United States     Office of
            Environmental Protection Solid Waste and
            Agency       Emergency Response
                   Community Involvement
                   and Outreach
                   Center (5204G)
OSWER 9230.0-75
EPA 540-R-96-043
Winter 1996
Community Advisory Groups:
Partners in Decisions at
Hazardous Waste Sites
            Case Studies


                                            OSWER 9230.0-75
                                            EPA 540-R-96-043
                                                Winter 1996
Community Advisory Groups:
Partners in  Decisions at
Hazardous Waste
Case Studies
Community Involvement and Outreach Center
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC

For additional information about CAGs, please call the Superfund Information
Hotline at 800-535-0202. Other publications about Community Advisory Groups
include EPA's Community Advisory Groups (CAGs) at Superfund Sites: Quick
Reference Fact Sheet (EPA/540/F-96/016) and EPA's Guidance for Community
Advisory Groups at Superfund Sites (OSWER Directive 9230.0-28). To place an
order for these documents, fax your request to the Superfund Document Center
at 703-603-9240.

Additional copies of this document may be ordered by contacting:

National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
800-553-NTIS (RUSH service only)

                               Table of Contents

Community Advisory Groups:
       Partners in Decisions at
       Hazardous Waste Sites
       Introduction	iv
       Lessons Learned	iv

Case Study: Community Advisory Group
       Brio Refining, Inc., Harris County, Texas  ,,	 1

              CAG Member List	,	  12
              CAG Remediation Goals 	  13
              Samples of CAG Meeting Minutes	  14

Case Study: Community Advisory Group
       Carolawn, Inc., Chester County, South Carolina	  20

              CAB Public Meeting Notices	  28
              CAB Public Meeting Materials	  30

Case Study: Community Advisory Group
       Colorado School of Mines Research Institute, Golden, Colorado	  36

Case Study: Community Advisory Group
       Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site, Jasper County, Missouri	  47

              Bylaws of the Jasper County EPA Superfund Citizen's Task Force  	  57
              CAG Mission Statement	  64
              Resolution No. 95-088  	  65
              Lead Education Effort Cited: An Article in the Joplin Globe 	  68

Case Study: Community Advisory Group
       Southern Maryland Wood Treatment
       Superfund Site, Hollywood, Maryland	  69

              Southern Maryland Wood Treatment Plant
              Task Force Annual Report	  77

 Community Advisory Groups:
 Partners  in  Decisions at
 Hazardous Waste Sites
                    The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is committed to early,
                    direct, and meaningful public involvement in the Superfund process. One of the
                    ways communities are participating in cleanup decisions at hazardous waste sites
                    around the country is through Community Advisory Groups (CAGs).
                    Community Advisory Groups are made up of representatives of diverse
                    community interests and provide a public forum for community members to
                    present and discuss their needs and concerns about the decision-making process
                    at sites affecting them.

                    This document includes case studies of Community Advisory Groups at five
                    hazardous waste sites: the Brio Refining, Inc., Superfund Site in Harris County,
                    Texas; the Carolawn, Inc., Superfund Site in Chester County, South Carolina; the
                    Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Site in Golden, Colorado; the
                    Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site in Jasper County, Missouri; and the
                    Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site in Hollywood, Maryland. The
                    case studies were developed based on interviews with community members
                    involved in the Community Advisory Groups at these sites, EPA personnel, and
                    State and local government personnel involved in the site cleanup efforts.

                    Each case study summarizes the responses received to interview questions. No
                    attempt has been made to include every answer by every interviewee. In some
                    cases, interviewees did not have answers to all questions posed; in other cases,
                    answers from more than one interviewee were alike. The effort here has been to
                    provide an overall picture that may be helpful in broadening the use of the
                    Community Advisory Group structure to other hazardous waste sites.

Lessons  Learned
                    The case studies highlight several important lessons for communities considering
                    formation of a Community Advisory Group. References to individual case
                    studies are made where  applicable. The lessons learned are:

                    Community Advisory Groups (CAGs) Should Be Formed as Early as Possible

                   All of the case studies demonstrated the importance of early community
                   involvement in the hazardous waste cleanup process (see section on CAG
                   Formation and Support in each case study). A Community Advisory Group is
                   one of the most effective mechanisms for fostering community involvement.

                   Forming a Community Advisory Group early in the decision-making process
                   offers significant benefits:

                    • The community can participate in and impact site activities and cleanup

 •  The community has an opportunity to investigate possible remedy selections
    and to respond to proposed remedies.
 •  Trust-building, a slow process, will get an early start.
 •  Operations and dynamics within a Community Advisory Group have time to
    develop and mature.

While there was unanimous agreement that it is preferable to form Community
Advisory Groups as early as possible, Community Advisory Groups established
even after major site decisions had been made—such as those for the Carolawn
and Southern Maryland Wood Treatment sites—have proven effective and
continue to serve useful purposes, such as monitoring site progress and pursuing
ongoing issues.

The Community Must Take the Initiative in Community Advisory Group
Formation and Operation

It is critical that the community "owns" its Community Advisory Group and that
the community itself initiates the formation of the Community Advisory Group.
Self-selection of members lends legitimacy to the process and ensures  that the
Community Advisory Group is in the hands of stakeholders.

It is up to community residents to decide if and how they want to form a
Community Advisory Group.  Some communities, such as the one at the
Carolawn site, use an existing framework upon which to build a Community
Advisory Group, while others start their group from scratch. See the section on
"CAG Formation and Support" in each case study.

EPA can provide support and guidance to Community Advisory Groups at each
step: providing information about what a Community Advisory Group is, its
benefits, and how to form one; offering advice on alternatives and resources
available; and helping with administrative tasks, including advertising, meeting
arrangements, and preparation of information summaries, minutes, and other
support materials.

The level of EPA support varies depending on the resources available and the
needs and desires expressed by the community. For example, EPA Region 4
provided substantial assistance in helping the community at the Carolawn site
organize its Community Advisory Group and hold its first meetings. EPA Region
6 has a contractor in an on-site satellite office  who provides ongoing
administrative support for  the Community Advisory Group at the Brio Refining
site. On the other hand, EPA Region 3 had no role in the formation of the
Community Advisory Group for the Southern Maryland Wood Treatment site
and has provided no ongoing administrative  support.

Community Advisory Groups Must Be Inclusive and Independent

The credibility of a Community Advisory Group is a function of two
characteristics: inclusiveness and independence. The Community Advisory
Group must represent all stakeholder interests—both to maintain credibility
within the community, and to assure EPA, the State, and the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) that the Community Advisory Group is  the voice for
the entire community rather than for a few interested parties. More importantly,
the Community Advisory Group must be able to act independently, free from the
influence of others with an interest in the outcome of the situation.

 This is especially important in selecting Community Advisory Group leadership.
 Community Advisory Group leaders should not have an interest in a particular
 outcome. For the Brio Refining Community Advisory Board, the community
 chose leaders who had opposing views to be co-chairs.  One of the co-chairs
 reported that the move "forced us to work together and work out our

 The process by which the Community Advisory Group fulfills its mission must
 be both open and responsive to community needs and interests. The simplest
 way to achieve this is to ensure that all Community Advisory Group meetings
 are open to the public, well advertised, and cover all interests expressed by the
 local community. Ideally, Community Advisory Group meetings should be
 facilitated by a disinterested party to ensure that participants do not feel that they
 are being pushed in one direction or the other. See the section on "CAG
 Formation and Support" in each case study.

 Access to Good Technical Expertise Is Important

 Community Advisory Group members at all sites studied agreed that having
 sound, independent technical advice is a key element of Community Advisory
 Group success. See the section on "Technical Advisors" in each case study.

 Community Advisory Groups for the Brio Refining, Colorado School of Mines
 Research Institute, and Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt sites hired their own
 technical advisors, using funding from Federal, State and local sources, to
 provide the technical advice regarding site remediation strategies and activities.
 The Community Advisory Groups for the Carolawn and Southern Maryland
 Wood Treatment sites did not require outside technical  assistance, because some
 of their members had considerable technical expertise and were able to interpret
 information and advise the groups.

 The Community Advisory Group Must Recognize What Is Possible and Work
 Within Those Limits

 Community Advisory Group leaders and EPA must recognize that most ordinary
 citizens do not have a detailed understanding of the Superfund and other waste
 cleanup programs. They need clear explanations of the goals, purposes, policies,
 mechanisms, and limitations of the programs. This extends to a clear
 understanding of the role and responsibilities of the Community Advisory Group
 and individual citizens with an interest in the process. For example, the
 community at the Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt site wanted EPA to test for and
 remove lead paint in homes, an area where EPA has no  authority; the authority
 rests with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Even in
 cases where EPA has no direct authority, however, the Agency can take an active
 role in helping communities find information, contacts, and other resources for
 addressing their needs. See the section on "CAG Effectiveness" in each case

 Community Advisory Group Leaders Must Be "In It" for the Long Haul

Community Advisory Group leadership should be consistent and prepared to
invest whatever time commitment necessary to see the Community Advisory
Group through to completion. Effective Community Advisory Groups tend to
develop a "personality" that reflects the input of core players in the process.

Without effective leadership, Community Advisory Groups may operate in a
stop-start fashion, losing credibility as decisions are made haphazardly or
wasting time bringing new members up to speed. The case studies on the Brio
Refining, Carolawn, and Colorado School of Mines Research Institute sites reveal
that stability and perseverance are important ingredients of Community
Advisory Group success. See the section on "CAG Effectiveness" in each case

Community Advisory Groups Are More Effective Than Public Meetings

It is often difficult to address all issues and concerns in detail at a public meeting.
The Community Advisory Group process involves establishing an ongoing
forum for discussing and resolving issues and concerns. Community Advisory
Groups provide a place where community members with different viewpoints
can resolve their differences and develop a unified voice. It also provides a place
where the community, EPA, the State, PRPs, and technical experts can take the
time to examine and discuss detailed information.

The frequency of Community Advisory Group meetings varied at each
site—from as often as twice monthly to as seldom as quarterly. Meeting
productivity and the ability to keep the momentum of the group over time are
more important that how often meetings are held. A good compromise at the
sites studied seemed to be scheduling regular monthly or bimonthly meetings,
while retaining the flexibility to schedule special interim meetings as
circumstances warrant. For example, the Community Advisory Group at the Brio
Refining site meets monthly but has more frequent meetings that focus on
specific issues when necessary. See the section on "Communications Tools" in
each case study.

The Need for Additional Resources Is A Common Concern

Community Advisory Group members and EPA officials interviewed for the case
studies noted the need for additional funding to Community Advisory Groups
for administrative, logistical and technical support. EPA Regional staff often
provides significant assistance with administrative functions, but often more
assistance is needed. Some estimated that support for staffing for 10 to 12 hours
per week might suffice. Other Community Advisory Group members said they
would like to send out mailings or publish fact sheets or a newsletter to the
community at large, but lacked the administrative capacity to do so. See the
section on "Suggestions for Other CAGs" in each case study.

Community Advisory Groups Can Give the Community More Influence in
Site-Related Decisions

EPA staff and community members interviewed for the case studies agreed that
forming a Community Advisory Group increased the community's influence on
site-related decisions. For example, EPA Remedial  Project Manager involved
with the Community Advisory Board for the Brio Refining site  said formation
and operation of the group led to a level of mutual respect between EPA
personnel and community activists who had been "butting heads" for years over
site issues. As a result, most of the site-related issues the community had prior to
formation of the Community Advisory Group have been resolved. Formation of
the Community Advisory Group also enhanced the community's influence over
site decisions at the Colorado School of Mines Research site. Specifically, EPA

staff said the commitment shown by members of the Community Advisory
Group encouraged EPA to rely on and trust their feedback. If the group said a
particular remedial alternative would not receive community support, for
example, EPA would move on and consider another plan. See the section on
"Suggestions for Other CAGs" in each case study.

Community Advisory Groups Can Speed Up the Process

In some cases, Community Advisory Groups may help speed the remedy
selection and implementation process. With community input through the
Community Advisory Group, EPA may be able to screen out remedial
alternatives that the community will not accept prior to expending resources on
feasibility analyses. In fact, early involvement by the Community Advisory
Groups at the Carolawn and Colorado School of Mines Research Institute sites
helped prevent delays that could have resulted from strong community
opposition to initial remedy selection. In both cases, this opposition sparked
formation of a Community Advisory Group.

Community Advisory Groups can provide an effective forum for careful
consideration of remedy alternatives.  Questions can be answered quickly and
information provided early so that the Community Advisory Group—and the
community at large—fully understands remedy alternatives. The Community
Advisory Group also provides a mechanism for clearing up misconceptions
about the cleanup process and for stopping rumors.

                                             Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
Case Study:  Community Advisory Group
Brio Refining,  Inc.,  Harris County,  Texas
                    The following is a case study of the EPA Community Advisory Group (CAG) at
                    the Brio Refining, Inc., Superfund site in Texas. Information on which the case
                    study is based was obtained in interviews with the following EPA Region 6
                    personnel and CAG members:

                    John Meyer, EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for the Brio Site
                    Donn Walters, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC)
                    Verne McFarland, EPA Region 6 Community Involvement Manager
                    Marie Flickinger, South Belt Civic Coalition (CAG Co-chair)
                    Paul Schrader, City of Friendswood (CAG Co-Chair)
                    Catherine O'Brien, San Jacinto College (CAG Member)
                    Larry Carter, Friendswood (CAG Member)

                    The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) has had only
                    limited involvement with the CAG at the Brio site. As a result, no one at the state-
                    level was interviewed.

Overview of  Site  History
                    The Brio Refining, Inc., site occupies about 58 acres in southern Harris County,
                    two miles north of the City of Friendswood, which is a suburb of Houston.
                    Operations began at the site in 1957. Until 1969, the primary work at the site
                    involved regeneration of copper catalysts and recovery of petrochemicals from
                    styrene tars and vinyl chloride still bottoms. Approximately 23 unlined pits were
                    dug during this time and used to store raw and process materials. Recycle and
                    recovery operations continued until 1978 when the plant was converted to a
                    crude oil topping unit for jet fuel production. During the 1970s, the pits were
                    closed by mixing the stored material with soil and clay and covering the resulting
                    waste with soil.

                    Approximately 5,000 people live within a mile of the site. Residences, businesses,
                    a hospital, and a school are located within one-half mile of the site. The
                    Southbend subdivision is located adjacent to the site, and a buyout of the
                    subdivision by the developer, as part of the settlement of a class-action lawsuit by
                    the citizens, is complete. A stream called Mud Gulley borders the site to the west
                    and has been affected by surface drainage from the site.

                    Studies have shown that 500,000 to 700,000 cubic yards of soil on the site are
                    contaminated and that high levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) exist in
                    groundwater under the site. In addition, VOCs and other organic materials have
                   been released periodically to the air. The site was proposed for inclusion on the
                   National Priorities List (NPL) in October 1984, and the listing was finalized in
                   March 1989.

Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
Site  Issues
                     According to RPM John Meyer, the affected community is mainly white,
                     suburban, and middle-income. There is a small (less than two percent) Asian-
                     American population, but there are no environmental justice issues associated
                     with this site.

                     Mr. Meyer, Mr. Walters, and Mr. McFarland said that the main site-related issues
                     for the community prior to formation of the CAG included:

                     •   The selection of incineration as a remedy;
                     •   Concern about health impacts;
                     •   Concern about contamination of Mud Gulley and potential contamination of
                         groundwater; and
                     •   Impact on property values.

                     According to CAG Co-Chairs Paul Schrader and Marie Flickinger, the issues for
                     the community related to the site have evolved over a long period of time.
                     Community complaints about Brio, primarily about odors emanating from the
                     site, date back to the 1970s and early 1980s when there were ongoing operations.
                     Ms. Flickinger, who lives near the site and owns a local newspaper (the South Belt
                     Leader), said she was among the residents who continuously lodged complaints
                     over the years.

                     Mr. Schrader said he had limited awareness of these complaints until the 1980s,
                     when he served as a Councilman and eventually Mayor for the City of
                     Friendswood (1988-92). During the early years of operations at the Brio site,
                     which was located in an unincorporated area of Harris County, the City of
                     Friendswood had an agreement with site owners to provide basic public services
                     (police, fire, etc.) in exchange for a fee that equaled half the tax rate. Mr. Schrader
                     said the area was annexed into the City of Friendswood in 1982 before it was
                     declared a Superfund site; had they known it would be a Superfund site, it
                     would not have been annexed.

                     CAG Members Catherine O'Brien and Larry Carter also have been involved in
                     Brio site issues for a number of years. Ms. O'Brien is a teacher at San Jacinto
                     College South, located near the site, and lives in the area as well. Mr. Carter
                     became active in Brio site issues as a resident of the Southbend Subdivision
                     (adjacent to the  site), where he lived for 10 years before moving to Friendswood.

                     At EPA's invitation, Mr. Schrader, as Friendswood Mayor, held a series of
                     Mayor's Community Leaders Meetings as a vehicle for community participation
                     in discussions with the Agency and the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Task
                     Force (the site involves about 30 PRPs) on the Brio clean-up plans. Both Ms.
                     Flickinger and Ms. O'Brien were involved in these meetings. The process
                     continued after the Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in 1988 but broke down
                     prior to the Consent Decree when the community opposed use of incineration.
                     According to Mr. Schrader, development of the remedial investigation and
                     original remedy were "between EPA and the PRP Task Force." He said: "The
                     community had little confidence in the process used; it was like [EPA] had 'let
                     the fox into the henhouse'."

                     The PRP Task Force continued to hold "public" meetings, but Mr. Schrader said
                     these meetings were essentially one-way briefings. The PRPs gave out

                                                 Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
                     information; there was little opportunity for the community to raise and discuss
                     other issues related to the sites.

                     The community asked EPA's National Ombudsman Robert Martin to get
                     involved. The incineration remedy was put on hold pending completion of a
                     focused feasibility study. When the Consent Decree was approved, the PRP Task
                     Force began building the incinerator. But, according to Mr. Schrader, fumes
                     generated as a result of the construction "overwhelmed the PRPs' control
                     apparatus." Work on the site was stopped by EPA; the community asked for an
                     alternative remedy, and the PRP Task Force agreed to develop one.

                     As a direct result of these events, Mr. Meyer approached Ms. Flickinger and Mr.
                     Schrader about forming a Community Advisory Group. The Brio site was not
                     specifically chosen for a CAG pilot study, but CIC Donn Walters said it exhibited
                     the ingredients for a good test of the concept: a vocal, active, and concerned
                     community and involved community leaders who wanted a vehicle like a CAG
                     to give them a more unified, effective voice in decisions about the site. Mr.
                     McFarland agreed, saying that a high degree of involvement by a broad cross-
                     section of stakeholders with divergent viewpoints already existed at the site. He
                     said the site provided a good opportunity for EPA to let these interest groups
                     work out the problems themselves, with the Agency providing guidance in terms
                     of the legal requirements to be met instead of trying to play the role of referee.

CAG  Formation  and  Support
                     The Brio CAG was formed in August 1994. Prior to the initial meeting, EPA
                     helped Ms. Flickinger and Mr. Schrader develop a list of members that would
                     reflect the broad spectrum of community interests involved in the site (see
                     Attachment 1). Donn Walters said EPA's role was in making suggestions on
                     membership; the final decision rested with the Co-Chairs. Mr. Schrader,
                     however, said that "EPA made the final decision."

                     All those interviewed agreed that EPA should be actively involved in initiating
                     and establishing CAGs. Everyone agreed that EPA's involvement can help ensure
                     inclusiveness and a balance in participation. Ms. Flickinger said that, in the case
                     of the Brio CAG, EPA suggested that she and Mr. Schrader, who had opposing
                     views about the site at the time, be co-chairs. She said this "forced us to work
                     together and work out our differences."

                     The Brio CAG developed a written Mission Statement during its second meeting
                     on August 9,1994. The mission of the CAG is:

                         "To provide community input into the conduct of the Focused
                         Feasibility Study to ensure the remedy for the Brio Superfund
                         site is protective of human health and the environment and is
                         implemented in a timely manner."

                     In addition, CAG members identified a list of goals ("What We Hope To
                     Achieve") related to the site cleanup (see Attachment 2).

                     The CAG began with 13 members, each representing a community, subdivision,
                     or other stakeholder in the Brio site. Stakeholders represented included the South
                     Belt Civic Coalition, the City of Friendswood, the Adjacent Neighborhood,
                     Imperial Estates Civic Association, Sageglen Civic Association, the TAG Group (a

Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
                     community group already had been awarded an EPA Technical Assistance
                     Grant), San Jacinto College-South, Memorial Hospital Southeast, Beamer Road
                     Medical Building, Heritage Park Village Homeowner's Association, Southbend
                     (homeowners), Southbend Properties, Inc., and Friendswood. Since the CAG was
                     formed, the Southbend Subdivision has been bought out, and the member
                     representing homeowners is no longer involved. Otherwise, CAG membership
                     has been very stable, and Ms. Flickinger pointed out that many CAG members
                     have a history of involvement in site issues that pre-dates the formation of the
                     CAG. In addition, several have been involved simultaneously in providing input
                     to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) on health
                     issues related to the site.

                     The EPA RPM or CIC attend every meeting, except when the CAG holds closed-
                     door sessions (about 10 percent of the time). Three members of the PRP Task
                     Force served as liaisons with the CAG until January, when a disagreement about
                     potential use of soil vapor extraction resulted in their refusal to attend future
                     CAG meetings. A representative of the Texas Natural Resources Conservation
                     Commission (TNRCC) also has attended some of the CAG meetings.

                     The interviewees unanimously agreed that no one in the community who should
                     be involved in the CAG was overlooked. Mr. Meyer said that anyone who has
                     shown a real interest has been asked to participate. While the primary
                     membership has not been expanded, several interested people have been invited
                     to be "alternates." Mr. Schrader stressed that the CAG always has maintained an
                     open-door policy. Ms. Flickinger said the CAG members represent a good cross-
                     section that has served the interests of the community, and Ms. O'Brien agreed
                     that the really interested people already are involved.

                     EPA provides what Mr. Meyer characterized as "extraordinary" administrative
                     support to the CAG. EPA has an on-site satellite office at Brio. The PRPs agreed
                     to pay for the satellite office facility; EPA provides a contractor to staff it. The
                     CAG uses the facility for its meeting space. EPA's contractor provides support to
                     the CAG by maintaining its mailing list; sending out meeting notices and
                     agendas; attending all the meetings; preparing and distributing minutes (see
                     Attachment 3), and, in some cases, verbatim transcripts from each meeting; and
                     providing any other logistical help needed. While Mr. Walters and Mr. Meyer
                     both believe that the CAG could function without EPA support, they feel EPA's
                     assistance has been a major ingredient in the CAG's smooth operation.

Technical  Advisors
                     The Brio CAG is unique in that it has its own EPA Technical Assistance Grant.
                     The CAG used the TAG to hire a Technical Advisor. Mr. McFarland said that
                     CAG members approached EPA about.applying for a TAG. He said that, since
                     the original TAG awarded to the community had expired, accepting the CAG's
                     application for a supplemental TAG required consultation  with the Office of
                     General Counsel (OGC). OGC cleared the request, and the  supplemental TAG
                     was awarded to the CAG in 1995. According to Mr. Meyer, the CAG's Technical
                     Advisor has had a long history of involvement with the Brio site; he also was the
                     Technical Advisor to the original TAG recipient group.
                     The CAG members interviewed unanimously agreed that having a Technical
                     Advisor has been the key element in the CAG's success to date. Ms. Flickinger
                     said that having the Technical Advisor has been vital. She said that it "makes us
                     able to make educated comments and decisions." Mr. Schrader said that having a

                                                 Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
                     Technical Advisor has made a "great difference, because even though some of us
                     were familiar with the technical site issues, we're not experts. We needed a
                     Technical Advisor, because EPA and the PRP Task Force have virtually unlimited
                     ability to raise issues and propose solutions. Our ability to respond intelligently,
                     in the language they understand, depends on having a good Technical Advisor,
                     and we've got one of the best." Ms. O'Brien, who functions as the CAG's
                     administrator for the TAG, agreed, saying that having the Technical Advisor has
                     given the CAG's comments to EPA and the PRPs "more credibility." She says that
                     she and the other CAG members regret that they did not get a Technical Advisor
                     sooner. She said that, in her opinion, discussions/negotiations on the alternate
                     remedy "should not have proceeded until [the CAG] had a Technical Advisor,
                     because when we got one, we were forced to start over in many ways." Ms.
                     O'Brien said the CAG already has indicated to EPA that it wants to apply for
                     continued funding of its TAG.

CAG  Effectiveness
                     All the interviewees believe that the CAG has been an effective way of getting the
                     various groups  of Brio site stakeholders to talk with each other. Ms. Flickinger
                     indicated that, at first, the various interests in the community did not agree on
                     many issues related to the site. Viewpoints have now converged, she said, as a
                     result of the CAG Members' commitment to working together. She added that
                     the CAG's Technical Advisor has "helped tremendously." Mr. Carter agreed that
                     the community "definitely was divided" on the issues. He said the CAG was the
                     community's "last resort for getting together and making a difference, but it

                     Ms. Flickinger and Mr. Schrader said that the CAG has not only provided a
                     forum for its Members, each of whom had a different perspective on site issues,
                     to work out differences and develop a unified voice, but also a vehicle for
                     ongoing and successful negotiations with the PRP Task Force. Mr. Schrader
                     pointed out that the CAG has been successful in getting the PRP Task Force to
                     adopt almost all of its recommendations, "including our suggestions for
                     improving the remedy." He said that achieving success has included having "to
                     go beyond Region 6 and the PRP Task Force" (to EPA Headquarters) and that
                     "positive changes have been made because of the pressure we have been able to

                     Ms. O'Brien said that, prior to the CAG, "the community could talk to EPA in
                     public meetings, but that wasn't very productive. The PRPs could meet with EPA
                     anytime, because they worked on site issues all day; the community couldn't,
                     because we have other jobs to do. The CAG has leveled the playing field."  She
                     said she believes that the CAG concept is "the best way to resolve issues at
                     Superfund sites, because everyone talks and listens to each other."

                     Mr. Meyer indicated that the CAG members "really have coalesced and have
                     begun to function like a real group." He said CAG members quickly came to
                     appreciate how difficult resolving Superfund site issues can be, even issues about
                     which there is some level of agreement. He credits the CAG members for their
                     commitment to resolving their internal differences and working together as a
                     team with the PRPs and EPA. Mr. Walters said that, while the CAG has been an
                     effective way of keeping the residents talking with each other and giving the
                     community as a whole a voice, it also "has created a division with the PRPs,"
                     who dropped out of the discussions and "object to the CAG's role." Mr. Meyer

Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
                      said that, even though the PRP Task Force has not attended CAG meetings since
                      January, some informal discussions between CAG members and PRP
                      representatives have occurred, and there still may be progress toward resolving
                      the problem between the two groups.

                      All those interviewed also agree that the CAG has been an effective way for the
                      community to talk with EPA and that the community's relationship with EPA has
                      improved. This is true, according to Mr. Schrader, even though the CAG has
                      occasionally been critical of Region 6 and has gone "over their heads to the
                      Ombudsman in Washington." Ms. O'Brien pointed out that the help the CAG
                      received from the EPA Ombudsman helped Members realize that "not everyone
                      at EPA was the enemy."

                      Mr. Meyer said that EPA had been "butting heads" with community activists like
                      Ms. Flickinger for a long time. He said the CAG's formation and operation has
                      bred a level of mutual respect that allows both EPA and the community to be
                      more forthcoming and willing to cooperate. He said that, although the site is not
                      doing "community-based remedy selection" under the Superfund Reforms
                      Initiative, the community, through the CAG, is intimately involved in the  remedy
                      selection process. As an example, he reiterated that the lack of community
                      acceptance of the initial selection of an incineration remedy was instrumental in
                      blocking its implementation, which precipitated formation of the CAG.

                      The CAG Members interviewed agreed that, based on their experience in  the
                      CAG, they believe EPA has heard their concerns and taken them into account as
                      the Agency has made decisions about the Brio site. Ms. O'Brien said that she has
                      seen a definite change in attitude. She said that, in the past, EPA seemed to
                      regard her and Ms. Flickinger and other community activists as "nothing more
                      than liysterical housewives/" and treated them accordingly. "They see us very
                      differently now, I think," she said. "We've proven that we're serious, intelligent
                      people. And we've worked hard to get ourselves educated; we don't show up

                      According to Mr. Schrader, most of the site-related issues  the community had
                      prior to formation of the CAG have been resolved as a result of discussions
                      among the CAG, the PRP Task Force, and EPA. He said the outstanding
                      issues—principally the selection of an alternative to incineration—are being
                      actively considered by EPA. Mr. Meyer agreed that most issues have been
                      resolved satisfactorily through the CAG process. He pointed out, however, that
                      the CAG's focus seemed to vary at times, and this may have contributed to the
                      problems between the CAG and the PRP Task Force. Ms. Flickinger said the main
                      issue for the community has been getting an alternate remedy. "We aren't as far
                      along as we could have been, because the Task Force led us down a path that
                      wasn't satisfactory," said Ms. Flickinger.

                      All respondents agreed that the CAG process has given the community more
                      influence in site-related decisions than it had prior to formation of the CAG.
                      Everyone also agreed that, overall, the CAG for the Brio site has been successful.
                      According to Mr. Schrader, the CAG has been successful because "dedicated
                      people from the community have been willing to work hard, over a long period
                      of time to get our positions taken into account." Ms. Flickinger added that the
                      CAG has been successful, because the Members have "gotten [themselves] well

                                                 Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
                     Ms. O'Brien added that communication among all the parties has improved, and
                     she questioned whether that could have occurred any earlier in the process. She  -
                     said: "Everybody's attitudes were too divergent: nobody liked the Task Force;
                     EPA thought we were in it to get money from a law suit; we thought EPA was
                     the enemy."

                     From EPA's point of view, the CAG has been successful, according to Mr. Meyer,
                     even though a final agreement on the alternate remedy has not been reached.
                     And Mr. Walters pointed out that the Brio CAG has met most of the criteria in
                     the CAG Guidance; it has brought together diverse groups in the community and
                     has continued to be an active forum for discussion and resolution of issues. Mr.
                     McFarland agreed that the CAG has been successful in providing valuable input
                     on a variety of issues, not just remedy selection, because it represents a cross-
                     section of the community.

                     Mr. Walters said that the "downside has been a slower remedy selection process,
                     because of conflicts between the CAG and the PRPs," but he acknowledged that
                     points of conflict could not have been anticipated. Mr. McFarland added that the
                     Brio CAG Members "tend to go over people's heads" and questioned whether
                     any decision "would hold" over the long term. He said having the kind of
                     consensus that can be built in a CAG process puts all the parties in a stronger
                     position, but he believes that regardless of whether community involvement in
                     the Superfund process involves a CAG, the public will not have the ultimate
                     decision-making responsibility, or accountability for failure.

                     When asked for suggestions on how to improve the Brio CAG, both Ms.
                     Flickinger and Mr. Meyer said more attention should be paid to communications.
                     Mr. Meyer said that the "the only times the CAG hit a 'bumpy road' was when
                     we weren't talking to each other, only exchanging nasty letters." Ms. Flickinger
                     said EPA needs to be more consistent about providing the CAG information on a
                     more regular basis. She said there have been a few occasions when issues may
                     have been resolved quicker or disagreements may have been avoided if the CAG
                     had been apprised sooner of information EPA had.

                     Ms. O'Brien suggested that EPA should "eliminate the possibility for the PRP
                     Task Force to go to Dallas (meet with EPA Region 6) without us. EPA should
                     refuse to see any stakeholder group without all the others. The Agency should
                     never create a situation where the community is cut out of negotiations."

Communications  Tools
                     CAG Members rely on two tools to communicate with their constituents and
                     other interested residents of the affected community around the Brio site. One is
                     the CAG's periodic meetings; the other is the newspaper owned by Ms.

                     According to Mr. Schrader, the CAG generally has met twice monthly, but as the
                     number of issues to be resolved has decreased, fewer meetings have been
                     necessary. Currently, the CAG meets at least once a month, more often as
                     needed. Ms. Flickinger added that more frequent meetings that focus on specific
                     issues are sometimes necessary. She said EPA's contractor in the on-site satellite
                     office prepares and distributes meeting notices and agendas to a list of
                     approximately 50 recipients. These include the CAG Members, EPA's RPM and
                     CIC, the TNRCC, the City of Friendswood City Council, officials of Harris

Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
                      County, the Clear Creek Drainage District, and ATSDR. Ms. Flickinger said that
                      sometimes meeting notices are published in her newspaper as well, depending
                      on the issues to be discussed, but CAG Members are tike primary conduit for
                      relaying this information to their respective constituents.

                      Mr. Schrader and Ms. Flickinger said that CAG Members and EPA
                      representatives attend meetings regularly; invited local and state officials attend
                      "off and on." They said that CAG meetings tend to draw "a core group" of
                      community residents that varies from three to 10 who attend meetings fairly
                      regularly. Ms. Flickinger and Mr. Schrader agreed that these residents participate
                      readily in the meetings and freely express their opinions. They said the CAG is
                      well-known in the community, and reiterated that CAG Membership includes
                      the people who are really interested and those whom the community trusts to be
                      involved on a continuing basis in the clean-up decisions about the Brio site.

                      The Brio CAG does not publish a newsletter, issue fact sheets or flyers, or
                      distribute site-related information provided by EPA, according to Mr. Schrader
                      and Ms. Flickinger. Except for an occasional special meeting to focus on a specific
                      issue, the CAG has not initiated any other kinds of activities. Ms. Flickinger said
                      that her newspaper carries articles about the major site-related issues and
                      milestones; for example, she said the paper would carry an article about remedy
                      selection when it occurs. In general, however, the CAG Members are confident
                      that the CAG meetings and their personal contacts with their respective
                      constituents provide the community with as much information as it needs and
                      wants on an ongoing basis.

                      Mr. Meyer agreed that the CAG's main communications tool is Ms. Flickinger's
                      newspaper. He said he makes an effort to remind CAG Members during meet-
                      ings to relay the information they get from EPA and the PRP Task Force to their
                      constituents, but he has no way of determining the extent to which they do it.

                      When asked what kind of progress they would like to see over the next five
                      years, the CAG Members interviewed unanimously agreed they would like to see
                      the final remedy implemented and completed. Ms. Flickinger said that she hopes
                      in five years the only reason the CAG Members will get together is for occasional
                      social events. Each also said that their strongest hope is that they will not have to
                      revisit the issue of the Brio site contamination, not ever. Ms. Flickinger said that
                      the CAG is determined to "take our time and  do it right, so we won't ever have to
                      go through this again." Mr. Carter and Ms. O'Brien both said it is difficult to
                      maintain any optimism about the future. Mr. Carter does not think work at the
                      site will be over in five years. Ms. O'Brien feels the CAG has been working for
                      two years without much progress. She said she is "impatient," but she wants the
                      job to be done right.  "I don't know how much longer it will take us just to get to
                      the design phase. And I don't know whether the companies (PRPs) really have
                      the money it will take to clean this place up."

                                                 Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
Suggestions  for Other  CAGs
                     All interviewees were asked to name the main ingredients for a successful CAG.
                     The EPA staff emphasized the need to involve all segments of the community.
                     Mr. Meyer said, to be successful, a CAG must present a unified community
                     viewpoint to EPA, even if EPA doesn't agree with that view. Mr. Walters added
                     that the CAG must be committed to educating and continuously informing all
                     segments of the community and must work well and frequently with EPA and
                     state and local agencies.

                     The CAG Members' responses to the same question emphasized the need for
                     skepticism, courage, and technical expertise.  Mr. Schrader said: "As much as we
                     citizens want to believe our Government protects us, we need to be skeptical of
                     everything, because we have to live with the  final remedy." Ms. Flickinger added
                     that citizens involved in a CAG also need "to know how and have the guts to go
                     over their (Regional office staff) heads sometime" when the process is not

                     Ms. Flickinger, Ms. O'Brien, and Mr. Schrader agreed that having technical
                     expertise is very important. Mr. Schrader said that the "reputation" of the
                     person(s) providing the technical expertise also is important. He said that, in
                     some cases, people on the CAG may be technically competent to deal with the
                     issues that arise, but having an outside technical advisor who is well-known,
                     someone that EPA and the PRPs cannot easily discount, "makes an enormous
                     difference"  in how CAG Members' comments and concerns are heard and

                     Ms. O'Brien said the ingredients for a successful CAG are "diversity, as many
                     voices as possible, and tolerance for all viewpoints." She added that EPA must be
                     willing to provide guidance and education on "the process." She said that instead
                     of encouraging the CAG to get a Technical Advisor, which both the CAG and
                     EPA acknowledge to have been important in increasing the CAG's effectiveness,
                     "EPA initially tried to discourage us from applying for a TAG." Ms. O'Brien also
                     believes that EPA's Ombudsman was a "godsend" and said someone like an
                     ombudsman should be available at the Regional office to help communities take
                     advantage of whatever assistance is available and participate as fully as possible
                     in the process.

                     Mr. Carter said that, to be successful, a CAG needs the power "to get EPA to
                     back the community over the polluters." He said he believes that the CAG should
                     "have a say so on the ROD; we  should be party to the agreement." He also said a
                     successful CAG needs a strong, resourceful leader, who knows how to "find out
                     about the things EPA doesn't tell us." He stressed the need for CAG Members to
                     be willing "to work a lot of late nights, talking things over and figuring out what
                     to do."

                     Ms. Flickinger said she believes that the most effective thing about the Brio CAG
                     has been "our being able to stick to our guns." Ms. O'Brien agreed, saying that
                     the Brio CAG was always ready "to respond to anything, keep a finger on the
                     'pulse/ and change directions whenever it was needed." Mr. Schrader added
                     that the quality of the CAG's Technical Advisor, who has had previous ,

                     experience with EPA, helped the Members formulate responses that took into
                     account not only the technical information, but also the political context. He said

Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
                      this put the CAG is a much better position to participate fully in negotiations
                      with EPA and with the PRPs.

                      Mr. Meyer also believes that getting a Technical Advisor was the CAG's most
                      effective strategy. He said the Technical Advisor helped the CAG frame their
                      responses in language that the Agency and the PRPs understand. Mr. Walters felt
                      that the minutes of CAG meetings, which have been very detailed and widely
                      read, and the CAG's report on site remedy concerns, which has been used to
                      "further the group's interests" have been the Brio CAG's most effective tools.

                      When asked which, if any, of the CAG's strategies or activities have not worked,
                      Mr. Meyer replied that the CAG has "written some extremely scathing  reports
                      that infuriated EPA and the PRPs and, I think, backfired; they didn't accomplish
                      what the CAG wanted." The CAG Members interviewed, however, did not name
                      anything they considered to be failures. Ms. Flickinger said that the CAG
                      Members have "done our homework; we have gotten smarter, so we haven't
                      done things we didn't intend to."

                      The EPA interviewees were asked to offer suggestions, based on their experience
                      with the Brio CAG so far, to other Regions that want to form or get involved with
                      CAGs. All the EPA staff stressed the need to ensure that the CAG is fully
                      representative of the community and that no faction or segment of the
                      community is left out.

                      Mr. Meyer said that, if EPA Regions are going to get involved in a CAG, they
                      should "do it as early as  possible and provide whatever resources the community
                      wants" (such as access to a Technical Advisor). "The process takes too long and is
                      too expensive to find out later that the community has second thoughts or felt
                      pushed into something because they didn't have the resources," he said.

                      Mr. McFarland agreed that CAGs will need to have access to some support and
                      funding for technical assistance, and he hopes this need will be addressed in new
                      Superfund legislation. He said that since there is no other mechanism for funding
                      them now, he believes the TAG Program "is a reasonable way to give them the
                      tools to do what they need to do. A TAG helps bridge a technical gap that can be
                      insurmountable in situations where a community already is grappling with
                      diverse viewpoints; it makes for less  of a roadblock." Mr. McFarland said
                      Regions should be careful, however,  if public officials are involved in the CAG,
                      because the Agency cannot award a TAG to a political subdivision. He suggested
                      that "the CAG must incorporate to apply for a TAG." He also cautioned Regions
                      to make it clear from the outset that EPA has the ultimate authority to make
                      decisions and to be clear about how their input will be used. He said it is very
                      important not to create unrealistic expectations.
                      Mr. Walters said he is "not sure it's a good idea for a CAG to hold a TAG; it gives
                      them more leverage, more power than they need." He cited as an example that
                      the Brio CAG used the TAG to get a Technical Advisor who "has a history of
                      disagreement with the Agency."

                      Mr. McFarland and Mr. Walters both said that the CAG concept may not be
                      appropriate for every site and that sites need to be evaluated individually. Mr.
                      Walters felt that CAGs are probably a good idea at large sites where issues are
                      contentious and the community has divergent views on these issues. He said it is
                      very important for the RPM and the CIC to be involved on a continuing basis and
                      to keep the Agency informed about what is going on as the CAG is formed and

                            Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
develops. He pointed out that the Brio CAG has "rather sophisticated
leadership" who, on several occasions, have corresponded and met directly with
the Regional Administrator, the Assistant Administrator for OSWER at
Headquarters, and the National Ombudsman. He said that as a result of this, the
CAG has gained "clout."

In offering suggestions to other communities that want to form CAGs, Members
of the Brio CAG who were interviewed agree with Mr. Meyer that the earlier a
CAG can be formed, the better. Ms. O'Brien also echoed Mr. McFarland's and Mr.
Walters' comment that forming a CAG may not be right for every site. She said
that a key factor is community interest. "If there is no interest, [developing a
CAG] is not worth the frustration," she said.

The CAG Members also believe that having the funding to get a Technical
Advisor immediately is key. Mr. Schrader is convinced that, had the CAG been
able to hire their Technical Advisor at the beginning (their TAG was not awarded
until late 1995), the final remedy selection process would be much farther along
today. He also said communities should keep in mind that, even as progress is
being made, there still is an adversarial relationship with the PRPs.

Ms. O'Brien said that it is difficult for the community to keep up without the
funding necessary for a Technical Advisor. She said the Brio CAG was "lucky;
most of us had some history with the site and already knew a lot about it. Most of
us had the background, because we had spent a lot of time educating ourselves
over the years," she said.

Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
                                    ATTACHMENT 1

                                   CAG Membership List
                           U.S. EPA Community Advisory Group
                                    Brio Superfund Site

              Marie Flickinger (Co-Chair)

              Paul Schrader (Co-Chair)

South Belt Civic Coalition

City of Friendswood
              Steve Alferi

              Tod Bogert

              Mary Ellen Brennan

              Steve Buckman

              Larry Carter

              Gene Cook

              Jack Fields

              Rebecca Lilley

              Catherine O'Brien

              Tom Wilhite
Heritage Park Village
Homeowners' Association

Beamer Road
Medical Building

Adjacent Neighborhood

Sageglen Civic Association


Imperial Estates
Civic Association

Southbend Properties, Inc.

Memorial Hospital Southeast

San Jacinto College South

TAG Group

                                   Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
             ATTACHMENT 2

           CAG Remediation Goals


                10904 SCARSDALE BLVD., SUITE 295
                    HOUSTON, TEXAS 77089
                       (713) 922-4750
                       Goals of Remediation
                    "What We Hope to Achieve'
                         August  30,  1994
                  EPA Community Advisory Group
                       Brio Superfund Site
 1.   50-foot sand protected
 2.   Long-term effective  solution, protective  of human health
 3 .   Long-term elimination of hazard that is protective of
      health, the environment,  and economy
 4 .   Re-route Mud Gully
 5.   Don't want to be back to this point in 15-20 years
 6.   Eliminate exposure of air,  water, and soil
 7.   Re-route Mud Gully
 8 .   Fully protective of  human health
 9.   Long-term
10.   Esthetics
11.   All  of the above to  be timely
12.   Party to celebrate cleanup (paid for by BSTF)

Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
                                ATTACHMENT 3

                         Samples of CAG Meeting Minutes


                    U.S.  EPA Community Advisory Group
                            Brio  Superfund Site
         March 21,  1995      6:45 P. M.      EPA Satellite  Office
  I.  Call  to Order  -  Paul Schrader

 II.  Introduction of  Members  &  Guests

III.  Approve Minutes  - January  24

 IV.  Presentation by  Groundwater Services,  Inc.
      on the Focused Feasibility Study

  V.  Set Meeting Schedule

 VI.  Public Comments  - Marie  Flickinger

VII.  Adjourn
                                  6:45  p.m.

                                  6:50  p.m.

                                  6:55  p.m.

                                  7:00  p.m.

                                  7:40  p.m.

                                  7.50  p.m.

                                  8:00  p.m.

  *   Meeting Minutes -  January 24,  1995
  *   Agenda for the GSI Presentation to the  CAG
cc:    Ashby McMullan, TNRCC
      Jerry Harris, HCPC
      Ronald B. Schultz, Jr., GCHD
      Ron Cox, City of Friendswood
      Jim Green, HCFC
      Chuck Wilcox, RC Pet. 1
      Dr. John Villanacci,  TDH
      Dr. Jean Brender, TDH
      Steve Smith,  ESTF
      J.J. Goldman, BSTF
      Col. Robert B. Gatlin, ACE
John Williams, HCHD
Ray Rogers,  Clear Creek Drainage Dist.
Tina Forrester, ATSDR
Deloris McKenzie, City of Friendswood
John Meyer,  EPA Region 6
Donn Walters, EPA Region 6
Lisa Kobel,  EPA Satellite Ofc.
Bob Martin,  EPA Headquarters
Roger W. Lee, USGS
George Pettigrew, ATSDR

                                             Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
     HOUSTON, TEXAS 77089
                                 MEETING MINUTES
                      U.  S. EPA Community Advisory Group
                               Brio Superfund Site
             March  21, 1995    6:45  p.m.    EPA Satellite Office
   Approximately 39 people were in attendance,  including the following:

GAG Members:        Marie Flickinger, Paul Schrader, Steve Alferi,  Mary Ellen Brennan,
                    Steve Buckman,  Larry  Carter, Gene Cook, Jack Fields,  Rebecca
                    Lilley,  Catherine O'Brien, William Whipple, Tom Wilhite

CAG Members Absent:  Tod Bogert  (Excused)

Other Attendees:     Rosa Thompson,  Craig Leber, Mary Ann O'Donnell, John Meyer,  Lisa
                    Kobel,  Steve  Smith, Norma J. Goldman,  Ed Dondzila,  Wait Bauer,
                    Grant Cox,  Todd Fisher, Jo Hanson, Rich Ferguson,  Brian Dinges,
                    Roger Lee,  John Noble, Dan MacLemore,  Paul Buckman, Billy Burge,
                    Sherry Applewhite, Ron Kallus, Bill Coats,  Ron Cox.

   The meeting began with an introduction of  participants,  and approval of the January
24 meeting minutes.

GSI Presentation - Grant Cox, Project Team Manager

Mr.. Cox reviewed the documentation  and history of the Brio site.  (Copy of the overhead
presentation is attached.)

Q: Will there be some type of long-term pumping with  the containment?
A: Containment includes pumping to prevent it from  expanding, along with a type of
   barrier wall.

Q: How would an earthquake affect this  type of remedy?
A: Earthquakes will not seriously affect  the  types  of containment proposed. In this
   area, flooding is the major issue  for  consideration.

Q: There was no talk of incineration  in the presentation. Does GSI plan to compare
   containment to incineration?
A: GSI will compare the most feasible containment process to incineration.

Q: When will GSI complete the FFS?
A: The work plan is nearly final, pending approval  from EPA. It will take about four
   to five months to complete the study.

 Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group
 TAG Issues

 EPA updated the group on the TAG approval process,  emphasizing that the CAG must complete
 a MBE/WBE utilization  goal  form. By  signing  the form, the CAG  agrees it will  aim to
 contract 8 percent of the federal funds to a minority-owned or woman-owned business. The
 group agreed to the requirement,  and  Paul Schrader signed the form  as certifying official.

 Tina Forrester recounted ATSDR's experience hiring a technical advisor.  ATSDR advertised
 in newspapers and contacted the Board of Engineers. The agency received 14 responses.  Of
 those,  three were selected to  interview before the CAG.  The CAG found each of the three
 applicants to be unsuitable. In  the  end, ATSDR elected not to hire a  technical advisor,
 and will use the funds to utilize someone in-house,  or  use  different contractors to help.
 Ms.  Forrester  emphasized that  the hiring process took a long time.

 After  some debate,   the  CAG  agreed  to  advertise  for  a   technical  advisor.  TAG
 responsibilities were assigned as follows:

    Subcommittee to draft a public notice and  solicitation -Mary  Ellen Brennan,
           Tod  Bogert,  Steve Buckman, Steve Alferi, Gene Cook,  William Whipple

    Employment Contract for the Technical Advisor - Jack Fields

    Incorporation - Tom Wilhite

 It was  suggested that each CAG member keep a log of TAG-related  activities so  their time
 may count  toward the  in-kind contribution.

 EPA Technical Assistance

 EPA  introduced Dan MacLemore of Roy F.  Weston,  EPA's primary oversight contractor.  Weston
 will be reviewing the FFS. Two representatives  of USGS  were introduced.  Roger  Lee,  whose
 expertise  is in DNAPL and groundwater issues, will  be working on the FFS. John Noble will
 be working  on aerial  photographic interpretation.  Rod Turpin  of EPA's  Environmental
 Response Team  (ERT) will assist  with air issues.

 Discussion/Public Comment Period

 The  group  discussed the following issues:
       Purpose of the CAG
       Should the CAG pay to fly Joel Hirshhorn  to Brio on April  25,  to meet  the  group
       Stabilizing the pits  as part of the selected remedy  - EPA will stop the work if the
       fenceline levels  are  exceeded. ATSDR concurred that the air standards must be met,
       or other action taken.
       Synergistic affect of chemicals - The scientific  field  is not advanced in this
       area. ATSDR set  the  fenceline standards  very low to. account for any synergistic
       Membrane technologies in remediation
    The Committee agreed to hold meetings on the first and third Tuesday of each month.
The next meeting was scheduled  for  Tuesday,  April 4, 1995, at  6:45  P.  m.,  at the EPA
Community Relations Office. The  meeting will  focus on a  discussion of TAG  Issues.

    The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:25 p.m.

                                       Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group

                      EPA Community Advisory Group
                           Brio  Superfund Site
        October  4, .1994         6:30  p.m.   EPA Scarsdale Office
  I.     Call to order  -  Marie Flickinger
 II.     Introduction of  members & guests
III.     Approve minutes--Sept. 20
 IV.     BSTF introduction of contractor
  V.     BSTF-Contractor  presentation
 VI.     Questions & Answers from CAG
VII.     Comments from:
         John Meyer, EPA Region 6
         Tina Forrester,  ATSDR
         Bob Martin, EPA Headquarters
         Jim Green, H.C.  Flood Control
VIII.    Set next meeting date
  IX.    Public Comments  - Paul Schrader
   X.    Adjourn
                        7:30  p.m.
Marie  Flickinger
      Paul Schrader
Due  to the  full agenda  and importance  of this  meeting, it  will start
promptly at 6:30 p.m.

  Meeting minutes
        - Sept. 20
  USGS report
      Ashby McMullan,  TNRCC
      Jerry Harris, HCFC
      Ronald B. Schultz, Jr., GCHD
      Ron Cox, City of Friendswood
      Jim Green, HCFC
      Chuck Wilcox, HC Pet. I
      Dr. John F. Villanacci, TDH
      Steve Smith, BSTF
      J. J. Goldman, BSTF
John Williams, HCHD
Ray Rogers, Clear Creek Drainage Dist.
Tina Forrester, ATSDR
Deloris McKenzie, City of Friendswood
John Meyer, EPA Region 6
Donn Walters, EPA Region 6
Lisa Kobel, EPA Satellite Ofc
Bob Martin, EPA Headquarters
Colonel Robert B. Gatlin, ACE

 Brio Refining, Inc. Community Advisory Group



                10904 SCARSDALE BLVD., SUITE 295
                    HOUSTON, TEXAS 77089
                                 MEETING  MINUTES

                          EPA Community Advisory Group
                       Brio  Superfund  Site,  Harris County
        October 4, 1994      6:30 p.  m.    EPA  Brio  Satellite  Office
    Approximately 49 people were in attendance at the session,  including  the  following:
CAG Members:
Other Attendees:
     Marie Flickinger, Paul Schrader, Steve Alferi, Tom Wilhite,  Catherine
     O'Brien,  Gene  Cook,  Mary  Ellen  Brennan,  Steve  Buckman, Rebecca
     Lilley, Tod Bogert, Larry Carter

     Jim Green,  Chuck  Wilcox,  Ron  Cox,  Bob Martin,  John Meyer,  Donn
     Walters,  Lisa Kobel,  Steve Smith,  J.J. Goldman, Walt Bauer, Grant
     Cox,  John Conner,  Elaine Gie
    One CAG  member,  Meta  Vandenberg,  was  not  present.  The  meeting began  with  an
introduction of participants, and a discussion of  the September 20 meeting minutes.  John
Meyer  said he  felt one  sentence  in the meeting minutes  should  be clarified. The group
asked him to write some  additional  wording for  the final meeting minutes to be  approved
at  the next session.

    BSTF then introduced  Groundwater Services,  Inc.  (GSI), the contractor hired to conduct
the FFS. GSI gave a slide show presentation highlighting the company's qualifications,
and the issues  to be examined as  part of the FFS.  GSI presented a timetable for the FFS
to  include:

       Results  of Additional Studies - 4 months
       Draft FFS Report  to CAG       - 7 months
       Final  FFS Report              - 8 months

BSTF said the timetable of 8 months  is their perception,  and could change with input  from
EPA and the CAG.

       A question and answer session followed the presentation.  The contractor  said its
evaluation of remedial options would take into account  site drainage and  the potential
for natural disasters, GSI will explore different containment options,  and then compare
those options to incineration.

       The issue  of air monitoring was discussed.   BSTP asked four firms to submit
proposals to conduct the air monitoring  on  the site.  An air monitoring plan  is being
developed, in parallel with the FFS.

       BSTF was asked the status of hiring the independent  technical advisor  that the
group stipulated must be in place during  the FFS. BSTF  said Congressman DeLay's office
was spearheading the  effort to   find additional  sources of  funding,  but that BSTF  is
following up appropriately. A  CAG member noted  that  the group needs  to discuss the
qualifications  necessary in a technical advisor.


 EPA updated the group on recent events:

       EPA. b.as already started to bring USGS into the FFS process. USGS will do the aerial
       photo  interpretation  and will  provide  general technical support  to EPA.
       An EPA Response to the Southbend letter concerning air emissions  at  the site is
       available  to  the  public in  the EPA  office.
       Regarding  the Administrative Order  on  Consent,  a first draft of  the agreement is
       due out  soon,
       Three  air  monitoring  data reports are  due out this month:
              1.     the flux study in which EPA took over 300 samples onsite
              2.     a TAGA report  of  air monitoring in the community by the TAGA bus
              3.     data from the  sector monitors  located in the community
       The drums  of  waste being stored onsite are being categorized and removed.
       Tank 402 and  the  shell  enclosure over  Pit H/V each have been dismantled.

       The Committee asked if  EPA  could make  available the air monitoring data  24 hours
 before and after an exceedance of an AIC value. The Committee  also asked if the repository
 in the EPA Brio office could include  more  currently pertinent documents.  BSTF agreed to
 supply  the Committee with an  index  from  the college  repository  from  which to  select
 desired  documents.

       The Committee introduced Bob Martin,  the principal author of  the  SRO report,  from
 EPA Headquarters in Washington,  D.C. Mr. Martin  remarked  that he  looked forward  to
 managing the  site with everyone -  together,  and to  supporting Region 6.

       Jim Green of Harris County Flood Control was  introduced.  Mr.  Green commented that
 he would like to see Harris County,  HCFC,  HCPC, and the City of Houston, and  everyone
 present  work together  to solve the  problems at Brio.  Personally, Mr.  Green said  he
 supported the idea  of re-routing Mud Gully. HCFC would have approval over any  plans  to
 re-route the  Gully.

       The meeting was then  opened to questions from the audience.  The  following  issues
 were discussed:

       buffer zones and potential  slurry walls around  the site
       the suggestion that a  full site assessment and environmental  impact  assessment  be
       whether the pump and  treat  method can  cause  sidewalks  to buckle
       a request that two seats on  the Committee be opened for residents  currently  living
       in Southbend

       The Committee discussed the SRO report. If a  containment remedy was selected for
 the site, Bob Martin said the SRO  recommendations on site characterization would  remain
 germane,  with  a  few  exceptions.  Dioxin,   for instance, becomes   less  important with
 containment. EPA agreed to submit a plan addressing  the SRO report  to the Committee and
 to EPA Headquarters.  Bob Martin agreed to review the plan and comment on  whether  it meets
 with Headquarters' expectations  for the SRO report.

       An announcement was made that  on September  30,  ATSDR released the results of a
 health study  conducted in Southbend subdivision.

       The Committee  scheduled the  next meeting for Tuesday,  October 25,  1994, from 6-30
 p.m to 8:00 p.m., at  the  EPA Satellite office.

       The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:35  p.m.

Case Study: Community Advisory Group
Carolawn,  Inc., Chester County,
South Carolina
                   The following is a case study of the Community Advisory Group (CAG) at the
                   Carolawn Superfund site in South Carolina. The Carolawn CAG is called a
                   Community Advisory Board (CAB). Information for the case study was obtained
                   in interviews with the following EPA Region 4 and State of South Carolina
                   personnel and CAB Members:

                   Cynthia Peurifoy, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC)
                   Yvonne Jones, EPA Regional Project Manager (RPM)
                   Richard Haynes, S. Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
                   Davis White, Sr., CAB Chairman
                   Donna Lisenby, CAB Vice-Chairman
                   B.F. Nichols, CAB Member
                   Jim Gaston, CAB Member
                   The Carolawn, Inc. site is an abandoned three-acre waste storage and disposal
                   facility that was owned by various companies until Carolawn Company bought
                   the site in 1977. Several hundred drums of chemical wastes, including acids,
                   bases, organic solvents, and contaminated soil were stored both outside and
                   inside the fenced site. Four 2,000-gallon tanks of solvents were located on site.
                   Some drums were damaged in a fire, and others were corroded and leaking. A
                   lagoon was used for disposal of waste sludge. Carolawn constructed two
                   incinerators, but they never were used to dispose of wastes. Carolawn, Inc. went
                   bankrupt in 1980, after failing to obtain a permit for incineration.

                   Approximately 100 people live within a one-mile radius of the site; 2,000 people
                   live within four miles. In the past, significant amounts of contaminated runoff
                   from the site had migrated into a tributary of the Catawba River that supplied
                   drinking water to the town of Lugaff. In 1980, the South Carolina Department of
                   Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) sampled three private wells and
                   found them to be contaminated.

                   The groundwater is contaminated with lead, chloroform, and various volatile
                   organic compounds (VOCs). Arsenic, lead, and methylene chloride were detected
                   in stream sediments. Lead was detected in the soil, and chloroform was detected
                   in the surface water. The site was proposed for National Priority Listing on
                   December 30,1982, and the listing was completed on September 8,1983.

                   The removal of sludge and solid and liquid wastes has reduced the potential for
                   exposure to contaminated materials at the site, and the extension of municipal
                   water lines have reduced risks to the public health and the environment.
                   Groundwater cleanup is underway, and investigations of the former drum
                   storage areas are taking place.

                                                     Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board
Site  Issues
                     Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC) Cynthia Peurifoy described the
                     affected community as a rural area with a predominately white, middle-income,
                     and well-educated population. There are no environmental justice issues
                     associated with the site.

                     Prior to formation of the Carolawn Community Action Board in February 1996,
                     the main site related issues were a plan to discharge untreated groundwater into
                     a sewer line to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) and the possible
                     existence of undiscovered contamination in the additional acreage of the site.

                     Ms. Peurifoy explained that the Carolawn site already was in the design phase
                     and little community involvement had been done, when the community became
                     aware in 1995 that EPA was considering a proposal by the potentially responsible
                     parties (PRPs)  to discharge untreated groundwater into a sewer line to a publicly
                     owned treatment works (POTW).

                     All interviewees agreed that the discharge issue galvanized the community. Until
                     then, the area had been a "sleepy little site," said CAB Member B.F. Nichols, who
                     wrote letters to the county council opposing a proposed redistricting ordinance
                     that would have allowed the Chester Sewer District to handle the untreated
                     groundwater. Mr. Nichols said that he began a campaign to alert community
                     residents to the plan and to organize opposition. EPA Regional Project Manager
                     Yvonne Jones explained that the county contacted EPA  after local residents
                     expressed their opposition at a county council meeting.  EPA scheduled a public
                     meeting to hear local residents' concerns first hand.

                     More than 300 people turned out for a January 10,1995, public meeting to voice
                     their opposition to the discharge of contaminated groundwater into a sewer line.
                     Ms. Peurifoy and Ms. Jones cited citizen concerns about past sewer overflow
                     problems as a major consideration, and this also was cited by the CAB Members
                     interviewed as a chief reason for community opposition to the proposed
                     discharge plan.

                     In July 1995, EPA issued a Proposed Plan for Operable Unit (OU) 2 of the site
                     (additional acreage) recommending "no further action" and stated that discharge
                     into the local POTW appeared to not be acceptable to the local community. EPA
                     proposed that a groundwater treatment system be constructed as outlined in the
                     final remedial plan, with discharge to a nearby creek.

                     All interviewees agreed that EPA's decision to treat  contaminated groundwater
                     on site served to resolve the most contentious of site issues. CAB Members said
                     they now are primarily concerned with monitoring progress.

                     The second major issue at the site, according to CAB Chairman Davis White, Vice
                     Chairman Donna Lisenby, and Members B.F. Nichols and Jim Gaston, is
                     community doubt about whether all contamination has been found on the 68-
                     acre site. Ms. Peurifoy and Ms. Jones agreed that this is  a major concern for the

                     Ms. Jones explained that, based on aerial photographs, past waste practices, and
                     several investigations, there is no reason to suspect additional contamination in
                     other areas of the site. A no action Record of Decision (ROD) was issued for OU2,

Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board
                     with the caveat that if additional information becomes available later, EPA and
                     the State would investigate the matter further.

                     Ms. Lisenby said that she was not satisfied with EPA's investigation of the site
                     outside of the fenced area.  She said the investigation relied on aerial photographs
                     taken eight years apart, and EPA may not have done enough to seek out
                     information about past practices from people who live near the site. "They don't
                     solicit input in general, but instead make a few selective visits and those people
                     might not be the most knowledgeable," she said.

                     In response to community  concerns, investigation continues. Recently, a CAB
                     member was interviewed by a local newspaper. This interview resulted in the
                     publication of an article soliciting information to be provided to the CAB on
                     possible additional dumping at the site. Ms. Jones said the idea originated during
                     informal talks between EPA and CAB Members who thought that there may be
                     people with information who might not talk to outsiders like EPA, but might be
                     willing to talk to the Members of the CAB.

                     Ms. Jones also indicated that EPA plans to "walk the entire site" to visually
                     inspect the site with CAB Members this fall.

CAG  Formation  and Support
                     The August 1995 meeting on the Proposed Plan was attended by approximately
                     300 residents, as well as U.S. Representative John Spratt, who provided EPA with
                     additional information about past operators of the site. At this meeting, future
                     CAB Member B.F. Nichols  asked for a committee to be formed to work with EPA.

                     According to Mr. Nichols, the CAB was formed only after repeated requests. Ms.
                     Lisenby echoed Nichols' opinion. "We had a loose group organized to oppose the
                     discharge plan, " she explained. "Every time we met with EPA we would say we
                     wanted to have a CAG, but the CIC had to go up through the bureaucracy, and it
                     took four months to get sanctioned as an "official' group."

                     EPA solicited participation in developing the Community Action Board in a
                     November 1995 fact sheet, which also announced the ROD and informed
                     residents of decisions on OU1 and OU2 discharge plan. In response, several local
                     officials and residents contacted EPA with suggestions for implementation
                     procedures and nominees for the proposed CAB.

                     Ms. Jones said that EPA's guidance on formation of CAGs was sent to all
                     interested parties so that they would know what a CAG is and the proper
                     procedures for establishing one. She said EPA also sent out a notice of a public
                     meeting for the purposes of establishing a CAG.
                     The Community Action Board's organizational meeting was held on February 15,
                     1996. The meeting was attended by EPA personnel, Congressman Spratt, and
                     about 15 residents. Ms. Peurifoy went through the outline for forming a CAG
                     included in EPA's guidance. Community residents provided input for a mission
                     statement, operating procedures, and other organizational issues. People were
                     nominated for CAB membership from the floor. Based upon deliberations at the
                     meeting, a CAB formation plan was outlined. Ms. Jones noted, "Congressman
                     Spratt virtually drafted it for us."

                     A second public meeting was scheduled for March 7,1996, for the purposes of
                     formally establishing the CAB. Prior to the meeting, the formation of the CAB


                                 Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board
 was announced in the local paper and further nominations to the Board were
 sought from the general public (see Attachment 1). At the March meeting, Ms.
 Jones and Ms. Peurifoy reviewed options for designing the structure and
 procedures for a Community Advisory Group and presented the proposed CAB
 mission statement and operating procedures (see Attachment 2). Participants in
 the meeting elected 15 Members to the CAB. Currently, there are 14 active CAB

 CAB Chairman Davis White, Sr., Vice Chairman Lisenby, and CAB Members Jim
 Gaston and B.F. Nichols described the mission of the CAB in similar terms. Said
 Mr. White, "We want to be a direct link between our board and EPA, to monitor
 what is going on, and we want to be a sounding board for people who live in the
 community, so the Members can be knowledgeable to answer their questions."
 He read the CAB's mission statement: "to ensure that the community will be
 included in the proper and complete cleanup of the Carolawn site, the CAB will
 be educated, aware, and informed, and will serve as an intermediary between
 EPA, SCDHEC, the site response contractors, and the community at-large."

 Everyone interviewed agreed that, as currently constituted, the CAB is
 representative of the community and includes a wide range of views and
 interests. All agreed that every effort was made to open membership to anyone
 interested in serving, and interviewees did not feel there were others in the
 community who had been excluded from participating on the CAB. Ms. Lisenby
 said that, while they would like to have a medical professional in the group, she
 feels it is more important to have Members who are interested and committed to
 the work. Mr. White said he would like to see the CAB make additional efforts to
 recruit African-American representation, but noted that he did not know of any
 African-American families directly affected by the site.

 Operating procedures call for quarterly CAB meetings, but all CAB Members
 interviewed agreed that more frequent meetings—perhaps every 60 days—might
 be necessary. The EPA RPM and CIC attended both CAB organizational
 meetings. Since then, the CAB has held at least one additional meeting, which
 EPA did not attend. Ms. Jones and Ms. Peurifoy agreed that EPA representatives
 should attend most CAB meetings to show support and listen to concerns, but
 that the CAB also should be free to have meetings at which they might not want
 EPA to be present. They also agreed that EPA should provide any resources
 necessary to get information out to the entire community and that EPA has a
 responsibility to ensure that the CAB has the resources necessary to operate

 All interviewees agreed that EPA should play a support role in the formation of
 CAGs. Ms. Lisenby said she thought EPA should provide the kind of
 administrative support that was provided to them, for example, guidance about
 what a CAG is and how it is formed, help with advertising, and information
 summaries. Mr. White and Mr.  Nichols echoed their sentiments and added a
need for financial support as well.

Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board
Technical  Advisors
                     The Carolawn site CAB does not have paid technical advisors, but EPA
                     personnel and CAB Members interviewed agreed that the CAB Members
                     themselves have sufficient technical expertise to understand site issues and
                     assess alternative strategies and designs. Several CAB Members have experience
                     on an emergency response team; one operates a municipal treatment facility; and
                     Mr. Nichols is responsible for hazardous materials issues at a local textile mill
                     that handles chemicals similar to those found at the site.

                     There was some disagreement among CAB Members about whether the CAB
                     should apply for a Technical Assistance Grant. Chairman White said he thought
                     they should, but Mr. Nichols, Ms. Lisenby, and Mr. Gaston said the CAB
                     probably would not apply for a TAG for various reasons. According to Mr.
                     Nichols, the CAB does not need additional technical expertise. Ms. Lisenby said
                     she was unwilling to go through a bureaucratic application process. Mr. Gaston
                     said: "The Superfund here at Carolawn is about done now. All the committee
                     needs to do now is see that the follow-through is done correctly."

 CAG  Effectiveness
                     All interviewees agreed that the CAB has been effective in getting everyone with
                     an interest in site decisions to talk with one another. Mr. White noted that the
                     CAB has provided an effective "communications bridge" for people who are
                     interested in the project to express their views.

                     There also was general agreement that the CAB provides an effective way for the
                     community to provide input on issues directly to EPA. "It's a better method than
                     holding a  public meeting," said Mr. Gaston. Ms. Peurifoy and Ms. Jones agreed.
                     RPM Jones noted that it is difficult to address all issues in detail at a public
                     meeting, and some people inevitably leave with unresolved questions and
                     concerns.  She explained that the existence of the CAB allows for lots of informal
                     meetings where EPA officials can take the time to provide very detailed
                     information to whomever is interested and provides a forum for addressing
                     questions and concerns.

                     Mr. Haynes agreed that, from the State's perspective, the CAB provides an
                     effective way for the community to provide input on issues and also "speeds up
                      the process."  He noted that, since community residents are organized, State and
                      Federal officials are presented "with one set of beliefs and comments instead of

                      All agreed that the formation of the CAB has improved the relationship between
                      the community and EPA. Ms. Lisenby said residents understand better how
                      things work and the constraints under which EPA field staff operate. She said
                      that delays that in the past would have been seen as evidence of "stonewalling"
                      or deliberate withholding of information are less likely to be seen that way now.
                      She advocated increased autonomy for EPA field staff so that they can be more
                      responsive to community concerns in a timely manner.

                      Others said the CAB has improved relations because it helped them "put a face"
                      on EPA. Mr. White said the community looks at EPA in a different light as a
                      result the CAB. "Regardless, of how the decision is made, residents now feel they
                      have had some input," he said. Mr. Haynes of SCDHEC echoed Mr. White's
                      comments. "They may not fully agree with all of the State's and EPA's decisions,

                               Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board
but they have a better understanding, and we have a better understanding of
their concerns, too," he said. "I think everyone is a lot more pleased with the
results than they would have been without the group."

Because the major decision—to treat contaminated groundwater and discharge
into the creek—technically was made before the CAB was formed, interviewees
often were not sure if the community had more influence in site decisions now
than before the CAB was formed. CAB Members Mr. Nichols, Mr. Gaston, and
Ms. Lisenby said that, in effect, the CAB resulted from empowerment of the
community brought about by organizing around that issue. Mr. Gaston said the
community's influence also has increased with PRPs, because the PRPs have
additional respect for the group and for its technical sophistication. Ms. Jones
and Ms. Peurifoy agreed with views expressed by Ms. Lisenby and Mr. Gaston
that the CAB's major concern now is not with decision-making, but with.
monitoring progress and continuing to pursue further investigation of the
additional acreage.

CAB Members agreed that EPA has heard their concerns. All of them noted the
group's success in getting EPA to reverse its decision on discharging into the
sewer system. (Note: The same core group that later formed the nucleus of CAB
membership was involved, although the decision was made before the CAB was
formally formed.) Ms. Lisenby added a  caveat. She said: "I think they've heard
us but not always taken all our concerns into account. I think it's more a function
of funding and not because they don't want to." When asked if she thought the
Carolawn CAB had been successful, she added: "I think EPA is learning to
listen." Mr. White told of a recent incident where CAB Members on a site visit
expressed concern over a suspicious looking liquid they saw oozing at the site.
He said EPA personnel took a soil sample to check it out. "They listen to us," he

Interviewees were unanimous in the opinion that the CAB should have been
formed much earlier in the process, before major site decisions were made. From
the community's perspective, Mr. Nichols said residents never should have had
to go through what they did to get a CAB formed. When asked how to improve
the CAB, Mr. Gaston said his only suggestion was that the CAB should have been
in place from the beginning. Ms. Jones noted, "From a RPM standpoint, it would
have been nice to have them organized earlier in the process, prior to when the
tough decisions were being made."

CAB Members had a number of suggestions for improving the CAB. Mr. White
cited title need for basic funding to allow the group to do its job better. He said he
would like to  see even more information from EPA, and would like to hire a
technical expert to advise the board on a consulting basis. They also agreed that
more frequent meetings—perhaps every 60 days—would be  helpful.

Ms. Peurifoy said she would like to see training made available to CAB
Members, so that they better understand procedures, technical issues, and what
is going on at each step in  the process. She and Ms. Jones explained that, while
formal training has not been available, they have educated CAB Members as
issues have arisen. For example, CAB Members have been invited to participate
in the ore-final inspection of construction of the groundwater treatment system.
Options are being looked at to prepare the CAB for this process. Earlier, EPA
made arrangements for the CAB to visit another site with a similar treatment
system, but the visit was canceled. Other options are under consideration.

Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board
Com m u  n i cat i o n s  Too I s
                     The Carolawn CAB has quarterly formal meetings. Members are reminded of
                     meetings via cards and phone calls and a notice is placed in the three or four
                     \community newspapers that serve the affected area. Other than the newspaper
                     notice, the CAB makes no overt efforts to recruit widespread participation in
                     their monthly meetings.

                     CAB Members report that 12-15 Members have attended the meetings held thus
                     far. Mr. Gastpn noted that the CAB invited a few residents from the site to attend
                     .the last meeting to provide information about early years, but few community
                     residents other than CAB Members attend their meetings.

                     CAB Members said they were confident that residents were aware the meetings
                     are open to all. Mr. White and Ms. Lisenby noted that since most major decisions
                     had already been made, general interest in the site had already peaked. They said
                     they were confident that residents trusted them to watch out for their interests
                     and would attend meetings if they were concerned about a particular issue.

                     The Carolawn CAB reports meeting results to the local newspaper and mails
                     minutes to its membership, but has made no other formal efforts to share
                     information with the community at-large. There is no newsletter or formal
                     dissemination of information, and the CAB's mailing list contains solely its own
                     members. In part this is because the CAB has only been in existence a few
                     months, Mr. White said. He indicated that the group may be interested in
                     addressing public awareness issues in the future, but lacks staff or resources.

                     No CAB Member could remember attending or hearing of any informal meetings
                     with community residents to elicit views or share information, but Mr. Gaston,
                     Mr. Nichols, and Mr. White noted that many Members have large circles of
                     friends and acquaintances with whom they maintain contact. Ms. Lisenby added
                     that several Members also are active on one or more wider community
                     organizations, including churches, Masons, and community associations, with
                     which they share information on an informal basis. The mayor of the nearby
                     town of Richburg also is a CAB Member.

                     Said Lisenby, "We have a good relationship with our community people and
                     they have experience with us from other environmental fights. They know we
                     know what we're talking about and so they really trust us to take on the technical
                     issues. There are not a lot of people clamoring to be on the board, but they know
                 .    we're there watching EPA and the PRPs."

                     .To date, the major activities of the CAB has been to organize itself, monitoring
                     the site, and conducting a site visit with EPA on Earth Day.

                     When asked what kind of progress they would like to see in five or 10 years, CAB
                     Members said they would like to know that the contamination has been
                     contained in the area, that the cleanup is proceeding effectively and swiftly, and
                     to be completely satisfied that no additional contamination is found. Ms. Lisenby
                     added that in 10 years, she also would like to know of any impacts to Fishing

                                                     Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board
Suggestions    for   Others
                      Everyone interviewed agreed that forming a CAB was a good idea, and
                      encouraged other Regions and communities to do so. Mr. Gaston emphasized the
                      need to organize a CAB as early in the process as possible, a view echoed by each
                      of the other interviewees. Ms. Lisenby agreed. "I can't stress enough how
                      important it is to get a CAG involved from the beginning," she said. "CAGs can
                      make a real difference. It takes a lot to get [the bureaucracy's] attention, but once
                      you've got it, they'll listen."

                      Mr. Haynes of SCDHEC concluded: "A year ago, I was scared of them getting
                      together. I'm pleasantly surprised and think it probably would be a good idea in
                      other places."                                    ;

                      EPA's CIC and RPM agreed that other communities should consider forming
                      their own CAGs. Ms. Peurifoy said that the key is having RPMs that really are
                      willing to work with communities and to take the extra steps necessary to. keep
                      the community involved. "This is not something that can be done without a lot of
                      time and effort," she warned. "If you don't want to be there, [the community]
                      will know it. Where there are people who are not comfortable working with the
                      public, [forming a CAG] would be difficult."                            -   ;

                      Ms. Peurifoy said she initially thought that forming a Community Advisory
                      Group would not be a good idea at a site like Carolawn, because much of the
                      decision-making process already had been completed, and design and remedial
                      action already had begun. "I've changed my mind on that," she said.

                      Interviewees had a range of opinions about what ingredients make for a ,   :  •••.•-'.
                      successful CAG. Mr. White said the key is to find an issue or a benefit that people
                      are interested in. He said he thought the key is not so much the numbers of
                      people involved, as finding people—a good cross-section of the     :
                      community—committed to solving problems and willing to work on them until
                      they are resolved. He said a successful CAG's main role is to ensure that the
                      community is thoroughly informed about the site and its activities.

    Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board
                                             ATTACHMENT 1
                                        CAB Public Meeting Notices

                               NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING TO ORGANIZE

On February 15,1996, citizens concerned about the cleanup and remediation of the Carolawn Superfund Site met with officials
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the purpose of initiating a "Carolawn Superfund Site Community
Advisory Board." Those citizens participating developed a proposed "Mission Statement" and proposed nominees for a 15-
member Community Advisory Board. The Proposed "Mission Statement" is as follows:

To ensure that the community will be included in the proper and completed cleanup of the Carolawn Superfund Site, the
Community Advisory Board will be educated, aware and informed and will serve as an intermediary between EPA, South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), site response contractors and the community at large.
The proposed nominees for the Community Advisory Board are as follows:
Mr. Tom Funderburk
Mr. James Gaston
Ms. Nita O'Brien
Mrs. Susan K. Helms
Mr. Tom McMinn
Mr. Jim Bruce
Mr. Barnette Nichols
Mrs. Debbie McMinn
Mrs. M.W. Morrison
Mr. John B. McCrory
Ms. Donna Lisenby
Mr. Lonnie Taylor
Mrs. Jean Nichols
Mr. Davis C. White, Sr.
The Honorable John M. Spratt, Jr. will serve as an ex officio member of the Community Advisory Board.  The designated Acting
Chairman for convening and chairing the organizational meeting is Mr. Davis White, Sr.

Notice is hereby given that the public meeting will be held on March 7,1996, at Lewisville Elementary School, at 7:00 p.m. at
which time:

(1) The proposed "Mission Statement" will be read and considered, opened to amendment, and submitted for a vote of approval
by those participating.

(2) Proposed Operating Procedures for the Carolawn Superfund Site Community Advisory Board will be Considered, opened
to amendment, and submitted for a vote of approval.

(3) The proposed nominees for the Community Advisory Board will be considered, and the floor will be opened for nomination
of other candidates, after which a Board of 15 members will be elected by vote of those present and participating.

(4) Meeting participants proposed that all citizens residing in Edgemoor, Richburg, Fort Lawn, Great Falls, or in Chester
Country Council Districts 1 and 2 be eligible to be members of the Community Advisory Board. However, all interested
residents are encouraged to participate in the public meeting and in the approval of the matters to be considered.

The participants of the informal planning meeting held on February 15, would like to express their appreciation to the
Honorable John M. Spratt, Jr., Member, U.S. House of Representatives for his participating in the meeting. It should be noted
that Congressman Spratt assisted the group by drafting the above notice.

Additional information may be obtained from any of the nominees listed above, or by contacting Cynthia Peurifoy, EPA
Community Relations Coordinator, at 1-800-435-9233 or (404) 347-7791  ext. 2072.

                                        Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board
United States
Environmental Protection
Region IV
Office of Public Affairs
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30360
           Environmental News
                                   (404) 347-3004

    The U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, in conjunction with  the
 newly formed Carolawn Superfund Site Community Advisory Board, will
 hold a public meeting in Richburg,  South Carolina on Thursday, March
 7, 1996.  The meeting will be held  to formally organize the Advisory
    The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.  at  the Lewisville Elementary
 School on Lewisville High School  Road in Richburg.  Mr. Davis White,
 Sr., Acting Chairman, will convene  the  meeting.  Organization of  the
 Advisory Board will include  the adoption of the mission statement  and
 operating procedures and  the  election of Board members.
    John H.  Hankinson,  Jr.,   EPA  Regional  Administrator, said,  "We
 welcome the opportunity to work with the Carolawn Community Advisory
 Board.  Community involvement is  one of the Agency's top priorities.
 EPA  recognizes  that involvement  of  the  public  in  all types  of
 Superfund projects  is an  important ingredient for success."
    Citizens concerned about the  cleanup of  the  site met with  EPA
 officials  on  February  15,   1996.    The  meeting resulted  in  the
 development of a mission statement and a proposed list  of  sixteen
 nominees for the Board.   Congressman John  M.  Spratt,  Jr.  will serve
 as an ex officio member of  the Board.
    Persons residing in Edgemoor, Richburg,  Fort Lawn, Great Falls  and
 in Chester County Council  Districts 1 and 2 are eligible to serve on
 the  Board.   All  interested persons are  encouraged  to  attend  the
    The Carolawn  site  is  an  abandoned three-acre waste  storage  and
 disposal facility.  Improper storage and disposal of wastes resulted
 in contamination of the  groundwater and soil.  The site was added to
 the National Priorities List of hazardous waste sites in 1983.
    Additional  Information regarding the Citizens Advisory Board or
 cleanup activities at the  site may be obtained by contacting Cynthia
 Peurifoy, Community Relations Coordinator, at 1-800-435-9233.

 -0-        March 5,  1996
 CONTACT:   Carl Terry, Press Office,  404/347-3555,  ext.  6755

Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board
                          ATTACHMENT 2

                      CAB Public Meeting Materials
                            REGION IV


                              for the

                   CAROLAWN SUPERFUND SITE
                      MARCH 7,1996 - 7:00 P.M.
                          RICHBURG, SC

                   Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board

 CAG Organizational Session
   Thursday, March 7,1996

          II. SITE UPDATE







          IX. ADJOURN

Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board
                        MEMBERSHIP COMPOSITION
     Maximum membership proposed - 15

     Additional efforts will be made to include representation from residents
     adjacent to site, minority members of the community and a representative
     from the medical community.

     Open nominations to others at the public meeting
  The proposed nominees for the Community Advisory Board are as follows:
   Mr. Tom Funderburk
   Mrs. Susan K. Helms
   Mr. Barnette Nichols
   Ms. Donna Lisenby
Mr. James Gascon  .
Mr. Tom McMinn
Mrs. Debbie McMinn
Mr. Lonnie Taylor
Mrs. J.N. Rockholt
Mrs. M.W. Morrison
Mrs. Jean Nichols
Ms. Nita O'Brien
Mr. Jim Bruce
Mr. John B. McCrory
Mr. Davis C. White, Sr.

                                      Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board
                     PURPOSE AND INTEREST

• Enhance Community Involvement

• Enhance Information Dissemination & Exchange

• Address Community Concerns

• Additional Site Investigation

• Follow up on Possible Dump Sites (Mainly 80 Acres)

• Follow Design Implementation/Schedule

• Periodic Progress Reports and Photographs of Site

• Concern with Erosion and Run-Off

• Real Estate Transactions

Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board
                     CAG PURPOSE & INTEREST
                        MISSION STATEMENT
                      (To Be Established by CAG)
  "To ensure that the community will be included in the proper and complete

  cleanup of the Carolawn Superfund Site, the Community Advisory Board will

  be educated, aware and informed and will serve as an intermediary between

  EPA, South  Carolina Department of Health  and Environmental Control

  (SCDHEC), site response contractors and the community at large"

Carolawn, Inc. Community Advisory Board
                      OPERATING PROCEDURES

  •  Membership Vacancies

  •  Frequency of Meetings - Quarterly During Remedy Implementation
     • Location of Meetings
     • Meeting Format
     • Meeting Documentation
     • Special Focus Sessions

  •  Document Review & Comment

  •  Public Participation in CAG Meetings

  •  CAG Duration - Duration of Three Years with Renewal Every Three
     Years Unless the Majority Votes to Discontinue

  • Roles and Responsibilities
     • CAG Members
     • CAG Chairperson

Case Study: Community Advisory Group
Colorado School of  Mines Research
Institute,  Golden,  Colorado
                    Following is a case study of the EPA Community Advisory Group (CAG) at
                    the Colorado School of Mines Research Institute, a hazardous waste removal
                    action site in Golden, Colorado. Information on which the case study is based
                    was obtained in interviews with the following EPA Region 8 and State
                    personnel and CAG Members:

                    Sonya Pennock, EPA Region 8 Community Involvement Manager
                    Mike Holmes, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC)
                    Mike Zimmerman, EPA On-Scene Coordinator (OSC)
                    Rick Brown, State of Colorado
                    Carol Harwood, (CAG Member)
                    Katie Fendel, City of Golden (CAG Member)
                    Scott Smith (U.S. Army, ret), Coors Brewery, (CAG Member)

Overview of  Site History
                    The Colorado School of Mines Research Institute (CSMRI) site sits adjacent to
                    and is affiliated with the Colorado School of Mines (CSM) in Golden,
                    Colorado. CSM has been open since 1890. CSMRI conducted research in the
                    development of mining and processing of metals and radioactive materials.
                    Research activities included developing and refining processes for recovering
                    natural resources from ore. Raw materials used for research were obtained
                    from a wide variety of sources from around the world, as well as more local
                    sources. Contaminants at the site represent the full suite of metals and
                    radioactive materials associated with mining activities. The CSMRI closed in

                    Wastes from CSMRI research buildings entered a tailings pond through a
                    system of floor drains. The tailings pond is located along Clear Creek, a
                    drinking water source for 250,000 residents of the greater Denver, Colorado,
                    area. When the CSMRI closed  in 1987, the State of Colorado installed
                    institutional controls (a fence and signs) around the pond and issued the
                    owner/operator a license for the handling of radioactive materials. Over the
                    years, the owner/operator went bankrupt, and the pond received little
                    attention or management. In January 1992, a water main burst on the  site,
                    sending water through the facility, into the drains and out into the tailings
                    pond. The pond overflowed and waste spilled into Clear Creek, triggering an
                    emergency response action by EPA Region 8. In the following months, EPA
                    cleaned CSMRI buildings and drains, dewatered the pond, and removed
                    tailings from the impoundment. Material accumulated from these activities
                    (approximately 15,000 cubic yards) was stockpiled on a clay-lined pad on
                    CSM property for later permanent disposal.

                         Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Community Working Group

                        EPA, the State of Colorado, CSM, and 12 private entities participated in
                        negotiations for final disposal. The private companies had been involved in
                        material testing at CSMRI and were potentially liable for the cleanup under
                        CERCLA. CSMRI is not an NPL site: the issue at hand for concerned parties
                        was the final disposal of a waste pile that had been contained. The remedy for
                        the waste pile (off-site disposal at an approved solid waste disposal facility)
                        was announced in June 1995, and disposal and final restoration of the
                        property was conducted by the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) group
                        with EPA oversight as a continuation of the removal action. Decisions on final
                        disposal and future land use of the site are of considerable interest to various
                        stakeholders in the community. A Community Working Group (CWG),
                        comprised of stakeholder representatives, was formed to facilitate public
Site  Issues
                        The City of Golden lies about 10 miles west of Denver. It has about 15,000
                        mostly middle-class residents and is growing rapidly. Economic activity
                        centers on the School of Mines and the Coors Brewery. The CSMRI site lies in
                        the central district of the city next to a downtown historic district containing
                        some fairly expensive homes.

                        Residents of Golden had been concerned about the environmental and other
                        impacts of the CSMRI for many years. These concerns began to come together
                        in response to the emergency situation created by the water main break and
                        converged when EPA issued a preliminary work plan calling for temporary
                        below-ground placement of the stockpile in a containment repository. The
                        CWG was being formed late in 1994 when EPA's Administrative
                        Improvements plan was implemented. Region 8 identified this CWG as a
                        possible Community Advisory Group pilot project under that plan.

                        The PRPs had proposed a remedy for the stockpile that involved constructing
                        a below-ground containment cell on-site for permanent disposal. EPA's
                        position was that community acceptance of such a remedy was important,
                        and did not seem likely given the size of the stockpile and its proximity to
                        Clear Creek. The main issue dealt with by the CWG was the remedy to be
                        selected for the ultimate disposal of the stockpile accumulated during the
                        removal action. Most other site issues flowed from that question. More
                        specific issues addressed by the CWG included:

                        •   Present impacts of the stockpile on the environment (waterborne run-off
                            into Clear Creek, airborne blow-off into Golden, etc.);
                        •   Below-ground vs. above-ground temporary storage of the stockpile (until
                            a remedy was selected and implemented);
                        •   On-site vs. off-site stockpile disposal and the environmental consequences
                            of on-site disposal; and
                        •   Truck traffic in the event of off-site removal of the stockpile.

                        Mr. Smith said the community also was interested in getting the stockpile
                        characterized before a  final decision was made on permanent on-site or off-
                        site disposal. He said that until the community could understand better the
                        threats posed by the site, it would be unable to make proper, informed
                        decisions that balanced the risks and costs of the disposal options. He noted
                        that the risks and costs of off-site disposal are often not understood. For

                        example, there must be an off-site facility willing and able to accept the waste,
                        and there would be significant truck traffic as the stockpile was removed.
                        Traffic issues to consider included traffic routes, truck size, hours of
                        operation, and a number of other issues. He also noted a tendency for on-site
                        disposal risks to be overstated. All this created the impetus for better waste
                        characterization sought by the CWG before they felt they could make a proper

                        A principal concern to the stakeholders was the role of the State of Colorado.
                        The State "wore many hats" (regulator and enforcer, PRP, site owner and "bill
                        payer" (by default), CWG facilitator, etc.) regarding the site, which led to a
                        number of problems. For example, at times the State of Colorado was in
                        settlement negotiations with PRPs regarding liability and the disposition of
                        the stockpile at the same time that the CWG was holding meetings to evaluate
                        remedial alternatives or consider other issues. On occasion, the State would
                        have to delay the release of some information to keep the PRPs at the table,
                        but often this was information that the CWG felt it needed to make proper
                        decisions. The actual time delays were less harmful to the process than the
                        mistrust that was bred from a feeling that a deal was being cut in spite of the
                        CWG's efforts.

                        There were also many times when the issues of interest to the State and the
                        CWG diverged. Mr. Brown reported that there were times, especially early on,
                        when State regulators were focused on the nuts and bolts of the process, such
                        as liability, ARARs, cleanup standards, and remedy selection. They had no
                        way of knowing how the situation would turn out until some of these issues
                        were addressed. In contrast, the community was not always interested in
                        these issues. Local residents tended to focus only on the larger, less complex
                        questions, such as whether the stockpile was to be disposed on-site or off-site,
                        a question the State could not answer at the time. Again, this led to feelings of
                        mistrust. Mr. Brown said he felt the enforcement aspect of the State's role also
                        influenced many other issues for the stakeholders.

CAG  Formation  and Support
                        The CWG was formally constituted  in January 1995. EPA had required a
                        Community Relations Plan from the PRPs and the State, which called for a
                        forum for community input. EPA did not play a large role in the formation of
                        the CWG, in the sense that it did not organize or recruit CWG Members;
                        however, EPA did actively encourage and support the formation of a broad-
                        based CWG. EPA staff attended every CWG meeting to inform the
                        community of site activities and respond to questions from the community.

                        All those interviewed agreed that EPA should play a role in the formation and
                        operation of Community Advisory Groups, and further agreed generally that
                        the role EPA played at CSMRI was a good example of the role EPA should
                        play; adviser to the process who is also there to listen to the concerns of the
                        community and explain how and why those concerns will or will not be
                        incorporated into site decisions and actions. Each interviewee discussed
                        "ownership" of CAGs in some respect, and all felt that it was critical that the
                        CAG belong to the community. That means that a party or parties other than
                        EPA should organize the CAG, chair meetings, supervise activities, etc., with
                        EPA participating by attended meetings, listening to the concerns and input
                        from the community, and responding to questions.

 Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Community Working Group
Ms. Fendel reported that the CWG was started and initially led by an
organization (the Jefferson Group) hired by the PRPs. This group drafted a
mission statement and operating procedures, but these and other CWG efforts
were cut short by residents of Golden who "mutinied" against the CWG as
constituted and pushed for a CWG "owned" by the local community to
ensure that all stakeholders were at the table and had an opportunity to be
heard. Ms. Fendel said EPA played a "watchdog" or oversight role
throughout the transition, and was available to respond to community
concerns. Both of these were seen as appropriate roles for EPA to play.

Participation in the CSMRI CWG was informal and open to all. "Membership"
was based more or less on  self-selection. Ms. Fendel stressed that from the
outset the City and other stakeholders wanted to see CWG Members who
were participating because they wanted to be on the CWG. If an individual
did not have enough of a stake to remain actively involved from start to
finish, then he or she was welcome to participate but was not in the core
group of about a dozen people who directed CWG activities. This "natural
evolution" of a core group  served the CWG better, according to the
interviewees, than the more formal approach undertaken (prior to the
"mutiny") by the Jefferson Group (the PRPs' consultant). Self-selection of the
core group lent legitimacy  to the process and ensured that the CWG was in
the hands of stakeholders with enough of an interest to maintain a high level
of involvement. In the opinions of the interviewees, the CWG and its core
group represented a fair cross-section of the interests at the site. Mr. Smith
and others noted that interest and participation in the CWG extended to the
State legislature (in the person of State Senator Perlmutter), such that the
CWG, which already included representation from the City Council, also was
able to gain access to the State legislative as well as executive (regulatory)
branches. Mr. Brown noted that Jefferson County, which includes the City of
Golden, was not as involved in the CWG as it could have been.

The role and function of the CWG, according to Ms. Harwood and Mr. Smith,
was to provide a forum for the flow of information between the community
and site decision-makers. The CWG was the central point of contact for the
community to obtain information on Federal and State activities and thinking
at CSMRI; the CWG was also a means of providing feedback to those
decision-makers on issues such as how the community would like to see the
site used in the future, which remedial alternatives were preferable,
community concerns regarding the implementation of the selected alternative,

A common concern voiced by most interviewees was the availability (or lack
thereof) of EPA funding for technical, logistical, or administrative support of
CWG activities. The CWG wanted to hire a technical consultant and sought
funding for one. Since CSMRI was not a NPL site, the City of Golden did not
qualify for a Superfund Technical Assistance Grant, and no other types of
Federal funding were available. Ms. Fendel said that it was very difficult, but
the CWG was finally successful in obtaining the needed funds from the State
Department of Local Affairs, which provided support through its Mining and
Energy Impacts Grant. The CWG then hired a consultant, and EPA took on
responsibility for distributing its own information as needed. Parties on all

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Community Working Group	

                        sides felt the CWG would have benefited significantly from some type of
                        funding support from EPA, especially since CWG Members were contributing
                        their time and efforts.

CAG Effectiveness
                        Every interviewee responded in the affirmative when asked the direct
                        question "overall, do you think the CWG was effective at the CSMRI site?"
                        However, each respondent qualified their response, and there was a bit of a
                        distinction between EPA staff and other interviewees.

                        EPA staff were more positive and offered fewer qualifications on the
                        effectiveness of the CWG. Mr. Holmes said he felt the CWG was very effective
                        in getting everyone with an interest to the table and in getting all views
                        expressed, particularly at a site that requked quite a bit of thought and
                        consideration of a number of alternatives in a time when communities in
                        general are demanding more input into hazardous waste cleanup decisions.
                        By going to the community up front, EPA was able to screen out remedial
                        alternatives that the community simply would not accept prior to expending
                        EPA resources on analysis of their feasibility. EPA also could reassure the
                        local community that they and other regulators had given the situation some
                        thought, rather than making quick decisions based on incomplete information,
                        EPA could answer questions directly and fill in information gaps in the
                        community, which Mr. Holmes said he believed saved Region 8 a lot of
                        longer-term problems. He also noted that there was quite a bit of technical
                        expertise in the community that the Region was able to access and use.

                        Mr.  Zimmerman said the CAG was effective because it helped clarify the
                        issues for all sides and brought about a consensus (or at least as close to a
                        consensus as they could hope) on the site remedy. Individuals who had been
                        opposed to off-site disposal saw why it may be the only possible option; their
                        opposite numbers were able to see  and understand the issues associated with
                        off-site disposal that had perhaps gone unconsidered. Through the CWG, EPA
                        and the State were able to clarify a number of misconceptions and deal with
                        the passions that often crop up at hazardous waste sites. Mr. Zimmerman also
                        felt the open forum approach was effective, especially in a smaller town like
                        Golden where rumors can circulate quickly.

                        EPA staff also felt that the influence of the local community on site decisions
                        was enhanced by the CWG. The frequency of the meetings and  the
                        commitment of the core group created a situation where EPA could turn to
                        the CWG for regular, thoughtful feedback. At first, the CWG meetings were
                        held to share information, but as time passed and the CWG gained its footing,
                        EPA found it was a very effective sounding board, particularly when it came
                        to the consideration of remedial alternatives. If the CWG said a particular
                        remedy would not muster enough support within the community, EPA would
                        move on to the next plan. The CWG also fostered two-way communication
                        that helped EPA avoid unforeseen community resistance. Finally, the role of
                        the CWG placed some responsibility for the site decisions on the community,
                        such that it could not later claim to have been uninformed or "railroaded" into
                        accepting a solution it did not want.

                        The only suggestion offered by an EPA staffer for improving this CWG was
                        the provision of EPA funding for up-front administrative costs.

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Community Working Group

Non-EPA interviewees were somewhat less convinced of the effectiveness of
the CWG, though they all felt that overall it had been effective in
accomplishing what it set out to do. Ms. Harwood said she felt the CAG
process holds great promise as a key to resolving a lot of issues for EPA at
hazardous waste cleanup sites. For example, EPA is often a victim of rumors
passed along by people with little or no information other than seeing EPA
show up and declare an emergency. More effective community involvement
could overcome such problems. The players on the CSMRI CWG were able to
gain an understanding of the process, though there were significant problems
(see below). In spite of the problems, Ms. Harwood did say that the CWG
provided an effective means of two-way communication with EPA, and that
EPA did listen to community concerns, answer questions, and respond to
community input in its site decisions. Overall, she felt the CAG had been
effective because it brought a large number of perspectives together and
arrived at a win-win solution that met most, if not all, concerns expressed. The
community got what it wanted; the PRPs got an economical solution.

Areas for improvement identified by Ms. Harwood included:

•   The cancellation of regularly scheduled meetings;
•   Unannounced agenda changes at some meetings;
•   The need to ask for information without knowing what is available (EPA
    and others with information available should notify the community of
    what is available and how it may be obtained.);
•   The technical complexity of the information provided (Information should
    be available for people without technical knowledge.);
•   Inconsistency in meeting minutes and other reporting; and
•   Follow-up after the remedy had been selected.

Ms. Harwood also stated that under no circumstances should an enforcer or
PRP play the role in the CAG assumed by the State of Colorado at CSMRI
where there is an obvious conflict of interest.

Mr. Smith said he thought the CWG had been effective but could have been
better, citing the conflicting roles and responsibilities of the State, the
confusing and conflicting messages sent by the School of Mines, and the
constant presence of so many PRP lawyers. All of these tended to push the
conversation in one direction or another, inhibiting some input. He offered a
single solution to most of these issues: adroit, authoritative, and trustworthy
facilitation. As constituted, the CSMRI CWG, with facilitation by the State
which was both enforcer and defendant, was subject to too much spinning of
issues and not enough problem-solving.

Mr. Smith said that EPA had a good reputation in the community before the
formation of the CWG, and did nothing to lessen that image during the life of
the CWG. EPA displayed open-mindedness and professionalism. He noted
that Golden seems to be one of the few communities in the State that does not
have a Superfund site within its borders, so EPA may have been able to avoid
some community-based issues that it has faced in other parts of the State. He
said that the CWG in Golden had been effective overall because it was able to
fully consider the costs, risks, and ramifications (including collateral issues
such as air quality, traffic and noise issues, etc.) of a sufficient number of
remedial alternatives, and have its conclusions incorporated into the
alternatives considered by EPA in making its decisions. He noted that he

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Community Working Group	

                        expected that some of the CWG Members were probably pleasantly surprised
                        that their input was valued by EPA. While there were some procedural and
                        control problems at the outset of the CWG, eventually the discussions were
                        civilized and provided the opportunity to learn and express one's views.

                        Ms. Fendel said the CWG was very effective after the "mutiny" described
                        above. At first, there was a lot of distrust of the process and a feeling that the
                        local community was having a solution foisted upon them. There were also a
                        number of "false starts" and cancelled meetings until the local community
                        assumed "ownership" of the process. She said the State was probably under
                        too much pressure to do too many different things to provide the CWG with
                        clear leadership. She said EPA played an effective role and was particularly
                        effective in responding to community concerns. She noted that at least one of
                        the two Mikes (Holmes and Zimmerman), and usually both, attended every
                        meeting, and suggested that EPA consider sending more senior management
                        staff to such meetings more often to both give management a better idea of
                        what is happening and give the community a sense that EPA takes these
                        groups seriously. She said that a Region 8 Division Director (Robert DuPrey)
                        attended one CWG meeting, which had a salutary effect on the process. Ms.
                        Fendel offered three suggestions for improving this CWG:

                        1) The CWG should have been "owned" by the community from the
                        2) Funding should have been available from EPA or some other Federal
                           source for administrative support.
                        3) Meetings should have been held only when there were issues, reports, or
                           other information to discuss.

                        As the State representative charged with facilitating the meetings, Mr. Brown
                        centered his comments on how the CWG functioned and the complex issues
                        the State faced. He said the CWG was effective in getting a small, committed
                        group together that represented the interests  of the community and was able
                        to communicate well with their constituents. He also appreciated the interest
                        and efforts of the Golden City Council and its willingness to deal with issues
                        and situations that were not always to its liking. The CWG was effective in
                        getting information to the City Council so that members of the Council could
                        at least answer questions from the community at large, even if they did not
                        like the answers they were giving. He felt that the CWG was very effective in
                        communicating with EPA and seemed to understand the various functions of
                        the different State and Federal agencies. Mr. Brown felt the CWG had been
                        effective in the sense that a resolution of site issues had been achieved in a
                        manner that all sides could abide.

Communications  Tools
                        The CWG for the CSMRI site scheduled regular, biweekly, three-hour
                        meetings. Meetings were sometimes cancelled, other times they were held
                        weekly, depending on decision-making circumstances. The local newspaper
                        had a representative on the CWG, and meeting announcements and
                        information were published in that newspaper regularly. The CWG's
                        technical consultant published and distributed newsletters and fact sheets on
                        general issues and  site-related choices to be made. Fact sheets and other site
                        information also were distributed to the community by EPA. There was no

                         Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Community Working Group

                         formal process for the CWG to interact with others in the community since all
                         of the meetings were open. CAG Members who were on the Golden City
                         Council did give briefings at City Council meetings to discuss CWG activities.

                         Ms. Harwood said the CWG meetings drew a lot of interest from the
                         community and were well-attended, particularly the meetings that centered
                         on the remedy to be selected for the site. Often there was not enough time set
                         aside on the agenda to hear all comments and input from local residents. She
                         noted that EPA distributed fact sheets that were helpful in explaining the

                         Mr. Smith noted  that information from the State in support of their planned
                         meeting topics was a bit out of synchronization; the CWG was trying to
                         coordinate their activities with State milestones, but the information they
                         received from the State was inadequate and unreliable. He attributed the
                         "disconnect" to the number of lawyers involved in the process, noting that if
                         one had never seen the Superfund process in action before, one would have
                         been amazed by the number of lawyers and the amount of jargon involved.

                         Ms. Fendel said the CWG focused on attracting people who wanted to
                         participate, hence the CWG was based on a core group of about 12 or so who
                         were more deeply involved, rather than based on a larger group with more
                         undefined interests.

Suggestions for Other  CAGs
                        On the question of what a CAG should accomplish to be successful, there was
                        a slight difference between the responses from EPA and State government
                        interviewees and those of CAG Members. CAG representatives from the City
                        and the local community tended to focus  their responses on the need for more
                        and better information regarding the issues from EPA and the State, the need
                        for the community to "own" the CAG, and the need for EPA to encourage
                        participation and ensure that all viewpoints are represented in the process.
                        EPA and State respondents focused on the need for CAG Members  to
                        represent broad-based community interests and to commit themselves to the
                        process for the long haul, and mechanisms for administrative support of CAG

                        Interviewees from both sides named the need for all participants in  the CAG
                        to identify their interest in the process as important to the success of CAGs. At
                        the outset, every participant should identify her or his interest and vision'for a
                        successful resolution of the situation, and identify any group or interest they
                        may be representing at a meeting. For example, representatives from PRPs
                        attended every meeting, but did not always identify themselves as such before
                        airing their views. It took a while to match up the position they were taking
                        with their representative capacity. Also, the complexity of the State's role at
                        the site should have been made clear from the beginning. The lag time
                        between hearing a particular viewpoint and discovering the motivation
                        behind that position led to some mistrust.

                        Ms. Harwood  said EPA needs to make sure CAG activities and opportunities
                        are publicized widely, and needs to be aggressive in letting people know that
                        they can participate and have a say in the final outcome. Local residents may
                        not feel they have the knowledge or expertise to participate, not knowing that

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Community Working Group	

                         information may be provided that will give them enough of an understanding
                         to at least form a general opinion in line with their interests. EPA should make
                         sure that such reliable information is available for local residents who may
                         lack technical expertise. Ms. Harwood also identified the following

                         •   Effective facilitation of meetings,
                         •   Regular and reliable scheduling of meetings,
                         •   Publication of meeting minutes, and
                         •   Follow-up activities with the community (briefings, publications, etc.)
                             explaining site decisions and the role the local community played in those

                         Ms. Harwood said that, in their particular case, the conflict of interest that
                         bound up arid inhibited the State could have been fatal to the process. It was
                         only in spite of those problems that the CWG succeeded. Under no
                         circumstances should CAGs or CAG meetings be run by parties with a major
                         interest in the outcome. Ideally, meeting facilitation should be provided by a
                         disinterested party. Otherwise, people will feel that the CAG is being pushed
                         in one direction  or another, which goes back to the issue of CAG "ownership."

                         Most of Mr. Smith's comments focused on things EPA should dp early in the
                         process, mostly  around the time that a response action situation is discovered.
                         He said EPA should redouble its efforts to ensure that from the beginning
                         communities understand that:

                         •   There are provisions for CAGs;
                         •   The input from CAGs is welcome from the outset of site activities; and
                         •   Funding of CAG activities may be available from a variety of sources.

                         EPA should not assume that people will know that they can have a say in the
                         process. For example, EPA can let it be known that it cares about local input
                         when General Notice Letters are issued, either through the local press or some
                         other media. He said this particular CWG succeeded, in part, because the
                         group persisted in holding regular meetings despite some initial problems,
                         including a low benefit-to-burden ratio at the outset. The process could have
                         suffered from a  lack of interest, but a core group of individuals remained
                         active and interested.

                         Mr. Smith said that as soon as a response action situation is uncovered, EPA
                         should assemble information on what particular funding support may be
                         available to the  local community for CAG activities, especially if a TAG or
                         other EPA support will not be available. EPA also should identify early the
                         players in the process, the information necessary for them to provide
                         meaningful input and make informed decisions, and to whom the participants
                         should direct their input. The substance of and procedures for the local
                         community's role should be clear from the beginning.

                         Ms. Fendel felt it was critical that the local citizenry be provided with good
                         information and "ownership" of the CAG and its decisions. When the PRPs
                         initially attempted to operate the CWG at CSMRI and run the meetings by
                         lecturing the community on the process and what they could expect, the
                         results were disastrous. The local community must be given

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Community Working Group

control of the CAG up front and throughout the process. This gives the
community both its rightful role in the process and responsibility for the
ultimate success or failure of the CAG.

Mr. Brown identified three requirements for a successful CAG:

1)  CAG Members who make a long-term investment of themselves in the
    process, including both time and effort (for example, standing up at a
    single meeting and listing one's grievances does not influence the
2)  Administrative procedures that ensure that agendas and background
    information for meetings are distributed in time to be reviewed prior to
    meetings; and
3)  Regulators and decision-makers who attend meetings, are willing to listen
    to community input, and are able to respond to that input (that is, explain
    what they are willing to do or provide reasons why something cannot be

Mr. Brown said that many of the problems at CSMRI may have been avoided
if local residents had been provided with more detailed information earlier in
the process. He also felt that it was critical that once such information had
been provided that the local community take the initiative in selecting
representatives to provide leadership in organizing CAG activities ensuring
that these representatives reflect a broad-based constituency. Too many times
(at other sites), one or two local residents obtain a TAG, hire a consultant, and
claim to represent all local interests, though most of the community has no
idea this is happening.

Mr. Holmes identified three requirements for a successful CAG, the first two
of which restated the first two identified by Mr. Brown. The third addressed
the need to carefully select CAG Members with full knowledge of their
individual agendas and motivations. Mr. Holmes also recommended
identifying alternates for each CAG member who will participate in meetings
when the member is unavailable. Mr. Holmes noted that just as each site is
different, each CAG will be different, and there is no way for EPA or any
other agency to take a "boilerplate" approach to CAG formation or operation.
EPA's role in the CAG will likewise differ from site to site. CAGs do not
necessarily serve a useful function at all sites/ while at others they will be
indispensable. The role and function of each CAG must meet the needs of the
site and local community; it does not do EPA, the local community, or the
PRPs any good to form a CAG merely for the sake of appearing to welcome
local input. If local interest does not exist, EPA should not try to create it.
Likewise, if local interest is heavy, EPA should respond.

Mr. Zimmerman also identified three requirements for a successful CAG:

1)  The process must be open, with all "cards on the table."
2)  The CAG must recognize the legal, statutory, and regulatory obligations
    that set the scope for what is possible at the site.
3)  All stakeholder  interests must be represented.

Mr. Zimmerman identified a particular function of the CSMRI CWG that
served all parties especially well. A public meeting was held just after the
recommended remedy was announced. EPA presented the recommendation

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Community Working Group	•     	

                        at the meeting and asked for a reaction. An informal, straw poll gave EPA a
                        sense of the community's overall acceptance of the proposed remedy, with a
                        few exceptions that could be identified and considered.

                        Mr. Zimmerman also suggested that EPA staff involved with CAGs develop a
                        keen sense of what the community thinks early in the process. This can be
                        accomplished by being proactive and digging around to uncover public
                        opinion and beliefs, rather than being relatively uninvolved with the local
                        community only to be blind-sided later. He recommended the use of CAGs
                        whenever appropriate and working from the outset of site activities to instill
                        public trust.

                        Ms. Pennock identified CAG "ownership" and the provision of administrative
                        and logistical resources, facilitation, and technical information and support, 'as
                        the keys to a successful CAG. She said EPA often walks a fine line in these
                        situations: too much EPA involvement lends the appearance of EPA
                        "ownership"; failure of EPA staff to take the time to adequately and carefully
                        explain information—even details that seem obvious  or unimportant—lends
                        the appearance of EPA indifference. She said that others interested in forming
                        CAGs should recognize that they may not speed up the process, and may
                        actually slow down some decisions. The goal of CAGs is sound, collaborative
                        decision-making, not speed. Moreover, CAGs are not appropriate for every
                        site. At CSMRI, there was a clear-cut, short-term cleanup issue. No one should
                        waste time and money just to be able to say "we have a CAG." This requires
                        clear goals for the CAG to pursue and a process for getting there.

                                    Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
Case Study: Community Advisory Group
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining  Belt  Site,
Jasper County,  Missouri
                     The following is a case study of the EPA Community Advisory Group (CAG)
                     at the Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Superfund site in Missouri. The CAG at
                     this site is called the Jasper County EPA Superfund Citizen's Task Force.
                     Information on which the case study is based was obtained in interviews with
                     the following EPA Region 7 personnel and CAG Members:

                     Hattie Thomas, U.S. EPA-Region 7, Office of External Programs
                     Mark Doolan, EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for the Oronogo-
                     Duenweg Site
                     Earl Carr, Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Superfund site (Task Force Chair)
                     David Mosby, Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources
                     Tony Moehr, Jasper County Department of Health (Task Force Member)

Overview of  Site  History
                     The Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt site, which covers 6,400 acres, is
                     considered to be a part of the Tri-State Mining District of Missouri, Kansas,
                     and Oklahoma. Two other sites in the district—Cherokee County in Kansas
                     and Tar Creek in Oklahoma—were placed on the NPL in 1983. Lead and zinc
                     ores, as well as some cadmium ores, were mined from 1848 until the late
                     1960s, with the gretrtestactivity occurring in an area between Oronogo and
                     Duenweg, northeast of Joplin. Mining efforts originally were performed by
                     independent operations that, in later years, were organized by several area
                     mining companies. The site is honeycombed with underground workings,
                     pits, shafts (open, closed, and collapsed), mine tailings, waste piles, and ponds
                     holding tailing waters. An estimated 10 million tons of wastes or tailings are
                     on the site. Throughout the mining era, groundwater had to be pumped to
                     prevent the flooding of mines. When mining ceased, the shafts and
                     underground workings filled with water. Tailing piles have been left
                     uncovered and unstabilized. Leachate and runoff rrom the piles can enter
                     open shafts and pits. Approximately 1,500 people obtain water from private
                     wells within 3 miles of the site.

                     Tests conducted in 1977 by the U.S. Geological Survey, and by Potentially
                     Responsible Parties (PRPs) in 1993 and 1994, found soil, on-site groundwater,
                     and surface water to be contaminated with heavy metals including lead, zinc,
                     and cadmium from the mining operations. Potential risks exist through
                     drinking contaminated surface water and groundwater or coming into direct
                     contact with contaminated soil or mine wastes.

                     The site is being addressed in two phases: initial actions and a long-term
                     remedial phase focusing on clean-up of the entire site. The initial action will

Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
                        consist of having the PRPs be responsible for providing 100 affected residents
                        with bottled water to reduce the threat of exposure to contamination while
                        investigations leading to final clean-up remedies are being conducted. The
                        entire site, with EPA and the PRPs, began investigations in 1991 to determine
                        the nature and extent of contamination at the site. Once the site investigation
                        is completed, which is scheduled for 1996, clean-up alternatives will be
                        reviewed and a final remedy will be selected.

                        This mining site is potentially-eligible for clean-up funds from the State of
                        Missouri's approved program under the Surface Mining Control and
                        Reclamation Act of 1977.  EPA is developing a policy for listing such sites. An
                        Interagency Agreement was signed with the U.S. Geological Survey in April
                        1990 to provide technical assistance at this site.
Site  Issues
                        According to Hattie Thomas and Mark Doolan from EPA, the affected
                        community is mainly white, with moderate to wealthy incomes; there is a
                        small (less than one percent) minority population in the County. The
                        community is currently exposed to contaminated soils, contaminated mine
                        tailings, contaminated groundwater and, to a lesser extent, contaminated
                        surface waters with site streams and ponds that are used for recreational
                        purposes. The main sources of lead contamination at the site are located in a
                        very large residential area in northwest Joplin. The contamination has
                        affected 6,000 residential properties and a large population has been exposed.

                        EPA knew going into this clean-up project that they needed to get the public
                        involved. In response, EPA met with the City of Joplin in November 1994 to
                        inform them of the activities going on at the site and to address community
                        concerns, which included "What are you going to do to protect the health of
                        the citizens?" and "How are you going to do this without totally destroying
                        property values?" The next day, the City held a Council meeting and that
                        night, through a resolution of the City Council, it established a Management
                        Oversight Committee to oversee EPA activities. Around this same time, EPA
                        completed its CAG guidance, which it gave to the City as a means for
                        encouraging the City to expand its Management Oversight Committee beyond
                        just Joplin employees and officials, to include Realtors, Bankers, Businessmen,
                        Citizens-at-Large, School Board members, and Health Department officials.
                        The City responded to these recommendations by including these individuals
                        on the committee; this group is now known to EPA as the CAG and to the
                        citizens of Joplin as the Task Force.

                        Earl Carr, Task Force Chair, noted that after meeting with EPA, the citizens of
                        Joplin did not feel that they had a voice in the decision-making process so they
                        formed this."0rf hoc" Management Oversight Committee, which eventually
                        became the Task Force. Mr. Carr noted that EPA was supportive of the City's
                        formation of the Task Force, but that it played no real role in its establishment.
                        David Mosby, Environmental Specialist with Missouri's Department of
                        Natural Resources (DNR), said that the community was concerned about
                        EPA's plans for the cleanup, the impact that these plans would have on the
                        town's real estate values and the, general economy, and the impact that the
                        cleanup would have on residents' health. Tony Moehr, Environmental
                        Specialist with the Jasper County Department of Health, said that the
                        community also felt they needed a voice in the decision-making process

                                         Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
                        because they felt the Superfund process was too uncertain. In addition, they
                        were afraid of what EPA's "Superfund" designation would do to their
                        property values.

CAG  Formation  and  Support
                        The Oronogo-Duenweg CAG was formed in March and April, 1995, by the
                        City of Joplin and, according to Ms. Thomas and Mr. Doolan, was expanded
                        shortly after that based on recommendations from EPA, which were outlined
                        in EPA's CAG guidance. Mr. Carr noted that EPA provided the City with a
                        copy of its CAG Guidance, but that the City did not follow EPA's
                        recommendations in forming the Task Force. Mr. Mosby and Mr. Moehr said
                        that EPA had discussions with the City about how most CAG groups are
                        structured, which included having an EPA representative as an official
                        member, but the City decided that they did not want EPA or the Missouri
                        DNR to be an official voting member of the Task Force. However, EPA,
                        primarily the Remedial Project manager (RPM), attends all Task Force

                        Even though the City of Joplin initiated formation of the Task Force on its
                        own, all interviewees agreed that community involvement is important and
                        that EPA should help a community organize a CAG if the City has not already
                        done so. Mr. Mosby noted that EPA's role should be gauged on a site-by-site
                        basis depending on how the community wishes to organize itself.

                        The Task Force has written by-laws (see Attachment 1). In addition, the Task
                        Force has a mission statement (see Attachment 2), which includes these four

                        1)  Develop a process to gather early, direct, and meaningful citizen
                        2)  Serve as a public forum for community interests to present and discuss
                            their needs and concerns related to the Superfund decision-making
                            process with appropriate Federal and State agencies.
                        3)  Allow EPA and the State to exchange information with the community,
                            but also enable CAG Members to discuss site issues and activities.
                        4)  Provide a public service to the rest of the community by representing the
                            community in discussions regarding the site and by relaying information
                            from these discussions back to the rest of the community.

                        In response to a question about membership, Mr. Carr noted that the Task
                        Force has the potential to include 14 authorized members; seven appointed for
                        a one-year period and seven appointed for a two-year period. These members
                        are selected by the Task Force with concurrence by the City Council. For a
                        breakdown of the kinds of recommended members, see Resolution No. 95-088
                        (see Attachment 3). To date, only 12 of these member slots have been filled.

                        When asked if any others in the community should be participating on the
                        Task Force, Ms.  Thomas and Mr. Doolan said they couldn't think of anyone,
                        noting that these meetings are widely publicized and anyone wanting to join
                        could do so at any time. Mr. Carr, said that they should have included a
                        Homebuilders Association member and a medical doctor from the
                        community. He noted that originally the City thought representatives from
                        the County and City health departments would be sufficient, but a medical

Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
                       doctor from the community would be a value-added member. He noted that
                       the Homebuilders Association attends the Task Force meetings, but that it
                       would be helpful if they were a voting member of the Task Force. Both Mr.
                       Mosby and Mr. Moehr felt that more citizens-at-large should be members of
                       the Task Force. Mr. Mosby added that Task Force meetings do not get a lot of
                       pre-meeting publicity other than an announcement in the City Hall, which
                       results in less participation from residents living in the impacted community.
                       EPA noted that they do not provide any administrative support to the CAG.

Technical  Advisors
                       The Oronogo-Duenweg CAG is unique in that it has its own Technical
                       Advisor, who was hired by the City of Joplin to provide advice on EPA
                       documents and actions. His name is Neil Geitner and he works with Grant
                       Environmental in Colorado. This Technical Advisor has a close working
                       relationship with EPA; EPA provides the  Technical Advisor all of its "close-to-
                       final" documents related to the site for review and spends a lot of time on the
                       phone discussing technical issues.

                       An EPA Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) also has been awarded, to a
                       separate group, for the Oronogo-Duenweg site. Mr. Carr and Mr. Moehr
                       indicated that the Task Force has an unusually good relationship with the
                       TAG group, and that there are two cross-over members between the TAG
                       group and the Task Force so that members are aware of what is being
                       discussed by both groups. Mr. Moehr said that the TAG shares information
                       from their Technical Advisors with the Task Force and its Technical Advisor.
                       Mr. Carr noted that, at first, he thought this relationship might be adversarial
                       since most of EPA's funds seem to be going toward the City of Joplin and the
                       surrounding counties are not as well funded, but this has not occurred.

CAG  Effectiveness
                       Ms. Thomas and Mr. Doolan noted that the Task Force has been an effective
                       way for EPA to consult directly with the community about site issues by
                       providing a means for open communication with the community. EPA started
                       dealing with the community the first day the removal program showed up to
                       do sampling. It was not sure of the problem yet, but once the Task Force was
                       organized, EPA met with them on a monthly basis and talked at least once a

                       In response to a question, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Doolan noted that EPA is
                       doing community-based remedy selection, but is discussing with the
                       community which direction to go in to get the community to buy-in to the
                       decisions made for the site. They added that EPA is making some decisions
                       with a buy-in from the community but that the community is interested in
                       doing some things that EPA has no jurisdiction to be involved in, i.e. interior
                       lead-based paint removal. However, EPA  has encouraged the community to
                       talk with HUD about its ability to help the community with its lead-paint

                       When asked if the formation of the Task Force has improved EPA's
                       relationship with the community, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Doolan said that the
                       Task Force has provided an open and honest forum for frequent
                       communication. "If the public is informed with early communication, it
                       makes a difference. They become more trusting." They then noted that it is


                 Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
 difficult to answer whether input from the Task Force has played a part in the
 decision-making process because there is a gray line on who actually ends up
 making the decisions. For example, because of EPA's good working
 relationship with the community, the community has bought into EPA's
 proposal to implement an innovative technology, phosphate stabilization of
 metals, at the site. This technology is not a proven technology; it is cutting
 edge and there are no available studies to prove if it will work. If EPA had
 come in cold to the community and announced use of this technology, it
 "probably would have been laughed out of town." But with a strong working
 relationship, the community has been willing to hear new ideas about ways to
 remediate the site.

 Mr. Carr said that he thought the Task Force has been a very effective way of
 getting everyone with an interest in site decisions to talk with each other. He
 said the community relies on the CAG and the TAG to communicate its [the
 community's] concerns. On the negative side, however, it seems as if the
 citizens have not taken as active of a role because the Task Force is standing
 up for them. There is less active public participation at the Task Force
 meetings, but these meetings do get publicized both in the paper and on
 television so that the community knows what is being discussed.

 Mr. Mosby said that he also thought the Task Force has done a good job at
 getting people to talk with each other. It has been a good Forum for
 discussion and trust has been developed within the group. As far as
 communication problems, there have not really been any. However, EPA has
 had problems getting access to homes in the community, noting that this issue
 might be better resolved using the TAG instead to reach the general public.
 Mr. Moehr said that he thought the group has been effective to a point, but
 was not sure whether the Task Force was hearing from a large enough cross-
 section of the community, i.e. both urban and rural residents.

 Ms. Thomas and Mr. Doolan noted that the Task Force also has done a good
job at getting everyone to talk with each other and EPA's experience with
Joplin has been positive because there has been open and honest
 communication between EPA and the community. EPA has allowed the
 community to discuss the  issues and has provided them with all information
 on the site they need.

All interviewees felt that the Task Force has done more to influence the
decisions about the site now than the community could do before it was
formed. Mr. Mosby said that the Task Force has enabled the community to
have more influence in the decisions made for the site. Mr. Carr said the Task
Force provides the community more leverage in the decision-making process.

Mr. Carr noted that Task Force meetings have been an effective way for the
community to provide input on site issues directly to EPA because community
members come to all meetings. Mr. Carr and Mr. Moehr noted that EPA,
DNR, and ATSDR always  attend both Task Force and TAG meetings, which
makes them available for hard and serious questions by the community, and
provides a direct link for communication with EPA. Mr. Mosby noted that the
meetings provide a forum in which a lot of information exchange can occur,
such as information on feasibility studies and risk assessments.

Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
                        In response to a question on whether the formation of the CAG has improved
                        the relationship between the community and EPA, Mr. Carr said that the
                        community is still not convinced this program is cost effective. Many residents
                        have lived in Jasper County for 40 years and have the feeling that since
                        nothing has happened to them, the area is safe. He added that before 1990, the
                        health standard for blood-lead levels was 20 micrograms per deciliter and
                        most residents were below this level. However, after 1990, the standard
                        changed to 10 micrograms per deciliter and the residents (mostly children)
                        were no longer considered protected because their blood-lead levels were
                        between 10 and 20 micrograms per deciliter. The community worries that this
                        change in the lead standard has changed how safe the community is

                        Mr. Mosby said that initially, the City was hostile about EPA's efforts at the
                        site, but that as time went on, a trust was built through media coverage and
                        distribution of information about the site. Mr. Moehr said that before the Task
                        Force was organized, the lines of communication were not open between the
                        community and EPA. Mr. Carr feels that EPA has tried to hear the
                        community's concerns and to take them into account in the decision-making
                        process, but that "the jury is still out" on whether EPA will take the
                        community's concerns when making their final decisions. Mr. Moehr said that
                        communication with EPA at the Task Force meetings has been somewhat
                        informal, so he is not sure whether EPA addressed all community concerns.
                        However, when issues are not addressed, people from the community are
                        encouraged to comment more frequently to EPA.

                        There were differing views on whether the main site issues have changed at
                        the site over time since the Task Force was established. Mr. Carr said that he
                        did not think so, but Mr. Mosby and Mr. Moehr said that as the Task Force
                        has evolved, the remediation picture has become clearer, new clean-up
                        remedies have been discussed for the site, and some issues have become
                        better defined. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Doolan said that they felt the main site
                        issues had changed for EPA. For example, EPA usually releases data on the
                        contamination to the public. However, residents did not want their homes
                        listed publicly as contaminated property in fear that their property would be
                        "stigmatized." In response to this, EPA decided not to issue a public list of
                        contaminated properties in Jasper County. Another example is that the
                        Missouri Department of Health and ATSDR have worked closely with EPA to
                        develop a health education program, which probably would have never been
                        accomplished without input from the community.

                        All interviewees felt that the Task Force has been successful. Ms. Thomas and
                        Mr. Doolan said that the CAG has enabled the community to be involved
                        early-on in the decision-making process. Mr. Carr described a specific success.
                        The Task Force has worked with the City to impose requirements on day care
                        centers to obtain "special-use permits" to operate in the city. To obtain these
                        permits, day care center providers have to get their  yards tested to prove that
                        their properties do not exceed the 500 ppm standard for lead. In addition,
                        EPA and DNR tested all currently-operating day care center properties and
                        those found to exceed this limit were excavated and filled-in with clean dirt.
                        Mr. Mosby said that the Task Force has enabled a lot of communication
                        between EPA and the  community and has worked to abate the community's
                        fears  about declining property values. He added that "established
                        communication forums, where complex issues can be discussed in detail,

                                         Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
                        enable people to begin to understand site issues on a deeper level and help
                        them to not react from fears." Mr. Moehr noted his concern that despite the
                        fact that the Task Force seems to be successful, as illustrated in the press
                        coverage it gets through the newspaper and local television news, he worries
                        that the group is not getting input from a large enough sector of the

                        Ms. Thomas, Mr. Doolan, and Mr. Carr said that they felt the Task Force was
                        operating efficiently and did not have any suggestions for improvement. Mr.
                        Carr did note, however, the it would be nice if the process could run a little bit
                        faster, but then acknowledged that working with such complex issues slows
                        down the process because it takes time for everyone to understand the issues
                        being discussed. Both Mr. Mosby and Mr. Moehr said that they would like to
                        see more public participation at the Task Force meetings. Mr. Mosby said that
                        this might result from distributing site findings more widely in the

Communications  Tools
                        In order to communicate with the Jasper County residents, the Task Force
                        holds meetings every other month. (When the group was first established,
                        they met every month.) Meeting notices are posted in the City Hall the day
                        before the meeting. Mr. Carr said that the Task Force has been successful  at
                        getting people to come to the meetings and at each meeting there generally is
                        a quorum of members, as well as between three and twelve non-members, in
                        attendance. The Task Force tends to overrun its agenda by 15-30 minutes  at
                        each meeting. Mr. Moehr added that the Task Force has been very successful
                        at getting its members to attend the meetings, but that public participation is
                        variable depending on the topics that are being discussed. At each meeting,
                        the Task Force has been very successful at getting attendees to provide input
                        to the discussion.

                        Mr. Carr said that the City provides the Task Force with a secretary, who is
                        responsible for developing the minutes at each Task Force meeting and
                        distributing the minutes and  other pertinent information to everyone on the
                        Task Force mailing list, which includes Members, Federal and State personnel,
                        and attendees from past Task Force meetings. Mr. Moehr said the secretary
                        also distribute agendas for each meeting through the mail to all Members of
                        the Task Force. This mailing list is maintained and updated by the secretary.
                        The Task Force does not publish a newsletter or distribute flyers or EPA
                        information. Mr. Carr noted that there is just too much information to
                        disseminate to everyone. However, EPA develops fact sheets on what they are
                        doing at the site, which have proven to be valuable information tools. EPA
                        should continue this, but their other information is too much for the
                        community to digest.

                        Mr. Carr said that Members of the Task Force have met individually with
                        residents, but the process is more of a "grapevine effect" where information
                        trickles down through the community. Mr. Mosby said that the County and
                        City health departments meet with residents as part of their daily function.
                        Mr. Moehr said that he interfaces with community members about site issues
                        on a regular basis through his job.

Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
                        According to Ms. Thomas and Mr. Doolan, the Task Force formed a
                        subcommittee to specifically work with EPA to develop appropriate
                        institutional controls for the area. Mr. Carr said that the Task Force has
                        embarked on some neighborhood revitalization programs, but wishes that
                        EPA's cleanup program was more comprehensive to address community's
                        needs other than remediation. He explained that the EPA program is deficient
                        in two major areas: it doesn't address revitalization of old neighborhoods; and
                        it doesn't address lead-paint (however, the Task Force understands that EPA's
                        mandate does not allow them to deal with the lead paint issue). Mr. Carr then
                        noted that unless the neighborhood revitalizes, the community will not
                        consider the EPA clean-up a success. The City wants Joplin to be a desirable
                        place to live and EPA can play a role in achieving this goal.

                        Mr. Mosby noted that the Task Force has initiated a lot of activities. For
                        example, the City has allocated some neighborhood-improvement money for
                        revitalizing the neighborhoods, and the Task Force has hired a consultant to
                        develop a coloring book to teach children about lead-paint issues.  Mr. Moehr
                        said that ATSDR has agreed to provide printing funds for this coloring book
                        and that the book will be distributed by the local health departments and
                        school districts. Mr. Mosby said that there also have been other educational
                        outreach efforts with the Girl Scouts and the public schools. In fact, the Girl
                        Scouts have developed a merit-badge program for lead-awareness. The public
                        school system has developed a Lead Health Education curriculum and is
                        gearing this program for different grade levels. ,

                        When asked about what kind of progress he would like to see over the next
                        five years, Mr. Mosby said he would like to see all residential soils
                        remediated, blood-lead levels decline, and a decrease in groundwater
                        contamination. In addition, he would like to see a decline in large-level
                        ecological impacts. Mr. Carr said that he would like to see revitalization of
                        neighborhoods, especially the older neighborhoods, and a significant decline
                        in the blood-lead levels in children. He noted that EPA states that a decrease
                        to five percent of children with blood-lead contamination is considered good,
                        but the City will not be happy unless this percentage is decreased below the
                        five-percent mark.

                        Mr. Moehr said that he would like to see EPA take into consideration the
                        ideas and comments made at the Task Force meetings and use them in their
                        long-term planning process when implementing remedial action. He added
                        that he would like to see the Task Force remain active and to continue
                        communication with the public and its educational outreach activities. In
                        addition, he would like to see the Task Force continue to evaluate EPA's
                        progress at the site and its decision-making process.

                        When asked about the next ten years, both Mr. Carr and Mr. Mosby
                        acknowledged that the program might take that long to achieve the goals
                        stated above. Mr. Moehr said that he would like to see positive results from
                        the remedial program and hopes that the Task Force will remain an active
                        group at that time.

                                         Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
Suggestions for  Other  CAGs
                        Mr. Carr said that the success of a CAG depends on the particular problem in
                        the area. The reason citizens groups are organized is because communities
                        want to give input on their problems. EPA used to give only 30 days notice
                        before they begin their cleanup programs, but the "new EPA" is better. Mr.
                        Mosby said that a CAG should be able to "hear and communicate the science,
                        site objectives, and emotional and political concerns" in order to best estimate
                        the risks or other aspects of a site. Mr. Moehr said that for a CAG to be
                        successful, it should have active participation that includes diverse
                        community membership from the general public. In addition, he felt that
                        active participation from local, State, and Federal agencies is vital to a CAG in
                        order to truly understand what is going on at a site.

                        Ms. Thomas and Mr. Doolan said that the most fundamental thing for a CAG
                        to do to ensure success is to get involvement from a cross-section of the
                        community in order to ensure  good community representation and a strong
                        membership base. In addition, it needs to have regular meetings and a means
                        to hire a Technical Advisor. It is not enough for EPA to give a CAG technical
                        documents, because most often the membership will not be able to
                        understand what is in these documents, much less communicate the
                        documents' contents to the rest of the community.

                        When asked what the Task Force's most successful activities or publications
                        are, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Doolan pointed to the development of the coloring
                        book and the Task Force's meetings. In particular, the Task Force meetings
                        are a success in that they are well-covered by the media, especially the Joplin
                        Globe (see Attachment 4); these stories often make the front page, ensuring
                        that the community is well aware of site activities.

                        Mr. Carr said that the Task Force's involvement with getting the public school
                        system to develop a Lead Health Education curriculum is a real success,
                        especially because it will be a long-term effort. Mr. Mosby said that the
                        meetings are successful because they get extensive media attention.

                        When asked about things that have not worked, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Doolan
                        said that at first they were leery about providing technical documents to the
                        Task Force's Technical Advisor, but this ended-up working well. Mr. Carr said
                        that getting EPA to consider the community's lead-paint issues has been
                        difficult because they can't get EPA to bend in this area, but acknowledged
                        EPA's statutory limitations. He added that there is a shortcoming in the
                        "Superfund concept" in that the program does not address needs of
                        neighborhoods. EPA needs to understand this and work to build a solution.
                        Mr. Mosby said that there has been some debate on scientific issues, but other
                        than this, he has not seen any things that have not worked.

                        Ms. Thomas and Mr. Doolan's suggestion to other Regions that want to form a
                        CAG is to "Just do it!"; ninety percent of the problems at Superfund sites stem
                        from the lack of communication with the public. They said that CAGs should
                        be mandatory at Superfund sites with an appreciable residential population
                        unless the community specifically says they don't want a CAG.

Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
                        Mr. Carr said that he would encourage other communities to implement a
                        CAG in order to ensure that community concerns are being addressed in the
                        decision-making process. Mr. Mosby said that communities wanting a CAG
                        should start early, get the facts, recruit local academic types, and get members
                        who represent a diverse cross section of the community. Mr. Moehr said that a
                        CAG should include participation from as diverse a group as possible. The
                        membership should include representatives, both citizens and businesses,
                        from all affected areas.

                            Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
                           ATTACHMENT 1

           Bylaws of the Jasper County EPA Superfund Citizen's Task Force

                            ARTICLE I
                         Name  and Purpose
   Section 1. Name.  The name of the organization shall be The
Jasper County EPA Superfund Citizens' Task Force  (hereinafter
referred  to  as the "Task Force").
   .Section 2 . Purpose.   The purpose for  which the Task Force is
organized is to participate in the Jasper County Superfund Site
Decision-Making Process.   To accomplish  this  goal,  the  Task
Force shall:
        1.   Develop a process  to gather early,  direct,  and
meaningful citizen comments.
        2 .   Serve as a public forum for community interests to
present and  discuss their needs and concerns  related  to  the
Superfund decision-making  process  with appropriate  federal and
state agencies.
        3.   Allow the EPA/State to exchange information  with
the community,  and enable the Task Force members  to  discuss
site issues  and activities.
        4.    Provide  a  public  service by  representing   the
community in discussions  regarding the site  and by  relating
information  from  the  discussions back  to  the rest  of   the

Oronogp-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
                            ARTICLE II
                     Membership of Task Force

       Section 1. The affairs of the Task  Force  shall be composed

  of the following:
       1.   Task Force Members:
            A)   No  more than fourteen  (1.4)  voluntary members,
                 seven  (7)  appointed  for  a one (1) year period,
                 seven  (7)  appointed  for  a. two (2.) year period;

            B)   Recommended members  include  those  from  the
                 following  groups :;

                 Economic Development (1)
                 Real Estate (1)
                 Banking (1.)
                 Webb City  Officials  (2)
                      1)    R-7  Webb City/Cartervilie School
                      1)    City Official
                 Joplin,  City Council  Representative, (1),
                 Joplin  Zoning  & Planning Commissioner (1)
                 City of Joplin Health Department:  (1.)
                 Jasper  County  Officials, (2)
                      1)    County Commissioner,
                      1)    County Health Department;
                 N.W. Joplin Neighborhood Representatives; G2L);
                 Local Business Representative;
                 R-8 School System (1);  and

            C)   Ex-officio members consisting  of; the: following::;
                 the  U.S.  Representative   from   the,  7th.
                 Congressional  District,  the State Senator from
                 District   32,  the State Representatives from
                 Districts   127,  128  and  129,  and the  City of
                 Joplin  Assistant City Attorney.

       Section  2.     Resignation and  Remova 1..   A Member may
  resign,  at  any  time  by  submitting  his  resignation  to  the

  Chairman of the Task Force. Resignations shall  be effective on

  the date specified therein, or, if  no date is  specified, upon
  receipt by the  Chairman.   Resignation  shall also, constitute.

  resignation from any committee of which such Member is a member

  and from any  office held  by such Member.

                           Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
     Section  3.     Vacancies.   Any vacancy  occurring in the
Task Force shall be filled'by the resigning member ',s appointing
authority.    A  Member  selected to  fill a  vacancy .shall  be
elected for the  unexpired term of  his  predecessor in office.
     Section  4.     Attendance.  Members are required to attend
at  least  two-thirds (2/3rds) of the Task Force meetings held
each year.   A Member  who fails to meet the  .above attendance
requirement  or  who misses  three  (3)  consecutive  regularly
scheduled meetings may be removed from office.  Exceptions for
illness and personal  emergencies may be considered.   Members
may not be removed without  a majority  vote  of the membership.
     Section  5.     Regular  Meetings.  Regular meetings O;f the
Task Force shall be held at  such  location as specified in the
notice of the meeting.  All  such meetings shall be open to the
public and held  in compliance with Missouri's "Sunshine Law".
     Section  6.     Special  Meetings.  Special .meetings of the
Task Force may be  called by  or at  the  request of the Chairman
or five (5) Members-   The person or persons calling a special
meeting of the Task Force may fix  any  place,  either within or
without the State  of Missouri, as  the place  for  holding any
special meeting  of the  Board called by them.
     Section  7 .     Notice.  Written or printed .notice stating
the place, day,  hour or the  meeting and, in case of a special
meeting,, the purpose or purposes for which  it is called shall
be delivered  not less  than two (2) nor more  than  thirty (30)
days before the  date  of the .meeting, either personally or by
mail at the direction of the chairman or the ,Secretary to each
Member of  the Task Force,   If mailed,  .such notice shall  be
deemed to be delivered when deposited in the United States mail
addressed  to  the member at  his address  as  it appears  on the
records of the Task Force, with postage  thereon prepaid.   The
attendance of  a member  at :any .meeting shall constitute a waiver

Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
  of notice  of such  meeting except  where a  Member attends  a
  meeting for the  express purpose of objecting to the transaction
  of any business because the meeting is not lawfully called or
       Section 8.      Quorum.  A majority of the whole Membership
  of the Task Force in person shall constitute a  quorum for  the
  transaction of any business at any meeting of the Task Force;
  provided,  however,  that less than  a  majority of  the  Members
  present may adjourn  the  meeting from  time-to-time  without
  further notice.
       Section 9.      Voting.  A member shall  vote in person.
       Section 10.    Manner of Acting.  The act of a majority of
  the Members present in person at a meeting at which a quorum is
  present shall be the act of the Task  Force,  unless the act of
  a greater number is required by law.
       Section 11.    Compensation.   Members as  such shall  not
  receive any stated  salaries for their services.

                           ARTICLE  III
       Section  1.   Officers.   The officers  of the Task Force
  shall be a  Chairman,  one (1)  or more Vice-chairmen,  and such
  other  officers  as may be  elected or appointed  in accordance
  with the provisions of this Article.  The Task Force may elect
  or appoint such other officers  as  it shall deem desirable, such
  officers  to  have   the  authority   and  perform  the  duties
  prescribed from time-to-time by the  Task  Force.  The Task Force
  may hire someone  outside the membership of  the Task  Force to
  serve as Secretary/Recorder, and said Secretary/Recorder shall
  not be considered a member of  the  Task Force  and shall not vote
  on any matter before the Task Force.  Any compensation paid to
  the Secretary/Recorder  shall be paid by  the City of Joplin.

                           Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
      Section 2.  Election and Term of Office.  The officers of
 the  Task  Force  shall  be elected  by the  Task Force  at any
 meeting  lawfully convened.  Each officer shall hold office for
 one  (1)  year  and until  his successor  shall have been duly
 'elected  and shall  have qualified.
      Section 3.  Removal.  Any officer elected or appointed by
 the Task Force may be removed by a majority  vote of the Members
 then in office whenever in their judgment the best interests of
 the Task Force would be served thereby.
     .Section 4.  Vacancies.   A vacancy  in  any office  due to
 death, resignation,  removal, disqualification or otherwise may
 be filled  by the Task Force,  or the appointing authority, for
 the unexpired portion of the term.
     Section 5.  Chairman.  The Chairman shall  preside at all
 meetings of the  Task Force.   He shall see  that all orders and
 resolutions of the Task Force are  carried  into effect and, in
 general, shall  perform all  duties  incident  to the office of
 Chairman and such  other duties  as may be assigned by the Task
     Section 6. Vice-chairman.  The Vice-Chairman shall act in
 the absence of  the Chairman, in which case he  shall  have all
 the power  and authority of  the  Chairman.
     Section	7.  Secretary/Recorder.   The  secretary/Recorder
 shall record or cause to be  recorded minutes of all meetings of
 the Task Force.  He  shall give  or cause  to  be given notice of
 all meetings.

                          ARTICLE IV
     Section 1. Committees of the Task Force.  The Task Force,
by resolution adopted by  a majority of the  Members  in office,
may designate and appoint one  or more committees, each of which

Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
  shall consist of two (2.)  or more members,  which committees,  to
  the extent provided in said resolution or these Bylaws,  shall
  have and exercise the authority of the Board in the management
  of the Task  Force;  provided,  however, that no  such committee
  shall have  the authority  of  the Task Force  in reference  to
  amending,  altering  or   repealing   the  Bylaws;   electing,
  appointing or removing any member of any such committee or any
  Member or  officer  of  the Task Force.    The  designation  and
  appointment of any such committee  and  the delegation thereto of
  authority shall not operate to relieve the Task Force or any
  individual Member of any responsibility imposed upon it or him
  by law.
       Section  2.  Quorum.   Unless otherwise  provided in  the
  resolution Of the Task Force designating a committee, or these
  Bylaws,  a majority of the whole  committee  shall constitute a
  quorum and the  act of a majority of  the  members present at a
  meeting  at which  a quorum is present shall be  the act of the
       Section 3. Rules.  Each committee may adopt rules for its
  own  government not  inconsistent with these  Bylaws,  or with
  rules adopted by  the Task Force.

                             ARTICLE V
                         Books  and Records
       The Task Force shall keep minutes  of  the proceedings of
  the  Task Force  and committees having any of  the  authority of
  the  Task Force, and shall keep,  a record giving the names and
  addresses of the  Members of the Task Force.  All  such records
  shall be open to  public  inspection,  unless closed pursuant to
  Missouri Law.

                           Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
                          ARTICLE VI
                          Amendment s
     These Bylaws  may be altered, amended or  repealed and new
Bylaws  adopted  only  by a  two-thirds  (2/3rds)  vote of  the
then in office; provided, however,  that  notice of the proposed
amendment be given to  each Member ten (10) days prior thereto.
Adopted by  the Members of the Jasper County EPA  Superfund
Citizens' Task Force,  this 24th day of January,  1996.
                          JASPER COUNTY EPA SUPERFUND
                          CITIZENS' TASK FORCE

Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site-Citizens Task Force
                                ATTACHMENT 2
                             CAG Mission Statement


                            Panelist:Earl S. Carr

     "Superfund Success:Concerns About  Mining Wastes in Joplin,  Missouri"

                        ABSTRACT OF  PRESENTATION

   The City formed a task force of interested and affected parties in March.
    1995.  Representation on the task  force includes health, real estate.
       banking, economic development,  schools, city and county elected
     officials, and persons living near the old smelter site, as well as
    persons from other villages and cities in the Jasper County Superfund
   areas.  To help insure task  force success, support has been provided by
      City staff as well as by  a technical advisor for independent data
                         interpretation and critique.

                            This Task Force is to:

  The greatest contribution of  the Task Force to date has been assisting in
     the development of public  health education programs.   These include:
                       a.Day Care facilities oversight
    b.Including health education in the local school curriculum  (Aug. 95)
                grades K & I and high  school  (future parents)
                            c.Parents  as Teachers
                       d.Girl Scout  Merit Badge Program
                       e.Physicians Awareness Seminars
     f.Developing a site specific coloring/story book to be  ready in the
                                Spring  of 1996.

   It is too early to claim success  as  we have a neighborhood that has been
           "stigmatized".   We will judge that we have success when:

         1.There are no children with blood lead levels above 10 and,
   2.The old smelter neighborhood is regarded as a desirable place to live.

     In accomplishing these 2 measures  of success a comprehensive plan is
      being developed by the City to more fully address the needs of  the
    neighborhood beyond replacement of yards.  This plan will address the
    additional areas of housing rehabilitation,  lead paint hazard removal,
    and other  community development  activities including improved streets,
                            sidewalks  and sewers.

  We believe that the continued cooperation between Federal, State and City
    agencies is essential to accomplish our goals.  But, cooperation must
   include  local citizen participation  in determining how available Federal
           and State funds are  spent in the impacted neighborhood.

                                     Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Bell Site Citizens Task Force
                                  ATTACHMENT 3
                                 Resolution No. 95-008
                            RESOLUTION NO. 95-088
            A RESOLUTION   establishing the Jasper County EPA Superfund Citizen's
                               Task Force to participate in the Jasper County Superfund
                               Site decision making process.

            WHEREAS, the Superfund Program in Jasper County involves clean-up of the
hazardous waste sites in the City of Joplin and surrounding areas; and
process; and
            WHEREAS, community involvement is an important element of the Superfund
            WHEREAS, a citizen's task force will provide a setting where representatives
of the local area can obtain information about the clean-up, and a forum where all affected and
interested parties in the community can participate in the Superfund process.


            Section I.    The City of Joplin authorizes the formation of the Jasper County
EPA Superfund Citizen's Task Force  to participate in the decision making process at the
Jasper County Superfund Site.

            Section 2.    The Jasper County EPA Superfund Citizen's Task Force is
established with the following guidelines and conditions made a part thereof:

            1)    Task Force Members:

                  A)    No more  than  fourteen (14) voluntary members, seven (7)
                         appointed for ft one (1) year period, seven- (7) appointed for a two
                         (2) year period; and

                  B)    Recommended members include those from the following groups:

                         Economic Development (1)
                         Real Estate (1)
                         Banking (1)
                         Webb City Officials (2)
                               1) R-7 Webb City/Carterville School
                               1) City Official
                         Joplin City Council Representative (1)
                         Joplin Zoning & Planning Commissioner (1)

Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
        Resolution No. 95-088 (Continued)
                                         (For the March 6, 1995 meeting)
      City of Joplin Health Department (1)
      Jasper County Officials (2)
             1) County Commissioner
             1) County Health Department
      N.W. Joplin Neighborhood Representatives (2)
      Local Business Representative (1)
      R-8 School System (1); and

C)    Ex-ofTicio  members  consisting  of the  following: the  U.S.
      Representative from the 7th Congressional District, the State
      Senator from District 32, the State Representatives from Districts
      127,128 and 129, and the City of Joplin Assistant City Attorney.

Task Force Guidelines:

A)    The task force will adopt and publish by-laws and operating
      procedures relating to how meetings will be conducted, how
      membership vacancies will be filled, the process for reviewing and
      commenting on documents and materials relating to the clean-up
      process,  how  the task  force  will  relay  its findings and
      recommendations to the EPA and the public, and other various

B)    The task force is  primarily a representative forum and as such its
      main function will be to gather and  disseminate information
      concerning the clean-up to the community and the City of Joplin
      City Council.

Meeting Guidelines:

All meetings of the task force will be open to the public unless
closed pursuant to Missouri law; and

Task force meeting notices and agenda  will  be published  in
advance and posted at the Joplin City Hall in  accordance with
                                  Missouri law; and
       Miniitf? w'M bff
                                                        at nil tusk Ton*? mppfnii and bp made
                                  available to the public as provided by Missouri law.

                      Section 3.    The Jasper County EPA Superfund Citizen's Task Force will meet
         regularly  to  review and  comment on  technical documents and  plans related  to  the
         environmental studies and clean-up activities at the Jasper County Superfund Site and to relay

                                  Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
Resolution No. 95-088 (Continued)
                                                 (For the March 6.1995 meeting)
inrormntion between the EPA and the community about ongoing activities at the site.

            Section 4.  That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after
the date of its passage and approval.
day of March, 1995.
:  fh^^L

Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site Citizens Task Force
                                                 ATTACHMENT 4
                          Lead Education Effort Cited: An Article in the Joplin Globe
  Lead-education   effort   cited
                                                          	Aflx'-t- /2- Ml*	
  By Willy Kennedy
  Globe SM Writer	
   Pb Possum, the star character in
  a coloring'book designed to enter-
  tain and educate  children about
  load exposure locally, might have a
  wider audience than first envi-

   In bet. the entire local response
  to lead in the environment — the
  school  curriculum, Parents as
  Teachers, the coloring book and
  even Girl Scout badges — could be
  used in other places where lead is
     I Lead
 Continued from Papa 1A

  "There are a number of different
 sites  around the country  with
 characteristics similar to Jasper
 County. What has been done in
 Joplin could be a model for a lot of
 sites." she said.
  "ITjere Is no need to reinvent
 these things. They  are generic
 enough that they could be be used
 at all mining sites. Someone would
 Just have to pay for printing costs
 to use them."
  Though the educational materi-
 als are drawing attention, it is the
 approach to  the problem  the
 ATSDR would like to see modeled
  "The teamwork and community
 involvement have benefited  all
 parties." she said. "Starring with
 the team approach at the begin-
 ning — with all of  the different
 agencies and different departments
 there at  the table — means the
 communication lines are open."
  Ifs a pat on the  back for the
 residents' groups monitoring the
 cleanup,  the Joplin and Jasper
 County health  departments, and
 the Joplin R-8 School District.
  Earl  Carr.  chairman of  the
 Jasper County Superfund Citizens'
 Task Force, said. "I feel encour-
 aged about our work — that they
 would consider the health educa-
 tion efforts we have done as a
 model to be used In other areas. It
 shows that we are making prog-
  An objective of die task force
 has been to support  public educa-
 tion efforts to create  a "lead safe"
 environment,  regardless 31'  the
 a problem and lead education is
   The effort to educate parents
 and children about lead is one
 facet of the ongoing cleanup  of
 lead-contaminated yards in Joplin
 and the Jasper County Superfund
   "Joplin is a good modaL" said
 Brooke ShadeL with the federal
 Agency for Toxic Substances and
 Disease Registry (ATSDR) in Kan-
 sas City.

 See Uad, Page 10A  	
  Lead poisoning now Sesame Street topic
    WASHINGTON — Elmo and
  his Muppet friends on Sesame
  Street ate reminding kids to stay
  away from dust and peeling
  paint and to wash t^otr hands
  before eating, part of a national
  lead poisoning awareness cam-
  paign launched Tuesday.
    The  Children's Television
  Workshop  and the  National
 Safety Council kicked off the
 campaign at the Children's Mu-
 seum  in Washington with  a
 video featuring Elmo and Sonia
 Manzano, Maria from Sesame
   Lead poisoning, which usually
 has no visible symptoms, can
 cause hearing loss, anemia and
 impaired physical  and mental
 development, according to the
 National Safety Council
                  Asound Lead
source of lead. The effort has been
supported  by  the Jasper County
Supertund Site Coalition and vi-
sion Health, a subgroup of die
Vision Joplin task force that has
set- future  goals for the  area.
  Carolyn  Vandeven. R-8 assistant
superintendent tor curriculum and
instruction,  said,  "Ifs quite an
honor because our teachers really
responded to a community need.
and Parents as Teachers respond-
ed as quickly. They knew there
was a real need. We are thrilled
that the  federal government  is
looking at as as a model."
  The school district In coopera-
tion with the ATSDR, agreed to
take on the task of developing a
school curriculum  that targets
pupils in different  grades  with
specific messages. One lesson plan
encourages kindergarten children
to wash their hands regularly to
prevent the ingestion of contami-
nated dirt Another  plan teaches
high school students about what
they need to do to create lead safe
homes when they have children of
their owa
  Lead is die number one environ-
mental threat to children, accord-
ing to the Department of Health
and  Human  Sciences.  Chronic.
low-level exposure can delay the
normal physical and mental devel-
opment of babies and young chil-
dren. Deficits in attention span.
hearing and learning abilities, and
more  recendy violent behavior.
have been linked to childhood lead
  Lead mining and smelting activi-
ties have created several contami-
nated sites in the western part of
Jasper County. The  Environmen-
tal Protection Agency has deter-
mined that hundreds of yards in
northwest Joplin have been con-
taminated by lead fallout tern a
smelter operated decades ago at C
Street  and Porter  Avenue. The
EPA  already  has excavated 300
yards. Plans to resume and expand
the cleanup could be in place by
the end of summer.
  Representatives  of local  state
and federal health  agencies  are
being invited to a conference in
Joplin on May 8 to share ideas on
lead-exposure  prevention  and
learn more about the materials
developed  with regard  to Jasper

                               Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site Task Force
Case Study: Community Advisory Group
Southern  Maryland  Wood Treating
Superfund Site,  Hollywood,  Maryland
                   The following is a case study of the EPA Community Advisory Group (CAG) at
                   the Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund site in St. Mary's County,
                   Maryland. The CAG for this site is called the Southern Maryland Wood
                   Treatment Plant Task Force (TF). The case study is based on information
                   obtained in interviews with the following EPA Region 3 and State of Maryland
                   personnel and TF members:

                   Stephanie Dehnhard, EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
                   David Sternberg, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC) from 1992-
                   Michelle Mosco-Lasuolo, State of Maryland RPM
                   Ralph Guenther, Chair, Southern Maryland Wood Treatment Plant Task Force
                   James Riedel, President, Environmental Awareness Coalition of Southern
                   Maryland (TF Member)
                   Joe Anderson, Citizen (TF Member)

                   Because Patrick Gaughan, the current CIC, is new to the Southern Maryland site
                   and was unavailable at the time of the interviews, Mr. Sternberg agreed to
                   participate in this study. Mr. Sternberg was the CIC for the site from 1992-1995.
                   Ms. Dehnhard became the site's EPA RPM approximately two years ago. Ms.
                   Mosco-Lasuolo, a State CERCLA program employee for about seven years, has
                   been the site's State RPM for nearly two years. Mr. Guenther, a chemical
                   engineer, moved to St Mary's County in 1985. He has been a member of the TF
                   since 1991 and chair of the TF for the last three years. Mr. Riedel, an employee of
                   Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, is a charter member of both the TF and the
                   Environmental Awareness Coalition of Southern Maryland (EAC). The EAC
                   received a Superfund Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) in March 1992. Mr.
                   Anderson became a member of the TF about four years ago and describes himself
                   as a non-scientist.

Overview of Site History
                   The Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site comprises about 25 acres
                   northwest of Hollywood in St. Mary's County, Maryland's most southern county.
                   Between 1965 and 1978 the Southern Maryland Wood Treatment Corporation
                   operated a wood preserving facility on four acres of the site. Coal tar, creosote,
                   and pentachlorophenol (PCP) were used in the operation. Process waste was
                   piped into six unlined lagoons. Waste also was released through spillage and
                   chemical drippings from treated wood. Soil in the former lagoon area and in a
                   land treatment area at the site are highly contaminated with PCP, polycyclic
                   aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, and creosote by-products.
                   The shallow on-site aquifer, which is currently not a major source of drinking
                   water, also is contaminated.

Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site Task Force
                     About 125 residents live within one-half mile of the site, which is surrounded by
                     residential, agricultural, and wooded areas. The 1990 census shows a county
                     population of 76,000 people, but the population of the county is growing.

                     Some of the actions the site owner took in 1982, in response to a State Consent
                     Decree, were to spray-irrigate wastewater from the lagoons over a wooded area
                     at the site, excavate contaminated sludge from the lagoons, and place that sludge
                     in a land treatment area on the site. The State initiated contempt proceedings
                     against the company in 1982 and 1984 claiming that its implementation of these
                     measures were unsatisfactory. EPA proposed the site for inclusion on the
                     National Priorities List (NPL) in October 1984,  finalized the site on the NPL in
                     June 1986, and undertook several actions in 1985,1986, and 1993 to stabilize the
                     site. In June 1988, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) that included on-site
                     incineration of contaminated surface and subsurface soils, sediments, cement,
                     contaminated building structures, and tank liquids using a portable, temporary
                     incinerator. EPA signed a second ROD in August 1995.

Site  Issues
                     Attracted to this rural/suburban community by the county's biggest
                     employers—the Patuxent River Naval Air Station (Pax River), the Naval
                     Electronics Systems Engineering Activity (NESEA), and Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
                     Power Plant—St. Mary's County has a large number of well educated and highly
                     skilled people with knowledge about science, government, business, and
                     engineering. Recently expanding operations at Pax River, due to base closings
                     elsewhere, and the county's proximity to Washington, DC, have contributed to
                     the continued influx of technically sophisticated people into the county and to the
                     demand for development. "Only 5-10 percent of the people living within one
                     mile of the site are minorities," according to Ms. Dehnhard.

                     Although there is no evidence of human exposure to site contamination, "there is
                     a real fear of migration of contamination off site and into the groundwater used
                     for drinking water," said Mr. Sternberg, even though EPA has attempted to
                     contain contamination at the site. "The purpose of the containment area
                     constructed in the 1980s is to keep the contamination from the aquifers," said Ms.
                     Mosco-Lasuolo, "and EPA is monitoring the groundwater to be sure the
                     containment is working." The community currently uses a significantly deeper
                     aquifer than the shallow one contaminated at the site. But to support the growing
                     population in the county, Mr. Sternberg pointed out that, in just the last two
                     years, developers have begun looking for new  sources of groundwater, including
                     the more shallow aquifers.

                     The main event that galvanized the community was the announcement that
                     incineration would be used in remediating the site. It was this issue that
                     prompted the formation of the TF in August 1991, according to all of the EPA
                     and TF members interviewed. EPA's intention to use "incineration led to a
                     firestorm of controversy," said Mr. Anderson.  "But what sparked that was the
                     manner in which the EPA project team presented it [incineration] to us," said Mr.
                     Riedel, who remembers that time well. "They put 'fuel on the fire' with
                     statements like 'If you don't like it, get a lawyer'," he said. "That one phrase
                     probably did more to motivate the community than anything else."
                     According to Mr. Riedel, the EAC and the newspapers were primarily
                     responsible for the publicity that lead to the formation of the TF.  "The
                     newspapers played a key role in getting the word out," he said, "but a core
                     group of 18 EAC members also went door to door in a lot of communities." The
                     EAC organized in December 1990 and incorporated in 1991. A local cable TV

                                   Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site Task Force
                     station also covered the story, but with limited air time; the station's "viewers are
                     very limited," Mr. Riedel said. "It was with the increased publicity associated
                     with the incineration issue that I first heard about it," said Mr. Guenther. Before
                     the publicity surrounding incineration, there was not much interest in the site,
                     Mr. Guenther and Mr. Riedel said, although the safety of the groundwater was
                     and still is a community concern.

CAG  Formation and  Support
                     As a result of the public outcry over incineration, the County Commissioners
                     promised to form a task force to advise the County. They selected members for
                     the task force through the County's standard practice for establishing volunteer
                     committees and task forces. The County announces the need for volunteers and
                     requests applications and resumes for its committees and task forces. "A lot of
                     the work of the County is accomplished through volunteer committees and task
                     forces because most County employees, including the Commissioners, serve only
                     part-time," Mr. Riedel said.

                     Although total membership of the Southern Maryland Wood Treatment Plant
                     Task Force has varied slightly, currently there are nine members on the TF. The
                     TF is supported by the Commissioners' secretary and the County's public
                     information specialist. Administrative support comes solely from the County.
                     The TF's original charge was to:

                     •   Establish a single and complete source of all available documentation and
                         background material;
                     •   Serve as the official point of contact with Federal EPA and State Department
                         of the Environment agents;
                     •   Develop a public information mechanism for rumor control and
                         apprehension retardant;
                     •   Perform technical analyses and reviews of reports and proposals; and
                     •   Submit recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for formal
                         action plans by the County Government.

                     The charge was later expanded to include:

                     •   Review available literature and propose alternative courses of action for EPA

                     EPA played no role in the formation of the TF and did not provide any
                     administrative support. However, two of the three TF members we interviewed
                     felt EPA should have played a role in its formation, although both qualified their
                     remarks. For example, Mr. Anderson said that "when [he] first became involved
                     there was an adversarial relationship between EPA and the community; there
                     was a lot of distrust of EPA's approach." Mr. Riedel felt that EPA "should have
                     been part of the process to more fully explore what vehicles were available" for
                     organizing community involvement. Only Mr. Guenther indicated that EPA
                     "probably should not" have been involved because "the whole tone on EPA's
                     part was adversarial." He said it appeared that "EPA had its marching orders
                     and was going to go ahead."

                     From Mr. Steinberg's view,"it wouldn't have been helpful for EPA to have gotten
                     involved; better that we stayed away from it, because we weren't trusted at that
                     point."  He added that there has been a perception at other sites, where EPA has

Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site Task Force
                     helped set up CAGs, that the CAGs were an EPA front. For the same reason, he
                     said, Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) should not get involved in setting up

                     All three TF members said that the TF relies on the technical expertise of its own
                     members for advice—a view corroborated by EPA. TF members include, for
                     example, a chemical engineer, toxicologist, the State's environmental health
                     director, and an environmental attorney. Everyone we interviewed indicated that
                     the combination of technical experts and non-technical people, such as
                     homemakers and "regular working people," on the TF has contributed to its
                     success. In addition to the technical expertise within the TF, Mr. Guenther said
                     that the EAC "occasionally volunteers information to us, and I'm sure they
                     would give us anything we requested." The EAC has an EPA Technical
                     Assistance Grant (TAG). Mr. Riedel said that the EAC relays information from its
                     TAG advisor to the TF and the community. He added that the EAC has been able
                     to get a lot of Superfund-related information, including scientific material on
                     alternative treatments, through one of its members and has always forwarded
                     such information informally to the TF.

CAG  Effectiveness
                     All three TF members and EPA's RPM felt that the TF encompasses every one in
                     the community who would like to participate and does a good job of.
                     representing the community. Mr. Riedel pointed out that the EAC initially led the
                     TF in keeping the community involved, but now the EAC plays more of a
                     "monitoring role." According to Ms. Mosco-Lasuolo, the EAC and the TF "seem
                     to encompass a pretty broad group. They share things back and forth and work
                     closely together." Ms. Mosco-Lasuolo said that she frequently speaks with the
                     EAC, as well as the TF.  Although "the line between the EAC and TF is very thin,
                     the TF offers a more formal message to the community," Mr. Riedel said. Mr.
                     Sternberg, however, pointed out that EPA also initiated regularly scheduled
                     teleconferences that include more of the community than just the TF.

                     Ms. Dehnhard felt that EPA is able to effectively consult with the TF about site
                     issues because the TF is well organized and respected in the community. Mr.
                     Riedel suspected that EPA saw the formation of the TF as "a new entity to deal
                     with that had the mandate of the County Commissioners. I wouldn't say the TF
                     was an easier  vehicle [than the EAC] to deal with," he said, "but the TF is the
                     official representative of the community." He added, "in my opinion, a group
                     like the TF that is recognized by local government is probably the best way to
                     deal with the community."

                     The TF members interviewed felt that the TF has been effective in providing
                     input on site issues directly to EPA, but pointed out that there have been some
                     problems. "EPA still holds the marbles; they can accelerate or lengthen the
                     process," Mr. Anderson said, and "it's frustrating when EPA misses deadlines."
                     Mr. Guenther felt that the communication problems the TF has had with EPA
                     have resulted from a lack of information from EPA. He said that EPA "was not
                     forthcoming," when three of four wells at the site were found to be contaminated
                     in May 1994. "We had to learn about the contaminated wells from a State
                     Senator's office." Mr. Guenther said that the TF found out later that the
                     contamination was due to "bad sampling—it wasn't real," but he felt that EPA
                     should have informed them. The TF had to call an emergency meeting, which
                     was well publicized in the press, to provide the public with clear and accurate
                     information about the incident. The meeting effectively defused a potentially
                     explosive situation.

              Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfunrf Site Task Force
 In another incident, Mr. Guenther said EPA made an "off-hand remark that oil
 was coming to the surface of the pond" after EPA had assured the TF that the
 pond was stable. The TF insisted that something be done, and ultimately EPA
 installed a water treatment plant that began operating last year. Mr. Guenther
 mentioned that one of the TF's current concerns is the adequacy of the
 monitoring of the clay layer that is supposed to be restraining dense non-aqueous
 phase liquids. The TF has asked EPA to do directional drilling in that area of the

 Everyone interviewed believes that the TF has improved the relationship
 between EPA and the community. "EPA no longer has an adversarial
 relationship with us," Mr. Guenther said. But Mr. Riedel said, "timeliness is still a
 problem; there's too much slippage on project implementation." Mr. Anderson
 pointed out that there tends to be stress and animosity when people want results
 immediately. He said he recognizes that some delays are inevitable, but he too
 wants faster EPA action.

 From the State's view, there has been a good relationship with EPA over the last
 two years. Ms. Mosco-Lasuolo attributed much of EPA's success during that time
 to its project team. In particular, she felt that EPA's RPM, Ms. Dehnhard, has
 gained the TF's confidence. "She's up-front with them; if she doesn't know the
 answer, she says so but gets back to them with an answer. She's consistent with
 that, and I think they appreciate that," she said. Mr. Riedel also indicated that, for
 the last two years, "EPA has been very responsive."

 All interviewees indicated that most of the site-related issues the community had
 prior to formation of the TF have been resolved: the relationship of the
 community with EPA has improved, incineration was stopped, a new ROD was
 signed, and "we have a remedy—thermal desorption—that the Federal
 Government, the County, and the community can accept," Mr. Guenther said. In
 addition, Mr. Guenther felt that the TF, in conjunction with EPA and the State,
 has been effective in getting other issues addressed, such as the installation of a
 water treatment plant for the pond, and EPA's promise to contain potential air
 emissions and minimize noise during implementation of the remedy.

 Mr. Sternberg attributed the effectiveness of the TF to several factors: (1) the
 technical sophistication of the community and its historical concern over
 environmental issues; (2) a well-run County Government, especially the public
 affairs office, which has committed a lot of resources into this site; (3) U.S.
 Congressional interest, especially from Senator Barbara Mikulski; and (4) the
 polarizing issue of incineration. "This site has a higher level of technical
 sophistication in the community than any other site I've worked with," he said,
 and "I've worked on 100 Superfund sites." Mr. Sternberg had very high praise
 for the individual TF members. "They were genuinely concerned about the site;
no one had axes to grind; they tried to play a constructive role in the process," he
 said. Ms. Mosco-Lasuolo commented that she has worked with a lot of
community groups, and "this is the best one."

The interviewees unanimously agreed that there was nothing the TF has done so
far that has failed, and only one of the interviewees indicated a way in which the
TF might be improved. Mr. Sternberg suggested that perhaps the turnover of TF
members and chairs could be reduced, though he pointed out that during the
time he was involved, "they all did a good job."

Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site Task Force
Com m u n icati ons  Tools
                     TF members rely on two tools to communicate with their constituents and other
                     interested residents of the affected community around the site. One is the TF
                     meetings, and the other is the annual report to the County Commissioners (see
                     Attachment 1), which is the TF's only official publication. The minutes of TF
                     meetings and annual reports are available to the public on request.

                     The TF meets on an as-needed basis, but when there is a lot of activity, they meet
                     monthly. Meetings are open to everyone and are announced in the local
                     newspaper about two weeks in advance. The public information specialist for the
                     County takes responsibility for arranging for the announcements in the press.
                     The meetings are typically attended by the County Commissioners' secretary
                     who records the minutes, the County's public information specialist, a
                     representative for the State, and, sometimes, someone from the Enterprise
                     Newspaper and EPA. Also, two non-TF members from the EAC nearly always
                     attend. Mr. Guenther said as many as 80-100 people have attended TF meetings.
                     The number of non-TF people who attend "depends on how emotionally charged
                     the issue is," said Mr. Anderson.

                     "Once the TF formed, there was no reluctance on EPA's part to attend meetings,"
                     Mr. Riedel said. However, EPA has attended only about half of the TF meetings,
                     according to Mr. Sternberg, mainly because "we had to watch our travel money
                     and balance the needs at this site against the needs at other sites." The original
                     State RPM, Sesh Lai, was a member of TF "because the County asked him to be a
                     member," Ms. Mosco-Lasuolo said. When he left, he was not replaced on the TF,
                     but Ms. Mosco-Lasuolo indicated that someone from the State always attends the
                     TF meetings.

                     Everyone interviewed expressed praise for the monthly teleconferences that EPA,
                     in conjunction with the State, began in 1992. Representatives of the TF, the EAC,
                     local newspaper and radio station, the State, and the County (often the
                     Commissioners themselves) participate in the teleconferences, according to Mr.
                     Sternberg and Ms. Dehnhard. "TF participation in the teleconferences gave it [TF]
                     some credibility that it wouldn't have had without it," Sternberg said, and the
                     teleconferences have helped address the problem of general distrust of EPA.

                     The TF does not publish newsletters, fact sheets, or other publications for direct
                     distribution to the community. "With the exception of the newspaper, there isn't
                     any other effort to solicit community involvement," Mr. Riedel said. The TF does
                     not do mass mailings; "keep in mind this is a small community and the County
                     government doesn't have a big budget," said Mr. Riedel. EPA occasionally has
                     sent out fact sheets, and the EAC has a newsletter that reaches 100-130 residences
                     on its mailing list.

                     When asked what kind of progress they would like to see over the next five
                     years, the TF members unanimously agreed that they would like the final remedy
                     implemented and completed. Mr. Guenther added, "EPA's schedule takes too
                     long—I hope this question is not an indication of more of the same." He
                     acknowledged that the TF asked for a focused feasibility study and new ROD,
                     which affected the schedule, but noted that the TF reviews EPA documents and
                     comes up with recommendations within two weeks. Mr. Riedel expressed his
                     hope that "this question doesn't mean we're looking in excess of three years" to
                     have the site cleaned up. Mr. Anderson stated that within the next five years,
                     EPA should prepare information regarding the site and the success of the TF and
                     make it available to the public.

                                   Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site Task Force
Suggestions  for  Other  CAGs
                     All interviewees were asked to identify the main ingredients for a successful TF
                     or CAG. The EPA staff emphasized several factors: Because credibility in the
                     community is essential, CAGs need to be independent of EPA and the PRPs, and
                     should be representative of the community. Mr. Sternberg emphasized that
                     CAGs work best when there is a significant level of technical sophistication
                     within the membership and a balance of technical expertise in areas such as
                     engineering, biology, chemistry, and public health. The mix also should include
                     some non-technical people as well.

                     EPA staff felt that CAG members have to have a lot of energy and commitment,
                     and they need to be objective. "You don't want people with too many axes to
                     grind," Mr. Sternberg said. Superfund, he noted, "is a painful process," so CAG
                     members need to work well together and be constructive in order to promote an
                     inclusive and participatory process. TF members, with help from EPA, need to
                     educate themselves about the Superfund process and how government works.

                     EPA staff recognized that CAGs need administrative support, preferably from
                     someone without an agenda. Administrative support from the County is
                     probably ideal, in Mr. Sternberg's view, but the next best thing would be a
                     Federal grant to the local government. "All that's needed is about ten hours per
                     week of administrative support," Mr. Sternberg said. The Southern Maryland
                     Wood Treatment Plant Task Force was a "harmonic convergence" of the right
                     ingredients for success, he said, "but it is naive to think it's going to be replicated
                     at other sites."

                     The State RPM emphasized the importance of having CAG members who are
                     willing to do their own research and come up with ideas for discussion. In Ms.
                     Mosco-Lasuolo's experience, CAGs work best when they avoid having one
                     person as the driving force and when they stay focused on their agendas. She
                     added that a good relationship with EPA also "helps a lot to keep things calm
                     and constructive."

                     The TF members also stressed the importance of including a mix of concerned
                     citizens and technical experts with varied backgrounds in a CAG. The "non-
                     technical perspective" is important in keeping things understandable to
                     everyone, Mr. Guenther said. Mr. Riedel considers the ability of technical and
                     non-technical TF members to work together as the most effective ingredient the
                     TF has brought to the process. "We may have been dumb lucky to have these
                     people," he said, and he stressed that technical experts from within the group or,
                     if necessary, from outside are essential to an effective CAG.

                     TF members also emphasized getting the community involved early in the
                     process and getting responsive EPA people involved. EPA does not always have
                     to agree with the CAG, Mr. Guenther said, but the Agency needs to avoid saying
                     things like, "We don't do things that way," or "That's not what we did last time."
                     CAGs need accessibility to EPA's project team and need to get information, such
                     as resource lists, RODs, and changes in administrative and technical directives,
                     quickly from EPA. Some type of EPA dissemination vehicle, such as a newsletter
                     and conference calls are useful too. Mr. Riedel felt that EPA should train their
                     project teams in communication skills and in how to deal with people. "EPA
                     needs to go beyond the letter of the law," he said, in dealing with communities.

Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site Task Force
                     TF members identified two additional ingredients of success: CAGs should have
                     a charter that gives them "legitimacy and credibility," and CAG meetings should
                     be publicized and open to everyone. Mr. Guenther added that during CAG
                     meetings, community discussions should be promoted, but keeping to an agenda
                     and cutting off discussions from the floor that "became personal in nature" are

                  Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site Task Force
                    ATTACHMENT 1
     Southern Maryland Wook Treatment Plant Task Force Annual Report
 Southern Maryland Wood Treatment Plant
          Task Force Annual Report
Presented to the Board of County Commissioners
         Ralph Guenther, Task Force Chair
                  April 30, 1996

Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site Task Force
                                   ANNUAL REPORT


       The Southern Maryland Wood Treatment Plant Task Force was formed by the County
Commissioners in August, 1991.  The group's original charge was as follows:

1.     Establish a  single and complete source of all available documentation and background

2.     Serve as the official point of contact with Federal EPA and state DOE agents.

3.     Develop a public information mechanism for rumor control and apprehension retardant.

4.     Perform technical analyses and reviews of reports and proposals.

5.     Submit recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for formal action plans by
       county  government.

This charge was subsequently expanded to include:

6.     Review available literature, and propose alternative courses of action for EPA consideration.

       In May of 1992, the EPA along with Maryland Department of the Environment agreed to
review the decision to Incinerate the soil at the site.  The new Record of Decision (ROD) was
completed and released in September of 1995. This ROD recommends Thermal Desorption with
recovery of the contaminants for shipment off site and recycle as wood treatment chemicals. The
Task Force recommended acceptance of this cleanup technology.  This recommendation also
received the concurrence of the Environmental Awareness Coalition. Our recommendation was
accepted by the Board of County Commissioners with this acceptance forwarded to the EPA.

       A contract to begin the design work for the cleanup has been let to a Baltimore firm, E A
Engineering.  We have not yet seen a  scope of work or schedule for their activities.  They have
completed a work plan which is in a review cycle with the EPA. This plan includes the remedial
design and treatability study as  well as a schedule of activities. We  anticipate receiving this
document in late April or early May of 1996.
       The remedial design lists the specifications for the cleanup. It will include information on
the soil to be cleaned, both quantity and quality. It will provide direction on where and how the soil
and water will be handled, treated, and stored both before and after the cleanup. It should provide
the broad parameters of the cleanup,  i.e., indirect heat source, contaminant condensation and
recovery, and expected clean soil analysis. This design effort does not get into  the details of the
actual cleanup equipment.


                                 Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site Task Force
       The only activity on the site during the past year has been the startup of the water treatment
facility. This facility takes the water flowing out of the pond and uses carbon absorption to remove
all organic contaminants. This process assures that only clean water leaves the site. This facility
is operated for several hours a day, five days a week with provision for weekend operation in the
event of heavy rainfall. In theory, this is adequate to keep the pond level below the outfall, and treat
all the water leaving the site.  In practice, we have already seen a problem with the water treatment
plant shut down during the Federal Government's shutdown.

       We have continued to review the water test results. There are monitoring wells around the
site.  At our insistence the EPA began a program to test these monitoring wells on a quarterly basis.
The Task Force has reviewed these results  as they became available. During the past year, there was
only one sample last November showing contamination. A review of the compounds detected
showed that most were chemicals used to calibrate the test equipment and had not previously been
identified on the site.  Based  on this,  the contamination  was attributed to laboratory error.
Subsequent testing showed no contamination of the water sample.

       Some question remains about the effectiveness of the testing since only the area around the
contamination is tested rather than the area under it. While everyone is agreed that we do not want
to introduce a pathway into the lower layers  by drilling through the contamination, there is a
disagreement about the ability to  directionally drill from outside the contaminated area to a location
under the contamination.

       Among the challenges faced by the Task Force in its efforts to assure a timely cleanup of the
site are:

1.      Continued review of water monitoring well tests.

2.      Have EPA expand water monitoring to include samples of the water treatment plant.

3.      Review the remedial design, treatability study, and the work schedule.

4.      Work closely with EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to assure that the job progresses
       in the most timely manner possible.

       We have been receiving and reviewing the results of the monitoring wells. These results
have occasionally shown the effects of poor sampling or lab handling. We will continue to review
the lab work for signs of a problem with the monitoring well water.

       The water treatment plant has been in normal operation for approximately one year. We are
overdue  to have the water between the two carbon  beds  sampled and tested for contaminant
breakthrough.  By testing between the two beds, we can find out when the first bed is consumed
while we still have the second bed cleaning the water. This assures that no contaminants escape to
Old Tom's Run.  We will press the EPA to begin regular monitoring of this water.

Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site Task Force
       The Task Force will continue to review all the design documents relevant to assuring that the
cleanup is progressing toward the goal of a site which is cleaned up to allow future use of the
property and contaminants removed from the site for recycle as a useable product.

       The Task Force will work with the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to keep the efforts
moving forward in the most timely manner possible.

       The Task Force recommends that the Commissioners continue to keep an oversight body to
review the operation of the site cleanup and continue the task of contact point for information