United States Office of Solid Waste and OSWER 9285.7-01 E-P
Environmental Protection Emergency Response EPA 540-R-98-042
Agency (5201G) PB99-963303
March 1999
www.epa.gov/superfund/
4>EPA Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund:
Volume 1 -
Human Health Evaluation Manual
Supplement to Part A:
Community Involvement in Superfund
Risk Assessments
Printed on Recycled Paper
o
-------
Publication 9285.7-01E-P
March 1999
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Volume 1
Human Health Evaluation Manual
Supplement to Part A:
Community Involvement in Superfund Risk
Assessments
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
-------
Notice
This document provides guidance to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
staff. The document does not, however, substitute for EPAs statutes or regulations,
nor is it a regulation in itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally binding requirements on
the EPA, states, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situa-
tion based upon the circumstances. The EPA may change this guidance in the future,
as appropriate.
-------
Acknowledgments
This manual was developed by the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and
EPA Regional risk assessors. Environmental Management Support Inc., 8601 Georgia
Avenue, Suite 500, Silver Spring, MD, 20910 under Contract Number 68-W6-0046
provided assistance with the final preparation of this document.
For More Information
For more information, please contact:
Bruce Engelbert, M.S.
Program Analyst
Community Involvement and
Outreach Center
USEPA Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-603-8711
engelbert.bruce@epa.gov
Sophia Serda, Ph.D
Toxicologist
USEPA Region 9
SFD-8-B
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA94105
Phone:415-744-2307
serda.sophia@epa.gov
Jayne Michaud, M.P.H.
Environmental Scientist
USEPA Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-603-8847
michaud.jayne@epa.gov
IV
-------
Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY INPUT 2
COMMUNITY INPUT TO THE SUPERFUND RISK ASSESSMENT 3
SCOPING PHASE AND WORK PLAN DEVELOPMENT 4
DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION 5
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 5
TOXICITYASSESSMENT 6
RISK CHARACTERIZATION 6
INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES 7
CONCLUSION 9
SOURCES OF INFORMATION 10
GLOSSARY 12
CASE EXAMPLES 16
St. Francois Old Lead Belt Mining Area, St. Francois, MO 16
Palmerton Zinc Superfund Site, Palmerton, PA 17
-------
INTRODUCTION
Many people who live and work near
Superfund sites want a greater
role in helping to make decisions about
the cleanup work that is being done.
Community stakeholders have told EPA
that current public involvement
practices are often inadequate (see
box), and that more meaningful and
effective ways to participate are
needed. Public involvement is often
more meaningful when it is sought out
early in the Superfund process. The
human health risk assessment is one
part of the Superfund process that
warrants early community involvement.
EPA is committed to promoting
participation in the decision-making
process by people whose lives are
affected by Superfund sites located
in their neighborhoods.
Community Feedback on Risk
Assessment
Provide opportunities for the public to
be in the process early, not buy in at
the end.
Create partnerships with all community
groups early.
Plan for community involvement.
Protect community values and culture.
Schedule public meetings at times and
places convenient to the community.
Clarify who the risk assessment
protects.
Superfund baseline risk assessments
are conducted to evaluate potential
human health and environmental risks
posed by uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites. The results of a risk assessment
are critical in determining whether
responses to protect human health and
the environment are justified, and in
establishing an appropriate cleanup
level. The risk assessment also helps
EPA identify potential risks associated
with a particular remedy and evaluate
risks remaining at a site after cleanup is
completed. This document focuses on
human health risk assessments.
The purpose of this guidance document
is to provide the site team—risk
assessor, remedial project manager
(RPM), and community involvement
coordinator—with information to
improve community involvement in the
Superfund risk assessment process.
Specifically, this document:
• Provides suggestions for how
Superfund staff and community
members can work together during
the early stages of Superfund
cleanup;
• Identifies where, within the
framework of the human health
risk assessment methodology,
community input can augment
and improve EPA's estimates of
exposure and risk;
• Recommends questions the site
team should ask the community;
and
• Illustrates why community
involvement is valuable during
the human health risk assess-
ment at Superfund sites.
This document establishes no formal
requirements for community involve-
ment (these are covered in the National
-------
Community Input Can Help
Identify overlooked local knowledge
Community members may have useful information about the site's history,
chemical uses, human activities, and past, current, and future land uses.
Streamline efforts
Community members may have special issues or concerns that, if incorporated
into the risk assessment planning at the outset, will reduce the likelihood that
the risk assessment and cleanup plans will have to be redone.
Gain acceptance
Community members who contribute to planning the risk assessment will better
understand the process and will more likely give the outcome their support.
Contingency Plan [NCR] and are high-
lighted in the Superfund Community
Involvement Handbook and Toolkit
(EPA, 1998)). This document identifies
techniques that can lead to risk assess-
ments that the community will accept
and understand. Additional resources
on community involvement, risk
assessment, risk communication, and
the Superfund process are cited at the
end of this document. In addition, the
site team should talk with its counter-
parts at the state and local levels and
to the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry to learn about
their risk assessment and community
involvement requirements.
IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY INPUT
EPA is committed to providing
opportunities for citizens to partici-
pate meaningfully in the cleanup
process. People sometimes question
the utility of involving nontechnical
groups in technical discussions. How-
ever, people who live and work near a
Superfund site not only deserve to be
informed and involved, but are likely to
have knowledge and insights about the
site's history, uses, and activities that
can improve the accuracy of the risk
assessment. While risk assessors
also should consult with state and
local agencies, population surveys,
data bases, and EPA's risk assess-
ment guidance (see Sources of
Information), the community may
contribute vital information located
nowhere else.
Although time and energy must be
invested to promote public involvement,
the investment pays significant
dividends in community understanding
and goodwill. The Presidential-
Congressional Commission on Risk
Assessment and Risk Management
recognized this in its Framework for
Environmental Health Risk Manage-
ment report (February 1997). The
Commission identified "a clear need to
modify the traditional approaches
used to assess and reduce risks
..." and supported the principle
that community members should
be engaged as active partners in
the process so that different
technical perspectives, public
values, and perceptions are
given full consideration.
-------
The Commission Suggested That
The goals of community involvement should be clear at the outset, and the
public should be involved early in the decision-making process.
Community involvement efforts should attempt to engage all potentially
affected parties and solicit a diversity of perspectives.
Community members must be willing to negotiate, should be flexible, and be
prepared to listen to and learn from diverse viewpoints.
Community members should have a say in important decisions and be given
the information and technical assistance necessary to facilitate this
participation.
Community members should be given credit for their roles in a decision, and
how and why community input was or was not used should be explained.
The nature, extent, and complexity of community involvement should be
appropriate to the scope and impact of a decision.
COMMUNITY INPUT TO THE SUPERFUND RISK
ASSESSMENT
The timing and amount of commu-
nity involvement will vary from site
to site (see box). This is due to
scheduling requirements and the
reality that many Superfund sites are
far along in the remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS) process. The
degree of community input during the
risk assessment phase also will vary
depending on the complexity of the
issues and the level of community
interest. The nature and extent of
community involvement should be
appropriate to the scope and impact of
a decision. In some cases, the stand-
ard risk assessment assumptions will
be appropriate.
Because education about risk assess-
ment is necessary and often requested
by community members, the site tea
should address this need as quickly as
possible. Risk assessors, RPMs, and
Key Discussion Points for the Outset of
Community Involvement
Anticipated timing and level o
community involvement.
Acknowledgment that EPA will consider
all public input, but may not agree with
all of it.
Risk assessments should follow policy
and be scientifically sound.
EPA must meet the legal requirements
of the Superfund law.
community involvement coordinators
are encouraged to refer to risk com-
munication guidance and educational
resources to supplement this guidance.
-------
Ultimately, the EPA risk assessors and
RPMs are responsible for ensuring that
the risk assessment is based on
reliable scientific information. EPA will
ensure that risk management decisions
articulate actions that comply with, or
qualify for a waiver of, applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements,
as required by the Superfund Amend-
ments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) and the NCP. Furthermore,
EPA should ensure that the community
understands these requirements.
The Superfund human health risk
assessment process has four steps: 1)
data collection and evaluation, 2)
exposure assessment, 3) toxicity
assessment; and 4) risk characteriza-
tion. Each step involves an analysis of
specific data or assumptions related to
the areas of contamination and poten-
tial human exposures to contaminants
of concern. A complete description of
EPA's risk assessment methodology
and definitions of the four components
of risk assessment can be found in the
"EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund, Volume I, Human Health
Evaluation Manual Part A" (EPA 1989).
The purpose of community input at
each step of the risk assessment and
key questions the site team may ask
communities are set out in the following
sections.
SCOPING PHASE AND WORK PLAN
DEVELOPMENT
The scoping phase involves learning
enough about a site to formulate a plan
of action for the risk assessment.
During the scoping phase, the risk
assessor identifies:
Past site uses, manu
facturing and disposal
practices, and spills or
suspicious activities at or
around the site.
• Who is exposed to the site and the
pathways by which exposure
occurs (e.g., children playing in
contaminated water).
• Information on the types and
sources of data required for the risk
analysis.
• Types of samples and specific
collection methods needed.
• How community concerns will be
addressed.
Community input is particularly impor-
tant during the scoping phase and
development of the risk assessment
work plan. Community members may
provide critical information about the
site, their health, and how people might
be exposed.
The work plan evolves from the
scoping phase and lays the foundation
for the risk assessment. It may be
revised during implementation of the
risk assessment to account for new
information such as finding a contami-
nated drinking water source. Risk
assessors can use the scoping phase
and work plan development as an
opportunity to educate community
members about the risk assessment
process, encourage community
involvement, and build trust with
citizens.
Goal
During scoping and work plan develop-
ment, the site team should:
• Educate the community about the
risk assessment process.
• Solicit public concerns, cultures,
and values.
• Consult with appropriate
authorities on unique issues
such as tribal concerns.
• Identify populations exposed
to the site.
-------
Support informed decision making.
Foster communication, and
encourage dialogue with community
members.
Discuss the expectations and
constraints of the process.
Key Questions
The following are several questions
related specifically to scoping that the
site team should discuss with the
community before the risk assessment
begins. However, often it is appropriate
to ask all of the questions recom-
mended at each step of the risk
assessment during this phase.
• What is known about the site (e.g.,
spill and waste disposal history)?
• What are community perceptions
about the hazards and risks?
• Who is exposed to the site?
• How are people exposed (e.g.,
fishing, gardening, playing)?
• Are there specific sources of data
that should be considered in the
sampling plan, including specific
areas of concern near the site?
• Who else in the community should
the site team be talking to?
DATA COLLECTION AND
EVALUATION
The collection of adequate and
appropriate data is critical for evalu-
ating the extent of Superfund site
contamination and the potential risks
posed by a site. Often most site data
are collected before the risk assess-
ment is scoped out. Additional data
may be collected to meet the needs of
the risk assessors. Community input
during this phase of the risk assess-
ment is important to help identify
additional information about a site's
history, potential areas of contamina-
tion, and areas frequented by people
who live near the Superfund site.
Goal
The goal of community input at this
stage is to ensure that no hazardous
substances or potential exposure is
overlooked. Since local information
can vary significantly from EPAs
standard assumptions and exposure
scenarios, the site team should
communicate how input on potential
sources of contamination and people's
behavior and lifestyles can affect the
risk assessment. For example, a
resident might recommend sampling
fish in a stream known to be frequented
by children. Residents may have
information that could point to or
exclude certain off-site areas as suit-
able locations for background samples.
Key Questions
The site team should seek community
input on:
• Are there specific chemicals or
substances of public concern, and if
so, why?
• Are there areas that may not be
appropriate for determining back-
ground levels of contaminants?
• Is the review of historical activities
at the site complete? If not, who
would have such knowledge?
• What are the current and future
anticipated land uses at the site?
• When are the best times to take
samples?
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Exposure assessment is the estimation
of how much and in what ways
exposures to chemicals may occur at
and around a Superfund site. The risk
assessor looks for complete exposure
pathways from the source of contami-
nation to people on or near the site.
This includes sensitive sub-populations
such as children. Exposure estimates
consider both present exposures and
probable future exposures, based on
the proposed future land use, if no
-------
further cleanup action is taken at the
site. Because the exposure estimate
incorporates information on the
locations and activities of people living
near the Superfund site, the exposure
assessment presents an opportunity for
significant community input.
Goal
The purpose of community input to the
exposure assessment is to obtain
complete information about potentially
exposed people and their activities.
This information, along with data on
contaminant concentrations, will help
produce a risk assessment that is
realistic, reasonable, and comprehen-
sive.
Key Questions
The site team should seek community
input on:
• Who may come into contact with
the site? Sensitive groups may
include children, elderly, pregnant
and nursing women, and people
with chronic illnesses.
• How do people use the land on and
near the site (e.g., fishing,
gardening, berry picking, hunting,
playing, swimming)?
• How often do people use the land
for these activities?
• Where are children likely to play or
use the site?
• What types of animals are hunted
or fished?
• What types of food are produced in
the garden?
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
The toxicity assessment addresses the
potential of environmental contami-
nants to cause harmful effects in
humans. Information on effects is
published in an EPA data base—the
Integrated Risk Information Syste
(IRIS). Risk assessors use IRIS to help
evaluate cancer and noncancer effects
for each chemical of concern. Because
the toxicity information in IRIS is
verified through a consensus process
and widely accepted, community input
on specific toxicity values is generally
not anticipated. However, explaining to
citizens how the toxicity assessment fits
into the overall risk assessment
process is important. Community
concerns related to the types of toxicity
site chemicals pose should be fully
addressed by the site team. For
chemicals that are not site-related or
for general health issues broader than
Superfund's area of concern, risk
assessors may refer citizens to state or
local public health officials or the
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry.
Goal
The primary goal of community input to
the toxicity assessment is to obtain
clarification about the community's
health concerns so that clear and
appropriate explanations about
potential toxicity can be provided to the
community and incorporated into the
risk assessment.
Key Questions
The site team should seek community
input on:
• What are the community's health
concerns that may be related to the
site?
• Has the community discussed any
unusual health problems with local
public health authorities?
• What does the community want to
know about the toxicity assessment
process?
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
The final step of the risk assessment
integrates the results of the exposure
assessment and toxicity assessment.
Risk characterization estimates the
potential health risks posed by the site
-------
if no remedial action is taken. It also
explains the level of risk that may be
left after different cleanup approaches
are applied and describes the uncer-
tainties associated with the data and
risk estimates. Uncertainties may be
associated with strengths and weak-
nesses of the data, the exposure
assumptions, or the toxicity values.
Goal
The purpose of having community input
at this stage is to ensure that the risks
are described in clear and meaningful
terms, and that site-related assump-
tions are still appropriate.
Key Questions
The site team should seek community
input on:
• Have community concerns been
adequately addressed?
• Have any contaminants, exposure,
or sensitive groups been
overlooked?
• Are the risk assessment process,
results, and conclusions under-
standable?
• Do you understand how this risk
assessment is being used?
INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES
This section describes several pos-
sible approaches and techniques for
involving the public in developing the
risk assessment. Since every
community and situation is different,
involvement techniques should be
tailored to each community. The best
way to design an effective approach is
to talk with people in the community to
find out what kind and how much
involvement they want. Identify those
willing to participate and commit
adequate time to the project. Mention
educational opportunities and the
availability of technical assistance such
as EPA's Technical Assistance Grants,
the university-based Technical Out-
reach Services for Communities
(TOSC) program, and the Department
of Defense's Technical Assistance for
Public Participation (TAPP) program, if
applicable.
A strategy may be needed to target
specific audiences and structure the
outreach. A strategy should consider
the size and diversity of the community,
level of interest expressed by commu-
nity members, geography of the site
and community, and resources and
time available to community members
and the site team. Communication
strategies often are employed as part of
a community involvement plan.
The following list of tools is not
exhaustive and is no substitute for the
creativity and imagination of the site
team and community members who will
collaborate on the project. The
Superfund Community Involvement
Handbook and Toolkit provides more
details on communication strategies
and the following involvement tech-
niques. In addition, state and local
officials, as well as the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, can be consulted about
appropriate communication methods.
Interviews
Informal, face-to-face or telephone
discussions with community members
are an excellent means of obtaining
first-hand information about local
interests, concerns, and issues. This
technique also provides an opportunity
for EPA to establish trust and confi-
-------
dence, but is relatively slow and labor
intensive.
Community interviews are required to
the extent practicable by the NCR.
Interviews are used for developing the
community involvement plan before
field work for the RI/FS begins. These
offer another opportunity to gather risk
assessment-related information fro
the community. Community interviews
should be face-to-face sessions, and
may be conducted in citizens' offices or
even in their homes. Their purpose is to
solicit the community's concerns and
information needs and to learn how and
when citizens would like to be involved
in the Superfund process.
Small Group Meetings
Getting together with several
community members in a
private home or local meeting
place allows for good inter-
action and dialogue.
Somewhat less time-consuming than
individual interviews, this technique is
an excellent way of developing useful
information, and establishing rapport
and trust.
Focus Groups
Focus groups are more formal than
small group meetings. They are struc-
tured to obtain answers to specific
questions. Focus group participants
usually are invited individually to partici-
pate. The meeting is led by a trained
facilitator who guides the discussion
and elicits reactions to carefully
designed questions or proposals. This
technique is an efficient means of
obtaining citizen knowledge and
expectations if the participants truly
represent the community. Because
focus groups are designed to elicit
information in a structured, one-time
way from selected participants, they are
generally less effective than other
techniques in developing rapport and
good working relationships with the
community.
Public Meetings
A large public meeting is an efficient
way of informing people about activities
and getting general feedback. It is also
a useful way to move a community
through the process together. A public
meeting is an appropriate forum for
identifying major community concerns,
but is an inappropriate method for
developing detailed information. Large
public meetings need to be well plan-
ned and facilitated to avoid becoming
tedious and unwieldy.
Public Availability Sessions/Open
Houses
A public availability session is a less
structured alternative to a public
meeting and is generally
preferred in situations where
public meetings are not required.
A risk assessor or other site
team member announces that
she or he will be available during
a convenient time and place for
the community to come and talk inform-
ally. No appointment is necessary. This
gives community members a chance to
converse privately and raise issues
they may not feel comfortable raising in
other forums.
Community Advisory Group
A community advisory group is a
representative group of community
members that meets regularly to advise
EPA on issues and review documents
throughout the life of the project. This
technique ensures an ongoing link
between interested community mem-
bers and the decision makers, and it
generally results in developing good
rapport. An advisory group approach
requires the decision makers' commit-
ment of time and resources, and the
advisory group's commitment to partici-
pate regularly.
Cooperative Work Group
This technique is an extension of the
community advisory group. It is used to
empower community members to be
8
-------
substantively involved in a project. The
decision makers commit to work in
collaboration with community members
to create the work group and make key
decisions on a consensus basis.
Decisions are made with the under-
standing that when a consensus can-
not be reached, the decision makers
will be responsible for determining the
course of action. While this is a very
time-intensive technique and is some-
what of a risk for the decision makers it
has enormous benefits in terms of
community support and satisfaction.
Public Notices
Public notices are announcements
published in the print media or broad-
cast on radio or television. They are
required at various times in the Super-
fund process such as when a site is
proposed to be added or deleted fro
the National Priorities List (NPL) and
when public comment periods will
occur. They also can be used to
publicize opportunities for the commu-
nity to participate in planning for a risk
assessment or to review documents
such as a work plan. Major media
outlets are not the only or necessarily
the best sources to use. Often, ethnic
or foreign language publications, niche
radio stations, church bulletins, and
postings at local gathering places
provide more effective coverage. A
public notice is a relatively inexpensive
way of spreading the word, but is
unlikely to generate a large response.
As a result, public notices should
always be used in conjunction with
other techniques.
Workshops
Workshops are formal, participatory
seminars used to explore a Superfund
subject. Workshops are a powerful tool
for educating small groups of citizens
on site-specific issues such as risk
assessment, participation opportunities,
and how to become contributing
participants in the Superfund process.
The educational, involvement, and
empowerment values of workshops
make them a desirable component of
the community outreach and involve-
ment process. However, they are time-
intensive and require commitments
from citizens to help develop the work-
shop curriculum and to participate.
CONCLUSION
Communities around Superfund sites
have a major interest in the out-
come of the site investigation and
cleanup process. Community input into
the risk assessment process can help
ensure a risk assessment that is
complete and useful. Early involve-
ment is always ideal, but in cases
where this is not possible or has not
been achieved, input at later points is
still important.
Each of the four steps of risk assess-
ment present opportunities for commu-
nity input. At the outset, risk asses-
sors, RPMs, and community involve-
ment coordinators should explain
clearly to the community all legal
requirements and other constraints, as
well as how community input will be
used during the risk assessment.
Some quick tips for EPA staff and
citizens are summarized at the end of
this document. Additional resources
and references on community involve-
ment, risk assessment, and risk com-
munication are provided under Sources
of Information.
-------
It is important to remember that mean- challenges including identifying who
ingful participation is never quick or should or can be involved, fostering
easy. The understanding and trust sufficient technical understanding so
needed for a good working relationship that all parties interact comfortably and
develop slowly under the best of can contribute, and establishing
circumstances. There are many efficient and effective group dynamics.
Many Superfund site teams have been
successful in engaging the public in the
Superfund risk assessment process.
Some lessons learned from these
experiences are included in the case
examples appended to this document.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
EPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part A). USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, DC. EPA 540/1-89/002. PB90-155581CDH.
EPA, 1990. Risk Assessment in Superfund: A Primer. First Edition. USEPA, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA 540/X-91/002. PB91-
214197CDH.
EPA, 1991. Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection
Decisions. USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
PB91-921359CDH.
EPA, 1993. Use of IRIS Values in Superfund Risk Assessment. USEPA, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. PB93-963360CDH.
EPA, 1994. This is Superfund. USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, DC. PB94-963218.
EPA, 1996. Superfund Today: Focus on Risk Assessment. USEPA, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA 540-K-96-003. PB96-
963227.
EPA, 1998. Superfund Community Involvement Handbook and Toolkit. USEPA, Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA540-R-98-007.
Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management,
1997. Volume 1 Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management. Final Report;
Volume 2 Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making.
National Academy of Sciences. Phone: 202-233-9537. Internet: http://www.riskworld.
com.
International City/County Management Association (ICMA). 1997. Risk Assessment.
The Role of Local Government. Washington, DC. ISBN 0-87326-124-0, Item number
42162. Toll free phone: 800-745-8770. Internet:
http://www.icma.org/publications/riskassess.htm.
10
-------
EPA INTERNET RESOURCES
EPA Home Page: http://www.epa.gov
EPA Risk Assessment web site: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk
EPA RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline
Superfund for Kids: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/kids
Recycle City: http://www.epa.gov/recyclecity
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): http://www.epa.gov/iris/
ORDERING GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
General sources of EPA documents:
• The National Center for Environmental Publications and Information, is a central
repository for all EPA documents. Over 5,000 titles in paper and electronic format
are available for distribution (usually at no cost to the public). Individuals can
browse and search EPAs National Publications Catalog, and order EPA
publications online or by telephone. The EPA publication number (e.g., EPA 999-F-
99-999) is used to identify the resource.
NSCEP
National Service Center for Environmental Publications
P.O. Box42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Phone:800-490-9198
Fax: 513-489-8695
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/ncepi
Documents not available free of charge through NSCEP can be obtained through
the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
• NTIS is a central resource for government-sponsored U.S. and international
scientific, technical, engineering, and business-related information. As a self-
supporting agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS covers its business
and operating expenses with the sale of its products and services. NTIS indexes
EPA publications by their EPA publication number, complete title, and an NTIS
product number (e.g., PB99-999999). NTIS accepts Visa and MasterCard.
NTIS National Technical Information Center
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 800-553-6847 or 703-605-6000
Fax: 703-321-8547
E-mail: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov
Internet: http://www.ntis.gov
11
-------
GLOSSARY
Baseline risk assessment Superfund human health estimate of the likelihood and
magnitude of health problems occurring if no cleanup action is taken at a site. Risk
assessment may include both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the likelihood
that there will be harm to human health and the environment by the actual or potential
presence of environmental contamination.
Biota: the animal and plant life of a given region.
Community Advisory Group (CAG) a committee of community members who want
to be involved in planning for the cleanup of a Superfund site. The CAG works with
EPA and the state to review site data and evaluate response options. The CAG also
may serve as a bridge of communications between EPA and the rest of the community.
Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC): an EPA person who works with com-
munity members to keep them informed about a Superfund cleanup and also helps
those who are interested to participate in the response decision-making process.
Exposure: contact of a person with a chemical or physical agent.
Exposure pathway the course a chemical or physical agent takes from a source to
an exposed individual.
Hazard Ranking System (MRS): is the principal mechanism EPA uses to place
uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a numerically based screening system that
uses information from initial, limited investigations—the preliminary assessment and
the site inspection—to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to human
health or the environment.
Hazardous waste defined by Section 1004(5) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and regulations promulgated at 40 CFR 261.20. In general,
hazardous wastes are solid wastes that may cause or significantly contribute to illness
or death, or that may substantially threaten human health or the environment when not
properly controlled.
National Contingency Plan (NCR) the federal regulation that guides the Superfund
program. (National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan).
National Priorities List (NPL) EPA's list of priority releases of hazardous substan-
ces, pollutants, or contaminants identified for possible long-term remedial action under
Superfund. The list is based primarily on the score a site receives from the Hazard
Ranking System. EPA is required to update the NPL at least once a year. A site must
be on the NPL to receive money from the Trust Fund for remedial action.
Noncancer effects in human health risk assessment, disease outcomes pertaining to
neurological, developmental, reproductive, or other effects not associated with cancer.
12
-------
Remedial Project Manager: the individual who manages and oversees all RI/FS
activities, including the human health evaluation, for a site. The RPM is responsible for
ensuring adequate evaluation of human health risks and for determining the level of
resources to be committed to the human health evaluation.
Risk: a measure of the probability that damage to life, health, property, or the environ-
ment will occur as a result of a given hazard. Environmental risk is the likelihood of
harm to one's health from exposure to environmental chemicals.
Risk assessor professional who organizes and analyzes site data relevant to human
(or ecological) exposures, analyzes the ways exposures to site contaminants may
occur during current and future land uses, carries out risk calculations, and interprets
this information for risk managers. Risk assessors for Superfund sites are EPA
scientists, contractors to EPA, other federal agencies, states, or potentially responsible
parties.
Risk communication the exchange of information about health or environmental
risks among risk assessors and managers, people who live near or on Superfund
sites, the general public, news media, and other interest groups. Effective communi-
cation requires proper training and experience in translating scientific data into clear,
accurate and understandable language.
Risk management: the process of evaluating and selecting alternative regulatory and
non-regulatory responses to risk. The selection process necessarily requires the
consideration of legal, economic, and behavioral factors.
Smelting a process that melts or fuses ore, often with an accompanying chemical
change, to separate its metal content.
Toxicity value: a numerical expression of a substance's dose-response relationship
that is used in risk assessments. The most common toxicity values used in Superfund
risk assessments are reference doses (for noncarcinogenic effects) and slope factors
(for carcinogenic effects).
13
-------
Tips for Risk Assessors and Remedial Project Managers
How Do I Get Started?
1. Team up with a community involvement coordinator (CIC). CICs can provide good
advice and support on developing and implementing public participation efforts.
2. Talk to another risk assessor, RPM, or CIC who has gone through the participation
process.
3. Review the recommended Key Questions to ask.
4. Get out and start talking to the community.
What Should I Keep In Mind?
Be Prepared. Do not take working with the community lightly. Begin by planning how you
will proceed and involve the community. Keep an open mind and a sincere commitment to
hear and understand what the public is saying. Public participation is not simply about
providing ways for getting issues raised; it is a mutual, continuous learning process. For it
to be meaningful, the risk assessor should reflect on others' needs and interests and use
their input.
Be Proactive. Consult with community members. Coordinate with the CIC and site
manager, and if appropriate, the environmental justice coordinator, to develop a process
that works for the particular situation. Consider holding a workshop or open house to
explain the risk assessment process and provide a starting point for meaningful site-
specific input.
Be Realistic. Nothing is more frustrating than to hear a public official make a promise that
will not be kept. Take care to avoid establishing expectations that cannot be met. Make
certain the public understands how their comments may have affected the decisions. This
does not require a detailed responsiveness summary covering every issue. However,
there should be some visible connection between community input and outcome.
14
-------
Tips For The Community
How Do I Get Started?
1. Seek out and talk to EPA's community involvement coordinator, risk assessor, or
remedial project manager for the site about becoming involved in the process.
2. Review EPA's recommended key questions and site work plans, if available.
What Should I Keep In Mind?
Be Prepared. Meaningful community involvement requires a commitment of time and
energy. Community members can prepare themselves by: 1) learning about important
technical and substantive details; 2) regularly participating in meetings and talking with
site staff; and 3) following up on the key issues outlined in this reference document. To
be effective, community participants do not require the same level of effort or expertise
required of a risk assessor.
Be Proactive. While the site team must reach out to communities and provide opportu-
nities for input, interested community members also should initiate ways to get involved,
raise concerns in a constructive manner, and contribute fully and responsibly as the risk
assessment progresses.
Be Realistic. The Superfund law and accompanying policies and regulations establish a
framework within which the risk assessment and all other activities are generally
conducted. Also, professional and technical guidelines and funding restrictions affect the
risk assessor's discretion. For example, Superfund risk assessments deal with local
contamination issues that are associated with the site understudy. Community members
also should recognize the time and cost constraints that may limit what can be done
beyond the essentials for a complete and reliable risk assessment.
15
-------
CASE EXAMPLES
St. Francois Old Lead Belt Mining Area, St. Francois, MO
Background
The Old Lead Belt mining area in St.
Francois, Missouri, was mined until
1972. This area is part of the southeast
Missouri Lead Belt, one of the world's
largest lead mining districts. To this
day, past ore extraction, milling,
separation, and smelting conducted in
the area are a constant source of dust
and soil contamination. Natural ores,
ore-derived soils left on the surface,
and man-made lead products add to
the overall lead problem at this
Superfund site.
The 1990 census reported a total
population of 17,213 for the incorpor-
ated areas of the Old Lead Belt. About
ten percent were young children known
to be particularly susceptible to lead
hazards. In contrast to most other
Superfund sites where public concern
about health risks is high, citizens
around Old Lead Belt did not believe
that lead in the mining wastes could
pose a health threat. Many of the
families worked in the mining industry
and grew up playing on the waste piles.
Community involvement was necessary
to educate the public about the health
risks, the need for cleanup, and to win
support for the Missouri Department of
Health's study of children's exposure to
lead. The study involved sampling
children's blood, sampling environ-
mental media (such as soil and dust),
and questioning residents about their
lifestyles as they relate to lead
exposure. The concern about commu-
nity education and involvement was
justified by the results of the study
which indicated that children living in
the Old Lead Belt area had higher
blood lead levels than those detected in
children from another part of the state.
Community Involvement
Components
Training
To help communicate the potential
health risks, EPA and the Missouri
Department of Health held a series of
training sessions for a group called the
"Environmental Round Table" on the
risk assessment process and the health
risks associated with lead. This group,
which organized themselves to discuss
environmental activities at the site,
included representatives from the site's
mining industry (those responsible for
cleaning up the site), the community,
Minerals Area Community College, the
EPA, and state and local government
agencies. The Environmental Round
Table in turn provided consistent
communication to the public regarding
health threats and cleanup approaches.
EPA and the Missouri Department of
Health offered additional training for the
community as the risk assessment
progressed.
Availability sessions
The Environmental Round Table
sponsored availability sessions for the
public to discuss issues. Public
availability sessions also were co-
sponsored by EPA and the Missouri
Department of Health on specific
issues of community concern.
Community Advisory Group
A Community Advisory Group (CAG),
representing diverse community
interests, formed and received an EPA
Technical Assistance Grant to facilitate
public participation and distribution of
16
-------
information. Through the CAG, citizens
participated in developing cleanup
alternatives and in oversight of the
response action. The CAG discussed
diverse cultural and political issues
related to the cleanup. Some of these
issues included the reluctance of many
local citizens to accept the health
problems, depressed property values,
the stigma of a Superfund site designa-
tion, disruption of lifestyles during
response actions, and the economic
impacts of construction.
Lessons Learned
The Superfund site team found it
necessary to establish ground rules
early so that people understood their
roles and acquired realistic expecta-
tions of EPAs role and limitations. EPA
also recognized the need to establish
two-way communications early in the
process and distinguish between public
involvement and public information dis-
semination activities.
Palmerton Zinc Superfund Site, Palmerton, PA
Background
The Palmerton Zinc Superfund Site
consists of a small town in a valley
sandwiched between two former zinc
smelting plants. From 1898 to 1981
zinc smelting and zinc product manu-
facturing took place at both the East
and West Plants which bracketed the
Borough of Palmerton, a community of
5,000. These operations caused the
release into the environment of hazard-
ous metals, especially lead, cadmium,
zinc, and arsenic. Since 1981, an
electric arc furnace dust recycling
facility at the East Plant continued to
add to the areal contamination.
The Palmerton Zinc Pile Site was listed
on the NPL in 1983. Additional environ-
mental contamination studies were
conducted to characterize the environ-
mental contamination and locate its
source. Under a variety of corporate
names, "the Zinc Company" (as many
Palmerton residents still refer to it) built
the town and employed its residents.
As a result, the history of EPA in
Palmerton is rife with controversy,
particularly because of the relationship
the industry had to the town. The
community showed significant distrust
of government, and many people
asserted that the contamination in
Palmerton was not associated with
industrial practices, but instead was the
result of other environmental risk
factors such as lead paint, gasoline,
and cigarettes. EPA met with consider-
able resistance when it recommended
an interim cleanup of lead in homes.
Community Involvement
Components
Early information dissemination
Once the environmental contamination
studies were completed, the EPA site
team provided data to the community
from fingerprinting methods that
showed that the hazardous metals
contamination in the area was fro
industrial origins. This occurred during
the first phase of the risk assessment
for Palmerton and vicinity.
Early community involvement
EPA asked the community for input at
the time the fingerprinting data were
released and before starting the risk
assessment process. The community
responded within weeks with sugges-
tions and supporting data for EPA's
review.
Community participation in the risk
assessment
17
-------
An industry-funded community "clearing
house" group (Palmerton Environ-
mental Task Force) participated in the
risk assessment and organized people
in the community to participate. EPA
invited members of PETF to participate
as colleagues in its risk assessment
process. PETF established an inter-
ested subset of their members, the Risk
Assessment Subcommittee, who, with
their consultants, participated with EPA
in the risk assessment. Although EPA
performed the risk assessment accord-
ing to EPA guidance, PETF participated
to the fullest extent possible. EPA and
PETF met on a rotating basis in the
EPA regional office and in Palmerton
every two weeks for almost two years.
Open Communication and Participation
Community members kept minutes of
meetings and published a newsletter to
help explain the risk assessment
process to others, "demystify" site
activities, and inform the community
about the group's progress.
Technical Input
A noteworthy example of how commu-
nities can influence the process was
the agreement PETF won to have
"bioavailability studies" performed on
lead. The bioavailability studies helped
determine how much lead in soil is
actually absorbed into the body fro
ingestion or other pathways of
exposure.
EPA shared drafts of the risk assess-
ment with community participants and
the public at large. This yielded two
significant benefits. First, some
additional considerations were
uncovered resulting in important
revisions to the risk assessment.
Second, the public understood or were
aware of site decisions. Although not
everyone agreed with everything,
people did not feel left out of the
process.
Lessons Learned
The site team discovered that:
• Public/stakeholder involvement is
increasing at Superfund sites.
• As soon as a community group is
created, it should state its goals,
develop a framework, and establish
ground rules.
• The site team needs to communi-
cate with all parties openly, early,
and often.
• The site team and the community
need to be open minded and willing
to abandon false preconceptions.
• The site team should establish a
schedule for site actions, but
consider trading time for community
acceptance.
• The site team must share owner-
ship, responsibility, work, and credit
with the community.
18
-------
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(5201G)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |