Applying corporate environmental justice policy to outreach 

initiatives for cleanup and long-term decommissioning of a 

power plant 

Community Involvement Approach: Corporation adopted environmental justice policy; utility 

division hired an Environmental Justice Program Manager, 

created procedures manual based on corporate policy, is 

conducting training and “field testing,” and hired a community 

representative as an advisor and facilitator in a community with 

potential environmental justice issues 

CASE STUDY: OTHER 

OVERVIEW


The PG&E Corporation markets energy services and products nationwide. The corporation operates in 21 

states, controls 30 power plants, and owns one of the largest gas and electric utilities in the country— 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). PG&E, the corporation’s San Francisco-based utility division, 

serves 13 million people throughout a 70,000-square-mile area in northern and central California. In order 

to formally address its commitment to community collaboration, outreach, and equitable practices, the 

PG&E Corporation adopted an environmental justice policy in 2000. It is the first corporation in the nation 

to develop an environmental justice policy. PG&E built upon the principles of this corporate policy and 

developed “PG&E’s Environmental Justice Procedure” manual. The purpose of the manual is to help 

managers, staff, and contractors identify situations where environmental justice concerns might arise, and 

to provide steps to follow to prevent these potential issues from actualizing. PG&E’s Environmental Affairs 

staff have also been training colleagues across the company in better understanding environmental justice, 

its role in the day-to-day business of the company, and the importance of applying the policy and the 

procedure manual to community interactions out in the field. The utility has already identified 

communities where outreach activities can be enhanced through application of its environmental justice 

policy—one of these pioneer efforts is the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood, where a PG&E power 

plant is a prominent reminder of the numerous industries that are of daily concern to residents. 

BACKGROUND 

Bayview Hunters Point is a predominantly African American neighborhood in southeast San Francisco. 

One resident describes it as having “perhaps the greatest level of environmental contamination in northern 

California.” This is due largely to a former navel shipyard, now a Superfund site. The closure of the 

shipyard also contributed to an unemployment rate of 13 percent in Hunters Point. In addition, the 

community is bordered by two major Bay Area highways, and is host to eight cab companies with fleets of 

100–200 cars each, bus maintenance yards, a 27-acre sewage treatment facility (handling 80 percent of San 

Francisco’s waste and some for the City of San Bruno), the only asphalt plant in San Francisco, an auto 

27

dismantling yard, and a concrete mixing company. Recognizing significant environmental and economic 

impacts in the area, EPA awarded the Bayview Hunters Point community Assessment Demonstration and 

Job Training and Development Demonstration Pilot grants. Hunters Point is also home to a PG&E power 

plant, one of two major power-generating facilities for the City of San Francisco. 

The original operating unit of the plant was built in 1929 (and was converted into emergency peaking gas 

turbines in 1976). Two more units were built after World War II, and a fourth unit was built in 1958. When 

the plant was initially constructed it was surrounded by open space, but by the 1950s, development 

gradually encroached around the facility. World War II development at the shipyard required the building 

of temporary housing to hold the shipyard workers and their families, and this housing was eventually 

converted by the city into affordable housing for low-income families. Much of this housing is directly 

adjacent to the plant. Through most of its history, the plant maintained close relations with the community. 

The early 1990s saw development of more owner-occupied residences, and the proposal by an independent 

operator to construct yet another power-generating plant in the neighborhood. This brought the residents to 

a breaking point, and they demanded the closure of the PG&E plant. 

The California Independent System Operator (ISO) informed PG&E, however, that it needed to continue to 

operate the plant to ensure system reliability within the city and county of San Francisco. The ISO, 

established in the mid-1990s, operates the state’s wholesale power grid and ensures that the electric needs 

of all customers are met. San Francisco’s peninsular geography requires particular flexibility in its power 

sources (power generation as well as transmission capability over long distances). PG&E entered into a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of San Francisco in 1998 to close the power plant 

once it was not needed. The plant continues to operate under a Reliability Must Run (RMR) contract with 

the ISO (the length of this contract, and therefore the timeline for complete closure of the plant, has not 

been defined by the ISO). Under this contract, the ISO calls on the Hunters Point plant to operate only in 

specific situations when its operation is necessary to maintain the reliability of the electric system in the 

Bay Area. 

After 50 years of service, Units Two and Three were shut down as generators in July 2000. Eight of the 

nine fuel tanks at the power plant were removed in late 2002 and early 2003, and PG&E states that the 

recent upgrades have allowed the power plant to operate in a more environmentally sound manner than it 

ever has in its long history, and to date, it has been operating substantially more cleanly than required by 

law. Removal of the tanks is allowing the company to complete the analysis of soil and groundwater 

beneath these structures, so that any soils that may ultimately require removal can be identified. Any 

material that cannot be safely secured with pavement will be removed after sampling. However, in an 

effort to limit the impact to the community, full site remediation will take place once the power plant has 

been closed down completely. 

The California Lung Association has noted that the Bayview Hunters Point community suffers from poor 

air quality—both indoor and outdoor—which is aggravating the asthma problems of many community 

residents. Although the power plant is not cited as a specific cause, the plant’s longevity and prominence 

in the neighborhood make it suspect in the eyes of the community. Despite the recent upgrades and tank 

demolition in the area, residents say that their chief concern is that the plant is open and operating at all. 

28

PG&E Corporation Environmental Justice Policy 

PG&E will conduct its operations in a manner that is consistent with and promotes environmental justice 

principles. We are committed to: 

• Comply with the letter and spirit of environmental justice laws and regulations in our 

operations. 

• Set high standards of environmental performance to minimize environmental impacts 

from our operations. 

• Work diligently to address all environmental justice issues. 

• Incorporate environmental justice considerations in the purchase of existing facilities 

and the planning and development of new facilities. 

• Work with stakeholders to ensure that future development around our facilities is 

compatible with our existing and planned facility use. 

• Maintain open and responsive communications with all stakeholders. 

• Communicate and reinforce our environmental justice values within the corporation. 

• Accept responsibility for our operations, and in so doing work collaboratively with our 

neighbors and surrounding communities. 

COMPANY’S APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY 

INVOLVEMENT 

PG&E has historically provided incentives for individuals and teams that strive toward “environmental 

leadership.” In addition to numerous environmental stewardship projects such as neighborhood cleanups 

and planting trees, a prestigious and highly competitive annual company program rewards the winner with 

a trophy and a $5,000 contribution to an environmental, conservation, or environmental justice nonprofit 

organization of the winner’s choosing. The 2002 award recipient was chosen for his environmental justice 

initiatives in the field, including efforts to minimize disruption to residents in the Bayview Hunters Point 

area due to maintenance and construction crew activities. 

The development of the PG&E Corporation Environmental Justice Policy (see box, above) was 

championed by the Vice President of Environmental Affairs, who recognized environmental justice as an 

emergent environmental leadership issue that the company needed to address. Work on the policy began in 

1998. After internal education and discussion, the environmental justice policy was approved by the 

corporation’s CEO in late 2000. The challenges now lay in bringing the corporate policy to life for PG&E 

employees. 

Putting Policy Into Practice 

PG&E has been aggressive about operating more efficiently and in a more environmentally responsible 

manner than is legally mandated, and the implementation of its environmental justice policy is in keeping 

with this approach. The environmental justice policy is not the result of any legal requirement, but is rather 

a self-guiding commitment to conduct the company’s operations in a manner that is consistent with and 

29

promotes environmental justice principles. “It’s important to pay attention to EJ considerations in all that 

you do, even if you’ve done everything you’re required to do,” remarked the Vice President of 

Environmental Affairs. He serves not only on the NEJAC, but on the California Environmental Justice 

Advisory Committee as well. 

The corporation had already gone beyond what was legally required by drafting and adopting a policy that 

specifically addresses environmental justice as part of its community outreach and involvement efforts. 

Because of the nature of its interactions with stakeholders both as customers and as community members 

concerned about field work, PG&E was in the perfect position to explore the viability of incorporating the 

corporation’s policy into its standard operating procedures. PG&E hired an Environmental Justice 

Program Manager—a new position—to develop and manage a new environmental justice program, including the development of an environmental justice procedure manual based on the corporate environmental 

justice policy. The creation of the Environmental Justice Program Manager position signals PG&E’s commitment to take this issue seriously. 

The 27-page manual is not meant to be a comprehensive guide; in fact, it states that “evolving statutory and 

regulatory requirements and case law will mold how we fulfill our policy.” What it does provide, however, 

is background on environmental justice, examples of situations where environmental justice concerns may 

be an issue, steps to follow in identifying and addressing potential scenarios of concern, and appropriate 

contacts in PG&E with whom to discuss these concerns. The manual also includes indices with Census 

definitions, the text of Executive Order 12898, and Web site links for additional information. 

One of the facets of assimilating the environmental justice policy into corporate culture and action is 

training PG&E employees and contractors. Staff report that many of the challenges arising out of this 

effort are due to a natural resistance to change. An additional hurdle to implementing the policy has been 

the “size and scope of the footprint—the diverse challenges” that require case-by-case reviews, even with 

the same types of facilities. The lack of other corporate models to follow and the qualitative nature of 

environmental justice (making it hard to measure progress) have been arduous, and although education and 

training are occurring at the highest levels of the company, trying to translate the principles to a commonly 

understood course of action has been a complex endeavor. Initial steps include developing environmental 

justice targets and working to incorporate environmental justice procedures into the practices of 

departments across the company. 

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROCESS 

PG&E has a history of maintaining a strong presence in the communities in which it operates, particularly 

through cleanup projects undertaken by staff or other beautification efforts. This has increased even more 

with the implementation of its environmental justice policy. Outreach materials are provided in both 

English and Spanish, and, in the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood, residents have been notified about 

utility activities by such diverse methods as hand-delivered letters, newsletters, meetings, newspaper 

notifications, and a Community Notification and Education Plan Drafting Committee for the plant. In 

addition, PG&E hired a Community Consultant (see text box, next page), who has proven invaluable in 

identifying leaders from community organizations and churches so that the company can continue to 

expand outreach efforts in the community. PG&E has also focused more on hiring locally, for community 

notification as well as construction and cleanup in the area. 

30

Discussion of the Process 

Following the agreement with the City of San 

Francisco in 1998, most residents assumed 

PG&E would be working immediately to 

dismantle and clean up the power plant 

facility. When they learned about the 

decommissioning process, residents were 

skeptical about the motives behind what they 

were hearing. The level of concern and 

tension in the community meant that 

preliminary efforts, such as contacting 

community groups and meeting with 

individuals as requested, were not going to be 

enough. With the impending closing and 

cleanup of two units of the plant, the (now 

former) plant manager was increasing 

educational efforts in parallel with the 

development of the corporate environmental 

justice policy. Once the policy was approved, 

it was clear that the principles it contained 

were critical to outreach efforts in the Bayview 

Hunters Point community. 

A Unique Approach 

PG&E hired a Bayview Hunters Point resident to 

serve as a Community Consultant to the company. 

The consultant serves as a facilitator and liaison 

between the community and the company. 

that he finds the team approach to addressing 

environmental justice “refreshing,” and is pleased that 

he plays a key role in providing information, 

education, and feedback both to the company and 

the community. s important for corporations to hear 

from people at the ground level,” he notes. Despite 

serving as a consultant in other corporations under 

similar circumstances, with PG&E he does not feel 

that, as an African-American, he was brought on 

strictly for an appearance of “legitimacy.” Instead, he 

says he has been “impressed with the way the policy 

is moving forward, from the top down.” 

He says 

“It’

The former manager of the power plant noted that, when he first came to the community, it was difficult for 

him to increase outreach and improve the company’s relationship with the community. Community 

members had been told that the power plant would be shut down, but no one had explained that its 

decommission would be gradual, and that the schedule was out of PG&E’s control. In addition, he 

described the community as “pretty fractured,” with “different and disparate entities” claiming to represent 

the community, and some individuals representing multiple organizations but not consistently across 

meetings. “It was really a challenge to get a finger on the pulse of the community.” 

His first step was to contact the organizations identified by previous plant staff, and ask not only for their


assistance in educating the community, but with identifying other organizations he could contact to partner


with. Few responded, and even though there was a Community Advisory Committee for the power plant,


its members were not interested in


meeting as a group with him.


Instead, he met with committee


members individually, and met


additional community members


through local activities such as the


Unity Parade, Wellness Expo,


Rotary, and a Habitat for


Humanity project. Once he was


able to meet with residents, he


You have to be “open, honest, have integrity, and educate the 

best you can. You can never go wrong with that. 

use information to their own advantage, you keep your message 

consistent. ake your lumps, but you do your 

best, that’s all you can do.” 

– Former Plant Manager 

Even if people 

. . sometimes you t

walked them through the MOU so that they understood the process as well as the constraints under which 

PG&E was operating. He found the educational aspect of his outreach efforts to continually be the most 

challenging. Not only was he battling confusion over who had the authority to decommission the power 

31

Community Outreach Activities 

• s to establish a 

Community Advisory Committee for the 

power plant. 

• Although the plant already has an 

Emergency Response Plan (ERP) as 

required by law, PG&E worked with 

residents to develop a Community 

Notification and Education Plan (CNEP). 

The CNEP will provide additional 

notification for the community beyond the 

requirements of the ERP. The objective of 

the CNEP is to facilitate more direct 

communication with the plant’s neighbors 

in the unlikely event that an incident 

occurs at the facility while it remains 

operable. 

• With respect to the tank demolition at the 

plant, PG&E sent out mailings, including 

letters and newsletters; hired and trained 

local youth to distribute community updates; 

put notifications in three local newspapers; 

posted signs with the plant hotline number; 

held and attended meetings; hired 

community contractors to work at the plant 

and on construction crews; and continues 

to sponsor cleanup efforts in the 

community. 

• PG&E periodically makes donations to 

organizations for the protection of 

greenspace areas. , the company 

partnered with Trust for Public Land, the 

Association of Bay Area Governments, the 

Bay Conservation and Development 

Commission, and the San Francisco Parks 

and Recreation Department to install a new 

pedestrian bridge across the lagoon at the 

power plant to provide residents with a more 

direct route to a nearby park. 

installed benches for use at the park. 

PG&E worked with resident

Recently

PG&E also 

plant, but he had to combat the mistaken notion 

that the continued operation of the plant was 

benefitting PG&E as a large profit-making 

endeavor. 

The adoption of the PG&E Corporation 

Environmental Justice Policy had a snowball 

effect in the utility. The Environmental Justice 

Program Manager position was created and filled, 

the environmental justice procedure manual was 

written, and a Community Consultant was hired. 

These additional resources, along with a 

formalized commitment by the corporation and 

the utility to address environmental justice 

concerns, sparked an increase in concerted 

outreach efforts in the Bayview Hunters Point 

community. 

A great asset in enhancing the connection with 

the community has been the Community 

Consultant. As someone who has grown up in 

Bayview Hunters Point, managed a community 

center there, and served on the community’s 

planning committee, he entered his role with what 

he describes as a “fairly decent level of 

credibility,” and was familiar with both those 

stakeholders who welcome PG&E’s outreach 

efforts and those who are only interested in 

removing “one giant at a time” from their 

neighborhood. 

“Frankly, the distrust has been earned by large 

corporations,” he said, but his background and 

support from PG&E have coupled to create a 

strategic approach to community education and 

involvement. He has been instrumental in 

bringing community leaders—particularly 

religious leaders—in to talk to PG&E officials 

about the concerns of their constituents. And he 

helped facilitate job training and hiring efforts in 

the community, including using young members 

of the Health and Environmental Resource 

Center to distribute approximately 500 

community update flyers to households closest 

to the power plant. Building upon these growing 

relationships, PG&E is actively hiring contractors from within the community, and is looking at long-term 

job training and hiring solutions to help ease the unemployment burden. The company’s commitment to 

improving the quality of life for the community also includes volunteer cleanup and beautification efforts. 

32

PG&E staff contest the idea posed by some in the community that the consultant is a company


spokesperson or that his goal is to quiet any protests. Instead, his role is described as “facilitator, translator,


mediator.” Even with his role defined, he says that many of his neighbors initially assumed he had no


impact on company thinking or leverage with company officials. By building a bridge between the two,


however, his presence has become a signal to the community that the company is listening.


And acting. There is a two-year project underway to move the electrical wires in the neighborhood


underground. In addition, construction of a city light rail project has added noise and trucks and traffic to


an area already feeling overburdened with industrial impacts. The PG&E Area Director, responsible for


managing construction and cleanup crews in the utility sector


that includes Bayview Hunters Point, says “there is anger” from


residents, so he and his staff have to maintain “a keen awareness


of what we do.” This includes explaining the company’s 

environmental policies and the environmental justice policy in 

particular, and attending meetings every six to eight weeks to 

discuss progress and community concerns about construction 

efforts disturbing past contamination. The Area Director has 

“The people moving these [EJ] 

policies at PG&E have heart.” 

–Community Consultant 

converted half of his fleet of 30 utility trucks to compressed natural gas-burning vehicles to minimize the 

diesel particulate impact on residents. “We have an opportunity each time we go out in the community” to 

make a difference, he says. 

PG&E has been working to build partnerships beyond the community as well. The company is working 

closely with other stakeholders, including the City of San Francisco and the ISO, to determine what needs 

to happen in order for the plant to be closed. Staff have participated in more than a dozen meetings with 

external stakeholders to determine supply and demand issues as well as transmission and energy efficiency 

options. These unprecedented efforts are with one goal in mind—to reach a mutually agreeable solution to 

closing the plant, one that will best serve the Bayview Hunters Point community, PG&E, and the power 

needs of San Francisco residents. 

COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE 

Although the former plant manager said he received “generally good feedback” from the community, either 

directly or through secondary channels, reaction to current outreach efforts is mixed. 

•	 One resident, a member of both a neighborhood association and an activist organization for the 

community, gives PG&E low marks for its outreach efforts to date. He feels that the utility is being 

“uncommunicative,” that calls to the company to gain information are “fruitless,” and that PG&E 

needs to make “a more concerted effort to find out who to talk to.” 

•	 Another resident and president of a second neighborhood association has a different view. “PG&E 

is reaching out,” she asserts, but “it’s an individual choice. You can have as much interaction as you 

choose. If people are uninformed, it’s not PG&E’s fault.” 

•	 The president of a third neighborhood association says that PG&E’s outreach was good during the 

upgrade and tank removal process, but that recently it has dropped off. This still put PG&E “about 

in the middle,” he says, compared to the outreach efforts of other industries in the area. 

Staff admit that “PG&E is doing good things, but they’re not always good at getting the word out.” 

33

OUTCOMES OF THE PROCESS


PG&E’s community outreach efforts in the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood are ongoing and 

evolving, much like the utility’s internal efforts at weaving environmental justice into the everyday fabric 

of how it does business. While other companies report difficulties in determining whether or not they have 

contacted all of the groups and reached all of the competing interests in an affected community, PG&E 

feels it has solved that problem by hiring one of the community’s own and seeking his advice and 

assistance with informing and updating the community about what the company is doing, while also 

having him serve as a channel for communicating resident concerns directly back to the company. 

In terms of company education and the application of the fairly new procedure manual, staff admit that 

“things have not been easy and are not perfect.” But one employee who has been at PG&E for 25 years said 

he has seen significant changes. “Are we where we need to be? No. We’re getting there, we’ve done a 

great job, but there’s a learning curve.” 

Although PG&E is proud of its role as a policy pioneer, the Environmental Affairs Vice President and 

Environmental Justice Program Manager agree that national-level criteria are crucial because there is a 

“lack of education on EJ and what it means and what it can and can’t do.” PG&E is moving forward with 

the idea that anticipating environmental justice issues before making a business decision is just another 

aspect of sound business practice. The company began by looking at no-cost and low-cost solutions and 

successes. However, staff realized that in order to be truly proactive in the area of environmental justice 

there were practices that would require the expenditure of additional funds—this is all part of the current 

program development. PG&E views implementing its environmental justice policy as: 1) the right thing to 

do; 2) an investment that is likely to save the company money in the long-run; and 3) an essential 

component of environmental leadership. 

34

 CASE STUDY: AND PERMITTING 

Company Type: Waste Management/Hazardous Waste Disposal 

Geographic Region: West Coast 

Community Information: Small, unincorporated community; approximately 1,500 

residents; 95 percent Latino; only predominantly Latino county 

in state; Spanish is the primary language 

Case: General community relations with the facility and the 

permitting of a municipal solid waste disposal site at the 

Kettleman Hills facility 

Community Involvement Approach: Creating the Kettleman Hills Foundation to mitigate project 

impacts, improve community interaction and development, 

and encourage open communication between the 

community and WM; publishing notices and announcements 

in Spanish and English; holding public information meetings 

with translators present 

SITING 

OVERVIEW


With approximately 55,000 employees, Waste Management (WM) provides comprehensive waste 

recycling and disposal services. One of its hazardous waste facilities, the Kettleman Hills facility in 

California, has been a focus for discussion of the issue of environmental justice for nearly two decades. 

Experiences at the site reflect an evolution in a company’s understanding of environmental justice and the 

importance of developing a working partnership with the local community. 

Issues at the Kettleman Hills facility began in the mid-1980s, when the community raised concerns about 

WM’s plans to construct a hazardous waste incinerator at the facility. As part of this plan, WM also began 

to help the community plan and build a community center. However, when the community successfully 

blocked the construction of the incinerator, WM abandoned its support of the community center project. 

These events led to growing frustration and distrust between the company and the community in the 

following years. The relationship between WM and the community did not improve until WM appointed 

a new general manager (GM) for the facility in 1995. Having worked at the facility since the mid-1980s, 

the new GM was familiar with the community’s issues and focused his efforts on trying to make WM’s 

Kettleman Hills facility a “good neighbor” that supported “giving back” to the community. 

In 1995, the community’s primary school, which also happened to be where the town’s residents 

congregated for events, needed additional property to build athletic facilities. The WM facility manager 

was able to secure a donation of 15 acres from Chevron Corporation, which had oil property in Kettleman 

Hills, for the needed athletic facilities. He was also able to organize a group of WM volunteers to construct 

a baseball/softball field, raise backstops, and clear land for football and soccer fields. 

In 1997, as closure on one cell of WM’s hazardous waste disposal facility was pending, WM proposed that 

a Class 2-3 municipal solid waste landfill be constructed on the site. WM conducted its state-required 

35

outreach through bilingual public meetings and information sessions. However, a majority of the 

community opposed this new landfill, and a suit was filed to block the permit. In an effort to settle the suit, 

WM initiated negotiations with the community. As part of the settlement discussions, WM offered to 

create and fund a “Kettleman City Foundation.” The foundation would serve as a forum for residents to 

express their concerns to WM, and to provide leadership for community development. WM also saw this 

settlement effort as an opportunity to further improve its relations with community residents. The 

community’s involvement allowed the citizens of Kettleman Hills to express what they felt their 

community needed from WM in exchange for their support of WM’s activities. This interaction and 

increased cooperation resulted in the successful construction of a community center and a separate daycare/ 

classroom complex for the community, installation of replacement windows for citizens impacted by 

increased traffic noise from the landfill, and a smooth permitting process for WM. 

Through this process, WM learned that it needed to more actively engage the community and respect the 

cultural and language differences that existed within the community if the company wanted to increase 

community support for its facility’s activities. WM also learned that it needed to be willing to provide 

financial assistance and leadership in the construction of building projects within the community that would 

improve the quality of life for Kettleman Hills’ citizens. 

BACKGROUND 

The Kettleman Hills facility was originally constructed as a Class 2 industrial waste disposal facility in 

1978. It was bought by WM and upgraded to a Class 1 hazardous waste disposal facility (Toxic Substance 

Disposal Facility - TSDF) in 1979. The community first raised concerns that the facility harmed the 

environment and presented an environmental justice issue in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The 

community filed a Title VI complaint with EPA against WM, which pre-dated EPA’s environmental justice 

policy. That action was eventually dismissed, as Title VI suits can only be filed against entities that receive 

federal funding. Two groups, the California Rural Law Foundation (CRLF) and El Pueblo for Clean Air 

and Clean Water (a community group), expressed environmental concerns when the Kettleman Hills 

facility first came on-line in 1979, and continue their involvement in helping to organize and empower the 

community today. 

In the mid-1980s, conversations between the GM of the facility (at that time) and the community were 

taking place. In that dialogue, WM expressed an interest in helping the community realize its goal of 

building a community and sports center. Due to a lack of effective communication by both sides and a lack 

of outreach and effective public involvement by WM, the process collapsed. That collapse caused 

increased confusion and misunderstanding between WM and the Kettleman Hills community. The 

community felt ignored and became distrustful of WM, while WM felt frustrated and disappointed at the 

lack of community engagement in the building and planning effort for the community center. 

In the late 1980s, WM sought to add a hazardous waste incinerator to its Kettleman Hills facility. WM held 

public meetings to comply with the California State Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s public 

participation requirements. After consultations with the county (which was the lead under the California 

Environmental Quality Act and which believed that all official business language should be in English), 

WM published the permit application text in English only, rather than in English and Spanish. WM did 

provide translation services in this public comment collection in an effort to help accommodate the 

predominantly Spanish-speaking community. The incinerator proposal was met with a great deal of 

opposition and resistance, both in the Kettleman Hills community and from outside environmental groups. 

Greenpeace became involved in the community’s efforts to prevent the permitting and siting of the 

36

incinerator in Kettleman Hills, and participated in blocking the existing entrance to the facility in protest. 

The community filed a lawsuit against Kings County, alleging that the community had not been sufficiently 

involved in the permitting process since the environmental impact statement released to the public had few 

sections in Spanish, the language spoken by most Kettleman Hills residents. Due to a decline in the market 

for incineration services and in light of community, public, and media pressure, WM withdrew its 

incinerator permit application. A judge eventually found the environmental impact statement fatally flawed 

in 1992 for this and other reasons. 

WM feels that the issue of community involvement in Kettleman Hills serves as a good example of how 

difficult it can be to solve community problems and respond to community concerns when there is no 

official guidance from a federal regulatory body like EPA. Even though WM complied with the California 

state regulations for public involvement and followed county outreach policies, WM believes that more 

guidance should have been available at the federal level. Later permitting and communication efforts 

undertaken by WM would be different, and would include notices published in the languages spoken by the 

community, in the newspapers and journals read by the community. 

Ill feelings between WM and the community 

Since 1978, three lawsuits have been filed over continued into the early 1990s. An example

issues concerning WM’s Kettleman Hills facility: 

• A Title IV discrimination suit on the siting of the 

hazardous waste facility in the city; 

• A suit that successfully found that the community 

was not sufficiently involved in the evaluation for 

potentially siting a hazardous waste incinerator 

in the city; and 

• A lawsuit alleging improper permitting of a new 

solid waste landfill in the city by WM. 

of this was an incident where the community 

utility district increased potable water rates for 

the WM facility four-fold in an effort to 

“punish” WM. In 1995, the year the current 

facility manager was appointed, the 

community expressed a need for additional 

property for athletic facilities at the local 

kindergarten-through-eighth-grade school. 

The WM GM’s negotiations with Chevron 

Corporation, who owns oil fields in the area, 

resulted in Chevron donating approximately 

15 acres of land adjacent to the school for the 

construction of those athletic facilities. 

Volunteers from WM raised backstops and constructed a baseball/softball field, and prepared a portion of 

the donated land for future football and soccer fields. 

When a portion of the hazardous waste disposal facility was approaching closure in 1997, the WM facility 

manager recommended that the southern portion of the facility be slated for use as a municipal solid waste 

landfill that could be used by the community and provide tipping fees from outside customers. A major 

segment of the community opposed this new landfill. The community, aided by CRLF, sued the Kings 

County Board of Supervisors to block the issuance of the permit and, losing that suit, appealed to State 

Superior Court. WM entered into negotiations with the community in an effort to settle the suit. 

As a result of those settlement negotiations, WM agreed to create and fund a “Kettleman City Foundation” 

if the community would drop its suit. This foundation, whose board members would be elected from the 

community and from WM staff, would serve as a forum and “sounding-board” for the community, and as 

a conduit for communication between WM and the community. The foundation’s board members would 

also serve as a source of leadership and guidance for the ongoing development and improvement of the 

Kettleman Hills community. As part of the foundation’s creation, it was established that the manager of the 

Kettleman Hills facility would always have a place on the foundation’s seven-person governing board. 

37

That position on the board would allow the facility manager the 

opportunity to help provide community development leadership 

and help ensure good future relations with the community. In 

the board’s discussions about the future landfill, WM agreed to 

donate a portion of the tipping fee for every ton of municipal 

solid waste that went into the new landfill to the foundation for 

use in future community development projects. With the 

creation of the foundation, the community began to look again 

at constructing a community center. 

The foundation’s board was next able to secure a Technical 

Assistance Grant from EPA to augment the funds previously 

raised by the foundation from local businesses and private 

citizens for the community center. This grant helped fund 

public involvement and technical assistance activities for the 

The Kettleman City Foundation, 

though formed as part of a lawsuit 

settlement, was proposed by WM as 

a vehicle to improve relations with 

the citizens of Kettleman Hills. 

Through 

discussions with the Kettleman Hills 

community conducted through the 

foundation, WM was able to 

determine what investments in the 

community were needed to improve 

community relations and increase 

community support for the facility. 

negotiations and 

planning phase of the community center, which took place from 1999–2000. The foundation was then able 

to set aside two to three acres of the previously donated 15 acres as the location for the future community 

center. The community utility district donated utility “hook-ups” for the community center, and the 

foundation was able to convince the county to provide various educational classes at the center once it was 

complete. The foundation was also able to negotiate with a daycare provider to offer childcare services at 

the center upon its opening. 

The final community center plan allocated half of the building for daycare services, and the other half of the 

building for a community center. With the funds that had already been given by WM used as leverage, the 

foundation was able to secure a $500,000 development grant from Kings County, and a $350,000 grant 

from national tobacco settlement funds to cover all construction costs. Another $150,000 grant from the 

Kings County Children and Family Commission was received specifically for the construction of a 

dedicated family resource center (which would include a full kitchen) within the community center. An 

additional $80,000 was also planned to be given by the State of California for the construction of a pavilion 

behind the completed community center/daycare facility for outdoor community gatherings, but those funds 

were later lost due to a state budget crunch that year. 

As planning for the new municipal solid waste landfill at the WM facility and the community center 

continued, concerns about potential noise pollution were raised by the community to the foundation’s 

board. The main road that runs through Kettleman Hills, Highway 41, would experience increased waste 

hauler traffic once the new landfill was opened. These more frequent trips would increase the noise 

pollution for those families that lived along the highway. As part of the permitting process for the landfill, 

and in an effort to reduce the impact on the community from the potential increase in traffic noise, WM 

negotiated to put new windows in the houses that abutted the facility and those that faced the road. The 

foundation became involved early in the noise pollution concern issue and in the implementation of the 

window replacement project, which in turn helped maintain good relations between WM and the 

community. 

With all of the funds that had been raised and secured, the Kettleman City Foundation was able to construct 

two buildings for the community rather than just the one building originally planned. One building would 

house the family resource center and daycare facility, and the other would serve as a community hall for 

events, gatherings, and entertainment activities. A prominent local farmer donated $50,000 to help the 

foundation with these construction efforts. This donation was seen by WM as a sign that relations with the 

38

surrounding community had truly improved. The agricultural community in the area had been one of the 

most vocal groups concerned with the impact that the facility would have on the local environment. 

COMPANY’S APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY 

INVOLVEMENT 

WM is currently in the process of developing an overall environmental justice policy and has a “good


neighbor” policy and an active community relations department. The good neighbor policy includes


promoting host community consultations and providing contributions to civic and charitable programs that


establish active and lasting partnerships with the community. WM believes that there are no “cookie


cutter” facilities/communities/situations that would benefit from blanket community involvement dictates,


and believes that each facility must be approached in a manner best suited to the concerns and


demographics of that impacted


community. An active participant in


numerous environmental justice


forums over the years, WM has 

engaged agencies and community 

groups on a variety of issues (see text 

box at right). 

WM believes that environmental 

justice can be defined as any 

disproportionate environmental 

impact on a community of color or 

low-income community, and that 

environmental impacts can affect any 

type of media (i.e., soils, water, air). 

WM acknowledges the complex role 

that outside environmental and 

public interest groups play in specific 

facility disputes. Such groups were 

very effective at Kettleman Hills in 

defining the environmental justice 

debate during a period in which these 

issues were far less defined than they 

are today. At a certain point, 

however, WM finds that it is vital to 

engage directly with the impacted 

community rather than to only focus 

on dialogue with outside groups. 

Rather than have outside 

environmental or public interest 

groups dominate the discussion, 

WM’s Participation in Environmental Justice 

Dialogues and Forums 

• First business to testify before Congress in support of 

the Environmental Justice Act sponsored by 

Congressman John Lewis and Senator Albert Gore. 

• Co-chair of the National Environmental Policy 

Commission sponsored by the Congressional Black 

Caucus. 

• Five-year member of NEJAC and participant in NEJAC 

Work Groups addressing: alization; 

Community Involvement at RCRA Hazardous Waste 

Facilities; Best Practices in the Siting and Operation of 

Municipal Waste Transfer Stations; Incorporating 

Environmental Justice into Environmental Permits; 

Pollution Prevention and Environmental Justice; and 

Cumulative Impacts (co-chair). 

• Member of EPA’s Advisory Committee on 

Implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in 

Environmental Permits. 

• Member of the New York State Advisory Committee on 

Environmental Justice. 

• Founding and steering committee member of the 

Business Network for Environmental Justice. 

Brownfields Revit

WM’s experience is that real solutions are developed through facility/local community interaction. In 

WM’s experience, outside groups can make discussions more confrontational because of those groups’ 

drive to establish precedents and remain focused on broad policy or legal objectives that may not be a close 

fit with local needs. WM does agree that environmental justice issues do exist, and stresses that all sources 

39

of pollution—large and small, waste generators and handlers, public and privately owned—must share 

responsibility to address cumulative impacts. 

WM states that there are many considerations when siting a facility, but historically community 

demographics were not a priority given the many siting restrictions on waste operations. Waste disposal 

facilities, especially hazardous waste disposal facilities, do not have a great deal of discretion in their 

placement. These types of facilities need to be near service areas and highways, comply with zoning laws, 

and have appropriate local geology. The facility’s size plays a key role in where it can be placed. The chalk 

layers and low precipitation found in the Kettleman Hills area provide an ideal barrier to prevent any waste 

migration, and helped WM decide to develop a hazardous waste facility in that area. 

WM feels the best approach to community involvement is through public participation and educating the 

local community. The company believes that a WM facility in any community must be active in the public 

participation process and must serve as a source of information for the community. WM also believes that 

EPA needs to do a better job of acknowledging the “good actors” in industry who have experienced 

successful and positive community involvement in their permitting and siting decisions, which in turn will 

help motivate other companies and define the good practices to be emulated. 

Discussion of the Process 

There was little constructive interaction between WM and the Kettleman Hills community prior to 1995. 

The GM who was appointed in 1995 was committed to partnering with the community, and began building 

trust between the facility and the community. 

The establishment of the Kettleman City Foundation, based on the litigation settlement, was the key step in 

the process that gave community members a greater sense of involvement and empowerment. The 

foundation’s governing board provided the needed leadership for implementing needed improvements for 

the community. Public board meetings served as information sessions about activities at the WM facility. 

These public meetings also gave board members the opportunity to interact with WM staff and the 

community, and served as a way for WM to become more aware of community concerns about the plant. 

Outside consultants were brought in to facilitate several meetings early on in the community involvement 

process for the solid waste landfill. Both the current facility manager and a representative from CRLF also 

served as facilitators at several community meetings. The foundation was the conduit for the community to 

get what it wanted from WM, and for WM to get the support it needed for its operations from the 

community. Some members of the community seemed to genuinely appreciate the community 

involvement efforts spearheaded by the new facility GM. 

COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE 

Some members of the Kettleman Hills community feel that relations have improved somewhat since the 

current WM facility GM was appointed in 1995. The GM’s approach of increasing community 

engagement and involvement in plant decisions has helped created a greater sense of ownership and 

empowerment within the community. The town of Kettleman Hills has also gained several community 

structures and athletic fields from the improved relationship with WM. 

Based on discussions with community members, a substantial majority of the community was opposed to 

the new solid waste facility permit. The concerns raised included truck traffic and noise; odors and disease; 

air pollution impacts; and environmental concerns about municipal waste leachate. There was a 

40

widespread belief that the siting of the new landfill was based on the fact that the area is 95 percent Latino; 

moreover, community members felt the demographics of and impacts to the community would be disparate 

compared to other communities in California. Community members, while commending the use of an 

interpreter to address the English/Spanish language divide, did not believe that there were any fact sheets 

drafted in Spanish, which made it difficult for most of the community to understand the technical issues 

involved. More importantly, since the text of the environmental impact statement was written in English 

only, most of the community could not understand the impacts the facility would have. Members of the 

community mentioned that they were faced with a strategic choice about the solid waste landfill—they 

could oppose WM while another permitted facility was built by another company even closer to town, or 

they could reach an agreement with WM for the construction of its facility. Despite this opposition, 

differing views exist in Kettleman Hills regarding the public involvement process leading up to settlement 

of the lawsuit and the creation of the Kettleman City Foundation, as well as the participation of the 

community in the foundation activities in relation to WM operations. 

Community Member #1—Supportive. Community members do not express enough appreciation for what 

WM has brought to the community. WM helps out in buying supplies for the local school cafeteria, and 

assists very-low-income citizens in purchasing home furnishings, such as beds. The original idea for the 

community center was brought up by the former GM of WM approximately 10–12 years ago, but due to 

frustrations and other issues that came up, the plan was put on the “back burner.” The 1998 lawsuit was 

brought not by people wanting to prevent the permitting of a solid waste facility, but by people who wanted 

to “get money out of WM for themselves.” There were no public meetings concerning the lawsuit or about 

the decision to create the foundation. The foundation was the idea of the current GM, who had become 

tired of the fruitlessness of the lawsuit. The GM suggested the foundation as a way to settle the claims of 

the community without going to trial. At the foundation creation meeting, for which there was no public 

notice, only three people from Kettleman Hills besides members of “El Pueblo” attended. Since there were 

so few attendees, a man from a neighboring town was elected to the foundation board despite the fact that 

he did not live in Kettleman Hills. WM now holds monthly meetings to keep the public informed about the 

foundation’s activities and keep community members up to date on what is going on at WM’s facility. 

Community Member #2—Neutral. Meeting notices only went out four to five days before the public 

meetings, while some people allege they did not receive them in the mail at all. Instead, they should have 

been posted in local grocery stores frequented by a large number of affected community members. Many 

individuals only heard through word-of-mouth from neighbors. The community largely felt its opposition 

was being ignored, and while WM could dump the waste elsewhere, this community was targeted since it 

is Latino and isolated. The translator was necessary but not sufficient to bridge the language gap. A video 

would have helped. On the other hand, since the creation of the foundation, WM has been quite active, and 

the company is widely seen as trying its best to help the community. WM’s support includes organizing 

events and applying for grants to support community projects. 

Community Member #3—Opposed. The creation and initial funding of the foundation was not a proactive 

gesture on the part of WM. Instead, it took concerted opposition by the community though a lawsuit to 

obtain some of the mitigation measures asked for during the permitting process. For example, to mitigate 

noise from increased truck traffic, the community had sought as a permitting condition special windows for 

houses along Route 41 en route to the facility. They only obtained the windows after the lawsuit. Given 

that WM translated less than one-half of one percent of the environmental impact statement (i.e., the 

meeting notice and the environmental impact statement’s executive summary), this effort was definitely 

not an example of model community involvement. In the end, it is not clear that the foundation’s benefits 

exceed the impacts the community has had to bear. Regarding lessons learned, it is questionable whether 

communities having a monetary relationship with companies they host is a good idea since it can 

41

compromise the integrity of such communities. Moreover, state and local laws should enable communities 

to impose permitting conditions and reject those it finds objectionable—such a goal could be accomplished 

through a majority vote in a local referendum. 

WM did send meeting notices in a timely fashion, though concerned citizens went door-to-door to 

neighbors to ensure people understood the importance of the issue. The company only performed the 

minimal amount of community involvement activity. For example, no fact sheets—in either English or 

Spanish—were provided. Also, since public hearings are intimidating to some and questions are only 

answered much later in writing, informal meetings would have been a better approach. The community 

decided to settle the lawsuit due to fears it would not win in court, and many were concerned the town 

would potentially be saddled with legal fees. While the community had sought a community center for 

some time, WM thought the foundation was the best vehicle for creating it. While the foundation has led 

to a more cooperative relationship with WM, this forum has not to date resulted in a broader discussion that 

could include environmental impacts of the facility. 

OUTCOMES OF THE PROCESS 

WM’s approach seems to have largely satisfied the community, and the company’s Kettleman Hills facility


has progressed from having a history of community distrust and protest to that of active, positive


engagement through creation of the


foundation. WM has made


substantial investments in the


community and improved its 

standing with local citizens. In the 

end, the community became more 

enfranchised through the foundation, 

and has been able to collectively 

work towards improving the quality 

of life in Kettleman Hills. The 

creation of the athletic fields for the 

school was the first step on the path 

to improved relations between the 

facility and the community. WM 

feels that it has been rewarded for 

all its efforts with honesty and trust 

from the community. WM could 

have directly donated funds to the 

community for improvements, but 

chose to become involved directly 

A tax on WM’s Kettleman Hills’ revenue (a 10% gross receipts 

tax on hazardous waste disposal) is the largest source of 

discretionary income to Kings County. 

million assessed in disposal taxes was used for road 

construction, the fire department, building projects, and as 

part of the county’s general fund. 

In addition to the 2001 county disposal taxes, the facility paid 

$427,375 in property tax, $639,878 to the California Integrated 

Waste Management Board, and $4,911,167 to the California 

Department of Toxic Substances Control in disposal fees. 

WM’s Kettleman Hills’ contributions to communities in Kings 

County in 2001 were $164,913. 

county, the Kettleman City Community, the elementary school, 

the fire department, the sheriff’s activity league and 

foundation, and the Avenal community. 

In 2001, the $2.6 

Contributions went to the 

and make good things happen through the investment of “sweat equity.” The community center is 

scheduled to open in Fall 2003. 

Lessons Learned 

WM believes there are several lessons the business community can learn from the Kettleman Hills case. 

The first is that Title VI, zoning laws, the omnibus provisions of RCRA, and other legal authorities afford 

communities angry with facility operations or siting efforts the opportunity to protest in court. The 

important lesson is that being in court does not predetermine the outcome. 

42

WM believes that it is certainly possible for companies such as itself to mount sophisticated legal defenses 

to the extent that these companies can potentially win citizen suits. WM does feel it can be far more 

effective and consistent with business interests, however, to go a different route and engage a community 

candidly and proactively. If instead of focusing on legal obligations and recourse, a company takes 

litigation as a wake-up call to talk to the community, a working relationship can begin. Once the Kettleman 

Hills discussions turned to the community’s need for resources and the means to meet those needs through 

collaboration in a company-funded community foundation, a much-improved relationship began. The 

community then gradually developed a better understanding of company operations and a different 

perspective on WM’s impact on the community. WM was then able to gain a better understanding of the 

community’s legitimate needs for more information, gather better input into its operational issues 

potentially impacting the community, and gain an appreciation for the benefits of working with community 

members on common projects. This evolving relationship furthers business goals and meets shareholder 

expectations by reducing opposition and delay in permitting proceedings and avoiding an impaired image 

caused by public controversy. 

43

– This Page Intentionally Left Blank – 

44

CASE STUDY: 

Company Type: Petroleum Refinery 

Geographic Region: Central/Rocky Mountains 

Community Information: Economically disadvantaged, not minority 

Case: Siting a new Corrective Action Management Unit for the waste 

generated from the planned cleanup at the closed refinery 

Community Involvement Approach: Frequent community meetings and presentations to the 

community; monthly newsletters about the reuse plan 

progress; a citizen board formed during the collaborative 

reuse planning effort 

SITING AND PERMITTING 

OVERVIEW


British Petroleum (BP, who merged with Amoco in 1998) encountered community involvement and 

environmental justice issues in Casper, Wyoming, in 1998, during its attempts to remediate and plan for the 

reuse of its closed oil refinery, its storage tank farm supporting the refinery, and its wastewater management 

facility. The company also encountered these issues during its efforts to renew its permit for a land 

treatment unit (LTU) located on the tank farm property. Although the LTU had handled the refinery waste 

for years, part of the company’s LTU permit renewal effort included the siting of a Corrective Action 

Management Unit (CAMU) on the tank farm. The CAMU would incorporate the LTU, and would contain 

the wastes that would be excavated during the remediation of the refinery and adjacent tank farm. 

The LTU, also known as a “land farm,” was first established in the mid-1970s on the site of the old tank 

farm supporting the refinery. That tank farm was located approximately 1,000 feet west of a residential 

area by the name of Midwest Heights. Oily sludge was hauled from the refinery to the land farm where it 

was spread and periodically tilled to promote natural biodegredation. This was continued until the late 

1990s under the assumption that a CAMU would eventually be built adjacent to the land farm for the 

permanent disposal of cleanup-generated hazardous wastes. The LTU permit renewal submitted in 1998 

indicated that the proposed location for an on-site CAMU incorporating the LTU and other excavated 

wastes would be on 30 acres of the tank farm. The CAMU would consist of two large lined and covered 

containment units built within the tank farm. 

A public meeting on the proposed location for the CAMU and the LTU permit renewal, as required by state 

law, was held in 1998, followed by a 30-day public comment period. Although attendance was low, this 

first public meeting did elevate community awareness about the potential impact of the CAMU, and 

members of the community began to get involved. In late 1999 and early 2000, letters to the editor 

appeared in the local newspaper criticizing the placement of the CAMU near the low-income community 

of Midwest Heights. BP was surprised by the increasing attention because the tank farm was built long 

before the low-income community, and the tank farm seemed to be the most logical place to site the CAMU 

(many waste units had already been buried there). Adding to the surprise was that BP had not previously 

received any public comments during the official comment period on the CAMU permit that had long been 

submitted for review to the State of Wyoming. With public concern growing, and the potential for an 

45

environmental justice issue arising, BP decided to halt the progress of the CAMU permit and attempted to 

increase community involvement in the process. This decision led BP to expand discussions on the CAMU 

to involve all interested members of the community. BP also decided to bring in EPA staff to provide a 

workshop on environmental justice to BP representatives and the community. BP then held a public 

meeting in the spring of 2000 to have the community choose one of four possible sites for the CAMU. 

When the vote was called, the community unanimously agreed that the best site for the proposed CAMU 

would be the southwest corner of the Soda Lake property, outside the city limits of Casper. By allowing 

community members the opportunity to vote for their preferred site, and agreeing that the communitychosen site would be the location of the CAMU, BP created tremendous community support and 

engendered good will among residents. 

Through a concerted community involvement effort, BP was able to lead a successful effort to site the 

CAMU and develop better reuse plans for its tank farm. 

BACKGROUND 

Midwest Refining originally built the refinery in Casper, Wyoming, in 1913. Standard Oil Company of 

Indiana purchased Midwest Refining in 1921 and continued to expand production facilities. Standard 

modernized the refinery throughout the 1940s and 1950s; the company officially changed its name to 

Amoco in 1985. After 78 years of operation, Amoco shut down the Casper oil refinery in December 1991. 

Amoco then merged with BP on the last day of 1998; BP now owns the former refinery and associated land. 

In total, the Casper refinery properties include approximately 3,000 acres. The former BP refinery 

comprises 340 acres in west-central Casper on the southern bank of the North Platte River. The storage 

tank farm, which covers approximately 640 acres, is located north of the former refinery, Casper city limits, 

and the North Platte River. The southern portion of the tank farm is where the active storage tanks remain, 

and where BP initially proposed siting the CAMU. BP’s Soda Lake property, the final site chosen for the 

CAMU, lies two miles northeast of the storage tank farm, also outside the city limits of Casper, comprising 

approximately 2,200 acres. The Soda Lake property also contains a 700-acre lake and abundant wildlife. 

Between 1992 and 1998, following closure of the refinery, Amoco (which would become part of BP 

following the December 31, 1998 merger) kept a low profile in Casper, and relations with some members 

of the community became strained. In 1998, a new management team helped Amoco begin to increase its 

engagement and standing in the community by publishing periodic newsletters and meeting reports to keep 

the community informed of the site remediation progress at the closed refinery. 

EPA was involved at the site in 1991 when the facility closed, and again in 1996 when the agency issued a 

unilateral order to Amoco for remediation at the refinery. In 1997, a citizens’ group filed a civil suit against 

three companies that operated in Casper—including Amoco—alleging Clean Water Act violations. In 

1998, a judge issued a related injunction against Amoco to prevent off-site contamination. 

In the fall of 1998, Amoco entered into a court-approved consent decree with the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ) that required a collaborative process involving the community to reach 

decisions regarding the cleanup of the tank farm and refinery. Amoco, the City of Casper, and Natrona 

County signed a reuse agreement in 1998 to promote site redevelopment. The consent decree and reuse 

agreement set in motion monthly public collaborative process meetings and technical workshops. These 

agreements also helped form a Joint Powers Board (JPB)—comprising members of the Casper City 

Council and the Natrona County Commission, and other local residents—that would help redevelop the 

46

site. The JPB also later served as the community representative in negotiations with WDEQ and BP for


completion of the consent decree and creation of a required cleanup plan.


As part of the remediation of the LTU, tank farm, and refinery, BP wanted to build a CAMU in which to


contain wastes generated during cleanup. Since the reuse planning was occurring at this time and the


community was significantly involved in that effort, it did not take long before the community also got


involved in the process of siting the new CAMU. As the permitting process for the CAMU was


progressing, members of the community told BP that an environmental justice issue might be in the making


if the proposed site for the CAMU would be near the low-income Casper community of Midwest Heights.


Members of the community expressed concern that Midwest Heights might experience a disproportionate


impact from potential groundwater contamination, noise pollution, and air quality degradation caused by


the CAMU. Once these concerns were raised, BP embarked on a series of public meetings to inform the


public about its siting process and to gauge public response.


As the CAMU siting permit was being reviewed by the State of Wyoming in the spring of 1998, some of


Casper’s citizens banded together to create the Community Facilitation Initiative to work with Amoco on


the pending cleanup and redevelopment of the closed refinery. This group drafted a reuse plan for the


Amoco site and submitted it to the company.


After involving EPA, WDEQ, local environmental groups, and community members, BP held a public


meeting in the spring of 2000 to offer four possible sites for the CAMU. Of the four potential sites, one of


which was the originally proposed site at the tank farm near Midwest Heights, the audience unanimously


agreed that the site at the southwest corner of the Soda Lake property was the best choice. In allowing the


community to influence its siting decision, BP was able to avoid a potential environmental justice issue and


greatly improve its relations with the community.


Under the reuse agreement, BP agreed to provide an extensive package of infrastructure, redevelopment


funding, nominal property lease terms, and other amenities if the community would help the company


achieve a reasonable and timely property cleanup agreement with the state. The refinery property that


would be leased to the community included approximately 340 acres for a business park that would feature


constructed pads upon which future offices could be


built, utilities, a parkway, a championship golf course,


and additional recreational features. The northern 250-


acre portion of the tank farm was to be made available 

for redevelopment as an industrial park, complete with 

roads and utilities. The 2,200-acre Soda Lake parcel 

owned by BP, which was used to manage wastewater 

and featured more than 700 acres of water, would 

continue to be used as wildlife habitat and a viewing 

area. Although the deadline for reaching a reasonable 

cleanup agreement with the community had been set at 

Unique Approach 

BP gave the citizens of Casper the 

opportunity to vote on which of the four 

possible CAMU sites they would be most 

comfortable with and would be in the best 

interests of the community. 

September 2001, BP had anticipated a slight delay due to the extensive negotiations and allowed the 

community a few extra months for the last stages of negotiations and agreed to fund the full reuse package. 

47

COMPANY’S APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY 

INVOLVEMENT 

BP’s approach to community involvement and environmental justice is to defer to its managers in the field 

who are dealing with potential issues on a case-by-case basis. The company finds that the term 

“community involvement” better reflects its work than the term “environmental justice.” BP tends to 

believe the term “environmental justice” has a negative connotation that implies wrongdoing. In line with 

the corporate policy of local involvement and case-by-case decisions, BP Casper employees were allowed 

the freedom to resolve the potential environmental justice conflict caused by the proposed siting of the 

CAMU at the tank farm. This was also the case with the reuse planning for the former refinery lands, 

where the local BP representatives were able to negotiate locally, while BP corporate provided guidance 

and support as needed. 

Discussion of the Process 

At the public meetings that took place throughout the CAMU-siting process, the community voiced several


major concerns, including potential groundwater contamination from the proposed CAMU and a


disproportionate impact (noise, traffic, odors) on Midwest Heights. The people involved in the cleanup and


reuse planning meetings told BP that the impact of the proposed CAMU on Midwest Heights could


become an environmental justice issue. This


prompted BP to increase its efforts to involve both


Midwest Heights residents and the community-


at-large in the decision-making process. BP also


brought in EPA staff to provide an 

environmental justice workshop, with special 

attention given to residents of the potentially 

affected neighborhood of Midwest Heights. 

After the workshop, community members and BP 

held a series of meetings to discuss possible sites 

for the CAMU other than the tank farm. There 

were thousands of acres of former refinery lands 

on which the CAMU could be sited, and three 

alternative sites at various locations on those acres 

were selected. At a special public meeting where 

those alternatives were presented to the general 

public, BP reviewed the pros and cons of each 

site, noting that sending the waste out of state for 

disposal was not a viable option. The facility 

manager set the tone for the meeting, informing 

the community that cooperation and compromise 

were needed from all parties to reach agreement. 

Once the discussion of the different site options 

Community Outreach Activities 

• Published newsletters before and during the 

reuse agreement negotiations and the CAMU 

siting. 

• Brought in EPA trainers to give an 

environmental justice workshop to community 

members and BP personnel. 

• Held a series of informational meetings for the 

community relating both to reuse planning and 

the CAMU siting. 

• Made an extra effort to involve members of the 

Midwest Heights community in the CAMU 

process once the EJ issue was raised. The 

effort included going door-to-door in that 

community to inform residents about the 

meeting, where they would be given the 

opportunity to vote for their preferred CAMU site. 

concluded, the community members were asked for a show of hands indicating their preferred CAMU site. 

The southwest corner of the Soda Lake property was unanimously voted the best place to site the facility. 

After the vote, BP agreed to site the CAMU at the site chosen by the community, even though local 

management had not yet secured the required permits or upper management approval to site the CAMU 

there. BP’s commitment to honoring the siting choice of the community was greeted with clapping and 

48

cheers from the community participants who showed their appreciation for being heard and involved in the 

siting decision. 

BP considers the CAMU siting effort very successful once the community was effectively involved. BP 

will seek to involve communities early in the decision-making process in the future when similar situations 

present themselves or when potential environmental justice issues arise. 

COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE 

In the early 1990s, the Casper community was feeling very frustrated and uninvolved in the cleanup and 

reuse process at the Amoco refinery and tank farm. Starting in 1998, the community decided to take a more 

active role in determining the future use of these properties. This more active role corresponded with BP’s 

increased community involvement activities surrounding the renewal of its LTU permit. 

Once community members were able to organize and bring their concerns and ideas for reuse to BP, the 

company was responsive, and residents began to feel more empowered and involved, with a sense of 

ownership over the decisions that were being made. The increased community activity and involvement 

culminated in the formal signing of the reuse agreement for the former refinery site by the City of Casper, 

Natrona County, and BP. The projects within that agreement were the direct result of the community 

working with BP to establish and achieve the reuse goals that would best serve the needs of Casper. 

Set forth below are two community perspectives regarding the public participation process. 

Community Member #1—Supportive. BP used effective presentation materials, which included posters 

and detailed drawings, and acronyms of all terms used to describe the cleanup and CAMU process; and 

maintained several repositories containing all data and records regarding site activities. Agendas for the 

meeting were publicly announced. To ensure that a detailed record of meetings existed, all meetings were 

videotaped. The RCRA facility investigation process leading up to the final siting of the CAMU was 

conducted in a public, transparent manner; moreover, all documents discussed were made available to the 

public and were subject to public comment. The process became quite efficient once BP and WDEQ built 

trust and established a strong communication process over one and a half years. Instead of using the old 

process (e.g., BP drafts document, receives WDEQ comment, etc.), BP and WDEQ came to mutual 

agreement on remediation before the remedial design process was conducted, rather than after the fact, 

which tends to be the usual case when industries work with state governments. In sum, they developed a 

work plan together. Had this been done earlier, the process could have been more efficient. 

Community Member #2—Skeptical at First, Now Supportive of the Outcome. The new Amoco (and 

later BP) manager ushered in a new era of open communication between the company and the community. 

While the consultant and facilitator hired by the JPB led to a high degree of informational and educational 

exchange, WDEQ helped ensure that the community understood the complex technical issues involved in the 

reuse planning and CAMU siting. While BP did a decent job of informing the public concerning the CAMU, 

it was clear that many Midwest Heights residents did not understand the potential impacts of the CAMU’s 

siting near their community. It took strong opposition to the permit to get WDEQ to educate that group of 

citizens. The facilitator did a good job, but since his salary was paid for by BP, his neutrality was potentially 

compromised. BP also paid for WDEQ to hire consultants to work on the CAMU and reuse projects. Other 

improvements to the process could have included enhanced outreach in Casper as well as BP going beyond 

contacting the Chamber of Commerce in several of its consultations. Overall, the process turned out better 

than expected. 

49

OUTCOMES OF THE PROCESS


BP believes that if the community had been involved during the early stages of shutting down the refinery,


the entire process of planning for cleanup and reuse would have been much easier and much less


contentious. The company also stresses that simply meeting the state requirement for public notification


and hearings with paperwork available for review at the public library, identified by BP as “the old way,”


does not effectively involve the community. The “new way” of actively involving the community,


according to BP, is to have personal visits with


interested neighbors, sponsor open public meetings,


and hold information sessions for interested


community members. BP believes the best approach 

to avoiding potential environmental justice issues 

is get residents involved, not because they have to 

be involved, but because they want to be involved. 

The citizens of Casper, and specifically the 

members of the Midwest Heights community, now 

have a greatly improved opinion of BP as a 

corporation. The reuse planning process and CAMU 

During the reuse planning and CAMU siting 

process, the State of Wyoming drafted and 

passed a Voluntary Remediation Program 

due in part to experiences in Casper with the 

BP facility, included intensive community 

involvement provisions that would bring all 

stakeholders together “at the table” to resolve 

their concerns and issues. 

that, 

siting process have helped create sense of buy-in for residents into what goes on in their community with 

regard to BP. Residents feel that their opinions and concerns matter to BP, and that they will be heard if 

they need to air a grievance. After the limited communication with and frequently bad feelings toward the 

refinery and the company in the early 1990s, the support and good feelings that currently exist between BP 

and the community are even more impressive. BP involved the community and empowered residents to 

help determine where the CAMU was sited, gaining along the way great support and trust from the people 

of Casper, Wyoming. 

50

CASE STUDY: 

Case Study: Permitting 

Company Type: Manufacturing and Industrial 

Geographic Region: South 

Community Information: Small community with a minority, low-income population 

Case: Permitting an existing facility 

Community Involvement Approach: Company facilitated a dialogue using an established CAP to 

communicate with the community and gain acceptance for 

complex, multi-media permits 

PERMITTING 

OVERVIEW


Weyerhaeuser, a forest products company, manages 43 million acres of forest land primarily in the U.S. and 

Canada; has 100 facilities; and employs more than 57,000 people in the U.S. and Canada. It has 

encountered community involvement issues in the past in a variety of settings, including through its 

facilities and forest management practices impacting First Nations tribes in Canada. Consequently, the 

company has instituted CAPs in some cases and engaged in facilitated processes in others. Weyerhaeuser 

believes that compared to other companies, it has had few major issues. The company attributes its success 

in this arena to a proactive policy of community involvement. 

This case study examines Weyerhaeuser’s Flint River Operations in Oglethorpe, Georgia. The Flint River 

facility employs approximately 375 people to produce absorbent fluff pulp used to manufacture diapers. 

This case study is not a description of a facility reacting to community opposition to its siting or permitting 

practices by increasing its level of engagement with the community. Instead, Flint River demonstrates a 

proactive commitment by a facility with air, water, and waste permits, and a positive record of 

performance, to negotiate and implement an agreement that goes beyond the regulatory requirements in a 

small community with a significant African American population. To achieve this outcome, the company 

facilitated a CAP process as part of its ongoing dialogue with the community. 

BACKGROUND 

In 1995, Weyerhaeuser proposed participating in U.S. EPA’s Project XL (eXcellence and Leadership) to 

U.S. EPA, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GaEPD), and the Georgia Pollution Prevention 

Assistance Division. The thrust of the proposal was to take a high-performing facility, its Flint River 

Operations, and voluntarily go beyond regulatory requirements through the use of a “bubble” under the 

Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V programs. Through this 

regulatory flexibility, Weyerhaeuser sought to avoid paperwork costs that, in its view, “do not truly benefit 

the environment.” It also sought to create an environmental management system under ISO 14001 to 

reduce impacts to the environment across multiple environmental media. Instead of shifting the 

environmental impact from one media to another and proceeding in a piecemeal fashion, Weyerhaeuser 

sought to address all media impacts simultaneously and to create such improvements through its Minimum 

51

Impact Mill (MIM) approach. Significantly, the company sought to go beyond compliance at a lower cost 

to both Weyerhaeuser and state regulators by focusing on a partnership approach to compliance. In 

negotiating the XL agreement, the company engaged the regulators as well as a host of community 

stakeholders (see Discussion of the Process in the next section). The resulting agreement also 

demonstrates a commitment to educating and communicating with the community on a host of complex 

issues. 

COMPANY’S APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY 

INVOLVEMENT 

General Community Involvement Policy and Environmental Justice Views 

Weyerhaeuser is aware of environmental justice. It addresses environmental justice through its community 

involvement paradigm, and the company sees no distinction between the two concepts of environmental 

justice and community involvement. Weyerhaeuser believes that communication and trust-building are 

two essential components to a successful community involvement strategy, and that trust is something that 

must be earned with the communities in which a company operates. 

Site-Specific Practices 

Set forth below are discussions of the technical issues addressed at Flint River, including the process used


to explore such issues.


The Flint River facility put in place portions of Weyerhaeuser’s MIM strategy beginning in the early 1980s.


(Some of the technologies established at that time are the current basis for certain water rules, such as the


1998 cluster rule for the pulp and paper industry.)


In the XL agreement reached on January 17, 1997,


the Flint River facility voluntarily agreed to improve


its environmental performance in all media in two


major phases—a short-term period, Phase IV


(1996–1997), and a long-term period, Phase V


(1998–2006)—with all commitments to be met by


2006. (Phases I–III were completed prior to the


execution of the agreement.) Phase IV included


improvements in isothermal cooking and odor


control, energy reductions, and development of an


environmental management system, ISO 14001. In


Phase V, the environmental improvements


(compared to the 1995 levels) include studies to


reduce bleach effluent and solid waste by


50 percent, reduce air emissions under Maximum


Achievable Control Technology (MACT), employ


timber resource strategies, and decrease water and


energy use. For air emissions, the agreement


provides for dual air emissions caps that limit


Siting 

The following criteria have been used by 

Weyerhaeuser to site facilities: access to 

railroads and other transportation links; 

proximity to markets; availability of raw 

materials; and the presence of a potential 

labor pool. ain circumstances, measures 

have been taken to mitigate siting concerns. 

First, Weyerhaeuser may add environmental 

controls beyond compliance requirements in 

exchange for shorter construction permitting 

timelines. any attempts to 

buy enough land after the initial site evaluation 

to ensure that the new facility has room to grow 

and still not be an issue for the surrounding 

local community. 

In cert

Second, the comp

facility-wide emissions to 60 percent below requirements. In return, the company can change operating 

conditions within the facility bubble without triggering permit reviews if it does not exceed the reduced 

limits. Overall, these reductions put the performance well below the regulatory limits for water and solid 

waste. 

52

To achieve these pollution reduction targets, Weyerhaeuser conducted a feasibility study and provided the 

results to regulatory agencies and other stakeholders (further identified below). For the MACT reductions, 

the company, EPA, and GaEPD agreed to perform a MACT applicability assessment, under which the 

reduction levels would be quantified and a timeline established. The agreement called for pollution 

reductions to be enforceable permit conditions in both National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) water volume use and effluent measures (e.g., biological oxygen demand, total suspended solids), 

as well as solid waste (e.g., pounds). Therefore, while the agreement was voluntary and non-enforceable in 

general, GaEPD—to which EPA has delegated responsibility to run the permitting programs subject to the 

agreement—had to implement these proposed permitting condition changes (e.g., modification and 

reissuance) through the permitting process, including the associated state public involvement provisions. 

All permitting changes outlined above will be implemented and monitored by GaEPD. Weyerhaeuser 

agreed not to challenge the implementation of the new permit conditions as long as they conformed with 

the substance of the agreement between the parties. 

Discussion of the Process 

The agreement process (which was completed in nine months) included participation by the following 

parties: City of Oglethorpe, City of Montezuma, Macon Correctional Institution, Macon County Local 

Emergency Planning Committee, community leaders, Lake Blackshear Watershed Association (which 

includes representatives from Georgia Southwestern College, Crisp County Power Commissions and 

Department of Natural Resources–Game and Fish Division), and members of the public. The company had 

already established a sound relationship with the community; therefore, it used its existing CAP to consult 

with the community on the provisions of the agreement. The company also invited a university professor 

who was an expert in water issues to participate in CAP meetings. 

Stakeholder involvement activities included personal contacts through telephone calls and meetings; 

publishing notices of upcoming meetings in three area newspapers; and posting notices of upcoming 

meetings, the project proposal, and the draft agreement in three county courthouses. 

Community Outreach Activities 

Weyerhaeuser facilitated three public meetings in Oglethorpe, Georgia, during the agreement negotiation 

process. The CAP was augmented by other participants interested in the project (see text box, next page, 

for outreach to additional stakeholders). 

To address issues raised by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the Natural Resources 

Defense Council, two separate meetings were convened in Washington, DC, in 1996. 

These groups were concerned with the precedent such agreements could establish and the difficulty of 

monitoring them. Despite these concerns, the NGOs did not attempt to block the agreement, and, in fact, 

their comments were incorporated into the final agreement. 

The agreement provided for annual meetings to discuss the company’s environmental performance. In 

addition, Weyerhaeuser agreed to report on its progress twice annually and to provide backup data when 

requested. Overall, the community has been very accepting of the project results and has provided ongoing 

support for operations at the facility. 

53

COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE


Support for Weyerhaeuser’s agreement is evident by talking to process participants and reviewing


stakeholder comment letters received by EPA. According to participants, the company did an excellent job


of informing the public about the opportunities to


participate in the process from the outset, and the public


meetings were highly publicized. The company sought


as much local participation as possible in the CAP and 

engaged a broad group of stakeholders. Regarding the 

level of community participation, one participant noted 

that, if anything, “citizens chose not to participate.” 

Providing refreshments at some of the stakeholder 

meetings helped stimulate community participation. 

Participants agreed the company did an outstanding job 

of explaining in detail an array of highly technical 

issues. This was important since some participants had 

no formal environmental education or training. The fact 

that lay persons participated in the CAP (which was 

augmented by state and federal regulators who helped 

explain technical jargon) ensured that technical issues 

were clearly explained in a straightforward manner. If 

there were questions or concerns (such as local water 

impacts), the company provided information in a timely 

manner. Most importantly, the Weyerhaeuser team took 

such community concern seriously, and made a 

concerted effort to address issues that were raised. This approach, which was consistently reported by 

Community Outreach Activities 

Weyerhaeuser augmented existing CAP 

activities by: 

• Facilitating three highly publicized 

public meetings; 

• Providing 

distributing written materials to Flint 

River personnel; 

• Providing oral briefings to national 

NGOs; and 

• Hosting post-agreement annual 

meetings. 

oral briefings and 

stakeholders, instilled trust in the company. The final agreement was embraced by a wide range of CAP 

participants, and this support continues today. 

OUTCOMES OF THE PROCESS 

Weyerhaeuser’s practices at Flint River demonstrate a proactive model of community involvement. 

Moreover, the company’s success in working through a multi-media pollution prevention and permitting 

approach illustrates its commitment to protecting human health and the environment. Significantly, the 

company volunteered to exceed the regulatory requirements in the Project XL agreement through an 

interactive and transparent process. As a result, it was able to achieve positive results and enjoys ongoing 

support for the agreement among regulators. In addition, community support of facility operations remains 

strong. 

54

Lessons Learned 

Weyerhaeuser noted that while an outside facilitator can be useful, none was needed for this process since 

the CAP was deemed credible by the local community. While EPA Headquarters was initially uncertain 

about the viability of Weyerhaeuser’s project proposal, the agency ultimately saw the merits of the 

agreement. EPA Region 4 and GaEPD were quite supportive of the project. Because of the improved 

environmental performance, the local community did not see the XL project as a major community 

concern. Overall, the combination of strong environmental performance with a credible, transparent 

process has built trust with the local community. 

For more information regarding this project, visit: http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/weyer/index.htm 

55

– This Page Intentionally Left Blank – 

56
 – This page intentionally left blank – 
5. CONCLUSION 

This report documents the results of the first major U.S. EPA study of the views and practices of business 

and industry on integrating environmental justice into the environmental permitting and site-selection 

processes. As a result of conducting this study, some significant conclusions can be drawn. The major 

conclusions are summarized below. 

•	 Many companies are adopting proactive community involvement practices. Several of the 

companies interviewed seek to provide robust community involvement opportunities during their 

siting and permitting processes. These companies have learned that meeting the minimum 

requirements of the regulations or their operating permits is often inadequate to satisfy the needs of 

the community. These companies have integrated environmental justice considerations into 

facility permit conditions, established community advisory panels, conducted pre-permit 

application community involvement activities, utilized neutral, third-party facilitators, and hired 

members from the community as part of the facility workforce; one company has even adopted a 

company-wide environmental justice policy. These proactive practices can serve as useful lessons 

learned and positive examples for future business and industry practices. 

•	 Many companies and communities are benefitting from more intensive community 

involvement efforts. In general, companies’ facilities have been sited or permitted more quickly 

and at less cost than had the companies not engaged the community in a collaborative decisionmaking process. Communities benefit by having their concerns addressed while receiving the 

positive economic impacts associated with having a facility located in their jurisdiction, as well as 

other social benefits. The five case studies provided in this report document many of the benefits 

that all stakeholders can reap. 

•	 Many companies do not distinguish environmental justice from community involvement. While 

most of those interviewed for this study are generally aware of environmental justice and its basic 

concepts, they do not support environmental justice as a distinct community involvement effort in 

their corporate practices. These companies do not distinguish environmental justice from their 

corporate responsibilities for encouraging sound community involvement practices and promoting 

sustainability. In the words of one interviewee, “we’re concerned about any community members.” 

•	 Many companies are troubled by the term “environmental justice”. Some members of 

business and industry have some significant concerns about the implications of the term 

“environmental justice.” They feel the definition of environmental justice—and its concepts of fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement—are unclear. For many companies, the term 

“environmental justice” is inherently biased and provokes anxiety because of its negative 

connotations and the stigma that is often associated with it; as such, many of the interviewees (and 

those who declined to be interviewed) prefer not to characterize their particular facility siting or 

permitting issue as being an environmental justice issue. 

These concerns may suggest that to engage in a productive dialogue with industry on 

environmental justice matters, government and other stakeholders may need to frame the 

discussions using language that is acceptable to everyone. Additionally, several companies have 

recommended that guidance and/or well-defined standards would benefit industry and other 

stakeholders in addressing environmental justice issues in the siting and permitting processes. 

57

•	 Some companies are concerned about potential environmental justice legal challenges. Some 

industry and business representatives have concerns that even though they have successfully 

obtained new or renewed permits, they are unsure whether those permits can withstand future legal 

challenges based on environmental justice issues. For instance, many companies have concerns 

that they may be contributing to a disproportionate impact on a community although they are in full 

compliance with their operating permit. These companies may face the full brunt of community 

opposition simply due to the timing of their actions when the problem involves a larger set of 

stakeholders. This suggests that there may be opportunities for state or federal regulators to address 

the issues on a community-wide basis using collaborative decision-making processes among the 

larger group of stakeholders. 

While this study documents concerns held by some in business and industry concerning environmental 

justice, it also demonstrates that some companies are taking proactive, concrete steps to address 

environmental justice issues, sometimes before they can arise. In addition to documenting lessons learned 

and positive examples of environmental justice successes that others in industry can emulate, this study 

highlights opportunities where government and industry can work together to address some of these 

concerns. For instance, while several companies have taken advantage of the assistance and public 

involvement policies produced by NEJAC, BNEJ, and the chemical industry’s Responsible CareTM 

program, interviewees suggested that guidance from the federal government is greatly needed. 

Moreover, it may be beneficial for both EPA and industry to engage in more dialogue and communication 

about the term “environmental justice” and its associated concepts. This could occur through a variety of 

mechanisms, such as industry member participation in EPA’s environmental justice fundamentals training 

course, EPA conducting environmental justice listening sessions throughout its ten Regions, meetings 

between EPA and national industry trade associations, and the establishment of an EPA-industry 

partnership on environmental justice. 

58

APPENDIX A 

SAMPLE QUESTIONS POSED 

TO COMPANIES INTERVIEWED 

A-1

– This Page Intentionally Left Blank – 

A-2

SAMPLE INDUSTRY QUESTIONS 

The following are examples of the types of questions posed to industry representatives to solicit their 

company’s views and approaches to environmental justice. The questions were not provided to those being 

interviewed, nor were they used as a protocol during the interviews. The contractor team developed the 

questions at the outset of the study, and provided them to EPA to help reach agreement on the specific areas 

of interest and to define the parameters of the study. 

General/company-wide questions: 

1) Are you aware of the term “environmental justice”? 

1a)	 Does your company make a distinction between general community involvement and 

environmental justice issues? 

1b)	 What are your company’s perceptions of the role that environmental justice plays in the 

siting/permitting process? 

2)	 Does your company have a policy for involving minority, low-income, or otherwise disadvantaged 

communities early and often in the siting/permitting process (either company-wide or case-bycase)? 

If yes: 2a) Could you please describe this policy? 

2b) Can you provide a copy of the policy? 

If no: 2c) Has your company ever considered developing and implementing such a policy? 

3)	 When siting or seeking a permit for a facility, what factors do you think contribute to a successful 

community involvement effort? 

3a) How do these factors vary for different sites or different situations? 

4)	 What criteria do you use in selecting a location to site a facility (e.g., transportation access, cost, 

potential employee base, access to power supplies or raw materials, etc.)? 

4a) How do you weigh each of these criteria in the siting of your facility? 

4b)	 How and when in the corporate decision-making process do you consider the potential 

concerns of the affected community? 

4c)	 At what point in the decision-making process internally do you confer with the 

environmental group and/or the community relations specialist in your company? 

5)	 Have you ever encountered any environmental justice problems when siting or seeking a permit for 

a facility? [Note: In some cases, the siting/permitting of a facility affects tribal lands, communities, 

and/or governments. In such cases, the site-specific questions should refer to tribal communities 

and/or tribal governments.] 

A-3

If yes, refer to the site-specific questions regarding the facility where environmental justice problems 

occurred. 

If no, use the site-specific questions to gather information on how the company’s approaches in these 

areas may have contributed to the lack of environmental justice problems at the facility under 

consideration for this study. 

Site-specific questions: 

1)	 How did you identify the community or communities that would be affected by the siting/ 

permitting of your facility? 

1a) Did you try to reach out to all affected residents in the communities? 

1b)	 What methods did you use to ensure that all affected residents in the communities were 

identified and approached? 

2)	 Does your company provide protocols (if not part of an EJ policy, discussed earlier) for engaging the 

community in the siting or permitting process in a timely, meaningful manner? 

If no, skip to Question #3. 

If yes, please answer the following questions: 

2a)	 How did your company employ those protocols? Were they modified for this particular 

circumstance? 

2b)	 Was there a need to go beyond the company protocol requirements in conducting 

meaningful, timely community outreach in this instance? 

2c)	 What methods did you employ, either as part of a company protocol or in general, to involve 

the community in a meaningful, timely manner related to the siting/permitting of your 

facility? 

2d)	 Who initiated contact with the community? With whom in the community did you speak? 

How were the communications organized? Who else was involved in the discussions? If 

we wanted to speak with representative members of the community about this process, to 

whom should we speak? 

3)	 After determining the local and/or state government’s public participation requirements, how do 

these requirements relate to your efforts to approach community involvement related to the siting/ 

permitting of your facility? 

3a)	 Did you determine that you needed to go beyond the mandated requirements in conducting 

community outreach? If so, what was your motivation (e.g., good neighbor policy, 

individual initiative, company policy, trade association policy, etc.)? 

3b)	 How did you meet or exceed the local and state public participation requirements for the 

siting/permitting of your facility? 

A-4

3c)	 At what stage in the siting/permitting process did you undertake community involvement 

efforts, to allow for timely community involvement? 

3d)	 At what stage in the siting/permitting process did you first learn of community concerns 

with your activities? How did you learn of these concerns? 

4)	 What role did the socioeconomic status and/or demographics of the community play in how you 

involved the community and presented information about the facility? 

If any of the below apply: 

4a) Did you/how did you approach multilingual communities? 

4b) Did you/how did you address varying education levels within the community? 

4c)	 Did you make any special provisions or utilize alternate approaches for addressing lowincome, minority communities? 

5) What were the community’s chief concerns? 

5a)	 Were issues associated with environmental justice (e.g., fair treatment, meaningful 

involvement) raised as concerns by the community? If so, how were those concerns 

articulated? 

5b)	 Were concerns universal across the community, or did different persons or groups have 

different concerns? 

5c) If different groups expressed different concerns, how did you respond to those differences? 

5d)	 Were the stated concerns limited to your own company’s activities, or did they also extend 

to other companies or facilities? If the latter, how did you address these complicating 

factors? 

5e)	 What kinds of technical expertise were needed to facilitate the dialogue regarding the 

community’s concerns? How did you obtain experts? 

5f)	 Were mediators and/or facilitators used to help moderate the dialogue with the community? 

If so, were they helpful in your view? What specific facilitated/mediated process did you 

use to assist in community involvement efforts? Did you use this process to assist in 

collaborative decision-making with the community? If so, how? 

6)	 How did your company review the community’s input and incorporate it in the siting/permitting 

process? 

6a)	 What overall impact did the community’s input have on your decision or decision-making 

process? 

6b) Did the community’s concerns accelerate or delay planned operations? 

A-5

6c)	 Were changes made regarding facility operations? Were other community benefits 

conferred? Were local community members hired by the facility? 

7) Did you provide feedback to the community about your final siting/permitting decisions? 

If no: 7a) Why did you decide not to provide feedback? 

7b)	 Did the community raise concern that you didn’t provide feedback? Did you 

address this concern? 

If yes: 7c)	 What mechanisms/methods did you employ to communicate your decision process 

and/or final decision? 

7d) Do you think providing feedback is helpful? 

7e) Was there any community reaction to your decision? If so, what was the reaction? 

7f) What did you do to address any concerns raised? 

8)	 What aspects of the siting/permitting process do you feel could have been handled differently for 

your facility? 

8a) What could state or local government agencies do to improve the process? 

8b) What could community representatives do to improve the process? 

9) Does your company feel that changes need to be made to local and/or state community involvement 

requirements in the siting/permitting process? 

9a) If so, what changes would you recommend here? 

10)	 What was your company’s overall perception of the outcome of the siting/permitting process for 

this facility? 

10a) Would your company define the project as “successful?” Why or why not? 

10b)	 Does your company intend to follow a similar approach to siting or permitting in the future 

at any other facilities your company operates? Why or why not? 

11) What is your company’s perception of the community’s satisfaction with the outcome? 

11a)	 Was the final outcome challenged in court or before an administrative agency 

by any person? 

11b) Has the community provided any form of ongoing support for your company’s operations? 

12)	 What are the “lessons learned” that your company has incorporated or will incorporate in the siting/ 

permitting of subsequent facilities? 

A-6

APPENDIX B: 

SAMPLE QUESTIONS POSED TO COMMUNITY GROUPS 

AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS INTERVIEWED 

B-1

– This Page Intentionally Left Blank – 

B-2

SAMPLE QUESTIONS FOR COMMUNITY GROUPS 

AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS 

The following are examples of the types of questions posed to non-industry representatives to solicit their 

views on industry’s approaches to environmental justice. These stakeholders may include representatives 

from community groups, environmental groups, environmental justice groups, local governments, and state 

governments. The questions were not provided to those being interviewed, nor were they used as a 

protocol during the interviews. The contractor team developed the questions at the outset of the study, and 

provided them to EPA to help reach agreement on the specific areas of interest and to define the parameters 

of the study. 

General questions: 

1) Are you aware of the term “environmental justice?” 

1a)	 Does your community/organization/office make a distinction between general community 

involvement and environmental justice issues? 

2) What factors do you think contribute to a successful community involvement effort? 

2a)	 How do you think these factors differ for different sites, different situations, or different 

communities? 

3)	 Have you ever raised or encountered any environmental justice concerns during the siting or 

permitting of a facility? [Note: In some cases, the siting/permitting of a facility affects tribal lands, 

communities, and/or governments. In such cases, the site-specific questions should refer to tribal 

communities and/or tribal governments.] 

If yes, refer to the site-specific questions regarding the facility where environmental justice issues 

occurred. 

If no, use the site-specific questions to gather information on how the stakeholders viewed the company’s 

approaches in these areas and how they may have contributed to the lack of environmental justice issues at 

the facility under consideration for this study. 

Site-specific questions: 

1)	 What methods did the company use to involve your community in a meaningful, timely manner 

related to the siting/permitting of the facility? 

1a)	 How did they approach the members of your community who could not speak English 

(well)? 

1b)	 How were varying education levels within the community taken into account when 

information was presented? 

B-3

1c)	 Were any special provisions made or alternate approaches utilized by the company in 

addressing the environmental and health concerns of low-income and/or minority 

communities? 

2)	 Were all members of the affected community informed about this siting/permitting process? 

2a) If not, which groups were excluded and why? 

3)	 At what stage in the corporate decision-making process was the community informed about the 

siting/permitting of this facility? How was the community informed? Was there a concerted 

process or was it done through the regular course of business? 

3a)	 Were there any existing community revitalization or neighborhood development/ 

conservation plans in place? (Put in place by whom? Industry or the government? If 

government, what level—federal/state/local?) If so, did facility representatives address the 

role of the facility in those plans? 

4) Public participation process: 

Community groups: 

4a)	 Are you familiar with the local and/or state government’s public participation requirements? 

If yes, did you feel that the facility representatives went beyond the mandated requirements 

in conducting community outreach? 

Local governments: 

4b)	 What mechanisms are in place to inform residents about public participation opportunities 

for zoning? How are these mechanisms enforced? Have you used incentives to entice a 

company to locate in your jurisdiction, and then encountered a reaction from the community 

concerning environmental justice issues? If so, how did you address this? Did you apply 

lessons learned from this situation to future situations? Or, conversely, do you work with 

communities prior to a company’s locating in your jurisdiction to proactively address 

potential environmental justice issues? 

State governments: 

4c)	 What mechanisms are in place to inform residents about public participation opportunities 

for permitting? How are these mechanisms enforced? 

5)	 What was the general reaction to the possible siting/permitting of the facility in your community? 

5a) Did the community foresee jobs, increased services, or other benefits? 

5b) If so, did the community believe these benefits outweighed their concerns? 

B-4

6) What were the community’s chief concerns? 

6a) Were issues associated with environmental justice (e.g., fair treatment, meaningful 

involvement) raised as concerns by the community? If so, how were these concerns 

articulated? 

6b) Were concerns universal across the community, or did different persons or groups have 

different concerns? 

6c) If different groups expressed different concerns, how were those differences communicated? 

How were they handled? 

6d) Were the stated concerns limited to the facility in question, or did they also extend to other 

companies or facilities? How did this affect the company’s approach for involving the 

community? 

6e) Were there incidences where communicating with the community in English was difficult? 

(e.g., if the community representatives did not speak English proficiently) 

6f) Were technical experts used in the dialogue between the community and the facility 

representatives? Did the community have access to technical experts? What effect did this 

have on the dialogue between the community and the facility? 

6g) Were mediators and/or facilitators used to help moderate the dialogue with the facility 

representatives? If so, were they helpful in your view? What specific facilitated/mediated 

process was used? Did this process assist in collaborative decision-making with the 

community? If so, how? 

7) Did the company provide feedback to the community about the final siting/permitting decisions? 

7a) If so, via what mechanisms? Were these mechanisms effective? 

7b)	 Do you think providing feedback is a good approach to ensuring meaningful community 

involvement? 

7c) Was there any community reaction to the decision? 

7d) If so, how were those reactions conveyed to the company and what was the result? 

7e) Were changes made based on community comments/concerns? 

8)	 What aspects of the siting/permitting process do you feel could have been handled differently at 

this facility? 

8a) What could state or local government agencies do to improve the process? 

8b) What could the company do to improve the process? 

B-5

9)	 Do you feel that changes need to be made to local and/or state community involvement 

requirements in the siting/permitting process? 

9a) If so, what changes would you recommend here? 

10)	 What was your overall perception of the outcome of the siting/permitting process at this facility? 

10a) Would you define the project as “successful?” Why or why not? 

11) Was the final outcome challenged in court or before an administrative agency by any person? 

11a) Has the community provided any form of ongoing support for operations at this facility? 

12)	 What are the “lessons learned” that you will use in future interactions with industry for the siting/ 

permitting of facilities in your community? 

B-6

– This Page Intentionally Left Blank – 

B-7